Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[Beckwith]

ABC World News Now. April 27, 2004

In an interview broadcast by ABC's World News Now, the leader of the Al Qaeda cell organizing the explosive and chemical attack on the Jordanian security headquarters and the American Embassy in Jordan stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

[JohnGalt]

I suspect you are a well intention citizen of this country who has signed on perhaps unknowingly to a Trotskyesque project, and since I know the aims of Trotyskism I consider that set of beliefs a threat to my homeland. Perhaps it won't hit you until years from now what a disaster permanent debt financed war is to a our fair Republic, and I have feeling you will wash your hands of any blame, but the real Right will know where y'all stood. I am sure Fox News will be there to sooth your guilt and offer up what dirty stink anti-American lefties have to say and how noble and smart the elected elite Republicans are, as Murdoch cashes another check from his softporn newspapers.

I don't suspect any problems between the two camps, and I'll keep paying my extortion fees to the DC tax regime every April 15, but come for my first born to fight in your endless debt financed wars and we will have problems.

------------------------------ This first article speaks to the ambiguity I mentioned in regards to exactly what kind of relationship this White House believes there is a connection between AQ and Saddam's government, but also note that the Adminstration has taken the leap of equating A a-I with AQ, using the terms interchangeably.

Bush Asserts That Al Qaeda Has Links to Iraq's Hussein President Cites Potential Cooperation as Concern The administration had begun deemphasizing claims of links between Hussein and global terrorism. Senior intelligence officials told The Washington Post this month that the CIA had not found convincing proof, despite efforts that included surveillance photos and communications intercepts.

U.S. officials have continued to hint at connections, however. Evidence linking Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks could help erode reservations on Capitol Hill and among world powers about the justification for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

A few hours before Bush's remarks, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked by reporters traveling with him in Warsaw if there are linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq. "I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes," he replied. Rumsfeld had just appeared before NATO defense ministers with CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin to give an intelligence briefing on the Iraqi threat. Rumsfeld said McLaughlin told them about linkages between Hussein and al Qaeda.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tried to play down the specificity of Bush's charge, saying the president was talking about what he feared could occur. Fleischer repeated the administration position that it would be a mistake to wait for a smoking gun. "Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq," he said. "In the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late."

Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials

Bush overstated Iraq links to al-Qaeda, former intelligence officials say Experts Doubt Iraq, al-Qaeda terror link

"While there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no co-operation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship," said Daniel Benjamin, former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council.

Experts scorn Saddam link to al-Qaeda

AN EXPERT on international terrorism yesterday backed the findings of a British intelligence report which concluded that there was no evidence to show Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda.

“The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

"U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.’" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

[Dr. Frank fan]

I suspect you are a well intention citizen of this country who has signed on perhaps unknowingly to a Trotskyesque project,

I am pleased to inform you that your suspicions are baseless. I have "signed on to" no project whatsoever, Troskyite or otherwise. I have supported one (1) war at this particular time, the war against Iraq. Earlier, I also supported the war against Afghanistan. In each case I did so for specific reasons having to do with the particularities of the situation at hand. The fact that you suspect that the war against Iraq is part of a nefarious "Trotskyesque project" does not interest me.

and since I know the aims of Trotyskism I consider that set of beliefs a threat to my homeland.

Were I really a Trotskyite, I would understand your fears. As I am not, we can both heave a sigh of relief.

Perhaps it won't hit you until years from now what a disaster permanent debt financed war is to a our fair Republic, and I have feeling you will wash your hands of any blame, but the real Right will know where y'all stood.

Time will tell, of course. Feel free to point out the "disaster" you anticipate if/when it arrives.

I am sure Fox News will be there to sooth your guilt and offer up what dirty stink anti-American lefties have to say and how noble and smart the elected elite Republicans are, as Murdoch cashes another check from his softporn newspapers.

Zing! What a well-written, clever sentence.

By the way I don't have cable television.

I don't suspect any problems between the two camps, and I'll keep paying my extortion fees to the DC tax regime every April 15, but come for my first born to fight in your endless debt financed wars and we will have problems.

????? You lost me. What camps? Who's coming for your firstborn?

This first article speaks to the ambiguity I mentioned in regards to exactly what kind of relationship this White House believes there is a connection between AQ and Saddam's government, but also note that the Adminstration has taken the leap of equating A a-I with AQ, using the terms interchangeably.

By my reading, that article does not even mention Ansar al-Islam.

In fact, neither do your links 2, 3, or 4.

What's going on? We were talking about Saddam's support for Ansar al-Islam remember? You were arguing against it ('there were links but those links were meaningless'). Are you just tossing random articles at me?

[sheltonmac]

(BTW - be careful - your anti-Americanism is showing)

If you're going to make idiotic claims, please back them up - unless, of course, you're one of those "patriots" who thinks criticism of government is anti-American.

More importantly, considering that less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" carried a column headlined, "American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin." (July 21, 2001)

Why do you insist on posting and re-posting the same circumstantial crap? If there was a clear indication that the Iraqi press knew of an attack on the U.S., our intelligence would have picked up on it. Besides, the articles you referenced are full of words and phrases like "prospects," "implications," "Senior officials claim," "likely," "said to be," "rumored," "could," "might have been," "reported," "possible" and "idea." Again, circumstantial at best.

Don't you think that if there was anything concrete at all in those reports, the Bush administration would have used that as its main justification for invading Iraq? Even I could accept that a direct link between 9/11 and Hussein would constitute an Iraqi declaration of war against the United States. Attacking Iraq in response to a specific act of war certainly makes more sense (and would convince many more people) than the current Wilsonian, socialist ideal of making the world safe for democracy.

[AFPhys]

lugs really is cute when whe gets mad, Peach.

I suppose you caught his wonderful #327 ... I'm supposing by that initial quote combined with his increasingly vile rhetoric that he misunderstands (or misread) my analogy, and that I intended to imply he agrees with JGault and categorically does not support the BASH when I was only implying I find sufficient "proof" of the SH connections to say "guilty" on that point, but I'm not even intending to comment further to him, so I'll probably never know.

As for JGault, I categorically support President Bush and any war against terrorists wherever they are, and will pledge my treasure, as I have previously pledged my life, to do service for my country in its defense. His fear of deficit spending is honorable, and I share that, but instead of worrying about our spending that treasure on social engineering, his solution is to dismantle the mechanisms which are essential for protecting the generation of that treasure. Terrorism is a complex problem, and best answers are difficult, but unilateral disengagement and disarmament and creating a 100ft wall around the country and an internal gestapo is clearly not the answer.

[Peach]

Their sole purpose is to "hijack" the WMD threads. They show up constantly to do so.

Your effort was very good, btw.

But there is no convincing the unconvincable. In their minds, they are the true patriots. They hate neocons (read those of Jewish faith) and I'm surprised that issue didn't come up on this thread because it almost always does, and from the same people.

You'd be surprised how many people are "onto" their game because that's really all it is to them. COnstantly revise the rules, the gameposts, take one little issue and pick it apart, all so that those lurkers out there don't really understand what the real issue is.

The real issue is that this Jordanian's AQ terrorist confession is yet another nail in Saddam Hussein's coffin and his links to terror. The naysayers are afraid that word of that astounding confession will see the light of day and even the less die hard DU'ers will start to see the wisdom of invading Iraq.

[lugsoul]

Not only a liar, but a cowardly one as well. If you want to try to avoid the accusation you clearly leveled by engaging in some Clintonian dissembing, simple courtesy dictates that you ping me to the post. But I wouldn't expect you to engage in simple courtesy.

You said that I choose to let Saddam go free. You said it in plain language. If that is not what you meant to say, you should retract it, instead of trying to weasel out of your lie out of earshot.

[lugsoul]

Such rude manners. Care to cite to a single - just one - shred of support for the ideas that I (1) hate neocons, (2) have ever identified them by faith, (3) have moved the goalposts of my comments even a millimeter on this thread?

Of course you don't, because you can't. Obviously, you'll say whatever suits your purpose without regard for truth. That fact says more about you and your lack of character than I could ever say.

[Peach]

Not you specifically, lug, but you are part of a larger group who does constantly deride the neocons.

Oops - careful - your paranoia is showing when you start thinking that every negative thread that doesn't mention your name is about you.

[meema]

I don't know if I can take/read much more of this...

[lugsoul]

You were replying to comments directed at me. Set your dishonesty aside, if you can.

As far as your allegations, you are simply lying. Unless you don't think making an accusation without factual support is lying - you would call that lying, wouldn't you? Show me ONE comment where I've "derided the neocons." Just one. Since you so easily put me in that category, it shouldn't be that hard for you to come up with a smidgen of support for your charge. Or are you just a liar by nature?

[RinaseaofDs]

Billbears is a lib sleeper cell. Check his previous posts.

[Peach]

Definite sleeper cell.

[Peach]

You have no idea what I get in my freepmail and who I was discussing. You obviously have mental health problems. Step away from the keyboard and seek help immediately.

[lugsoul]

No, but I can read exactly which post you hit "reply to" - and you did level your utterly false charges at me after I called you on it. You are simply a liar and a fraud with no regard for truth or accuracy, and you demonstrate it repeatedly.

[lugsoul]

"you are part of a larger group who does constantly deride the neocons." - Peach

Prove it, retract it, or be exposed as the liar you are.

[Peach]

I'm really getting worried about you. You seem to be unglued.

Which part of "you are part of a larger group" don't you understand. Many in that larger group constantly deride neocons. Some, like you, constantly move the goal posts. You all have your problems. Yours are being exposed with every post you make. Sad.

[lugsoul]

You said I am a part of a group that constantly derides the neocons. Since you can't point to a single comment by me that derides the neocons, how did I become a part of that group?

You are exposing yourself as a liar with every post. You will not ascribe positions to me that are not mine without being called on it. And you run away from your own accusations like a scared child, because you know you are just making them up and have no support for them. It is sad that someone can have so little regard for the truth.

As far as your "goalposts" diatribe - is that in the talking points they gave you at your training session? - I asked you clearly to state any position I've taken on this issue that is different from the one I was taking when you started levelling this charge. Of course, you couldn't.

[ladyinred]

We knew this! Isn't it wonderful to be right?
We were also right about the WMD, but where is the American media on this big news? Mostly silent. I understand the world media is going wild with that story and some papers even have, Bush was Right! on their headlines.

[Peach]

It's great news, I agree! Some day when the history books are written, the full story on all this will be told and the naysayers will be looking foolish that they ignored over a decade of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Of course, it's hard to shame Old Media, not that we freepers don't try. LOL

[WOSG]

well, I have a different take. I wont accuse the FR house isolationists of being trolls.

There are 2 group in the anti-war movement, one the world sees (#1s) and one that FR has (#2s):
1. America is not good enough for the world to depose folks like Saddam (the Leftist anti-American types)
2. America is *too good* for the world, and places like Iraq are full of barbarians not worth fighting for (the isolationist Lew Rockwell types)

Both views are wrong, but most on FR are #2s, not #1s.

It seems though this argument about terror links devolves into people not accepting same set of facts, and these #2s are using the same phony arguments and latching on to suspect logic that we often see from #1 leftist types.

When you have sources saying "X", and their form of argument is "any source that says X is part of the neo-con plot", you really have a circular argument impervious to any reasonable conclusion from debate.

So best I can do is point out the sources facts out there and let them see it or not. You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink.