[Dr. Frank fan]

The real "cherry-picking" takes place when the left/media define their categories so as to achieve the conclusion they desire. Boil it down and their whole argument is little other than a word game. What is "cherry-picked" are the definitions of terms, and the conclusions we are meant to be allowed to draw from those definitions.

This report says there were no "strong ties", which supposedly refutes Cheney. But what's a "strong" tie? Were there "weak ties", then? And those don't count? Are "strong ties" the only kind of "ties" we're allowed to count? Who decides whether a "tie" is "strong"? (The left?) Basically, here's what the real definition is: "strong ties" are any ties that are stronger than... whatever ties Iraq may have had with Al Qaeda. Thus, Iraq (by definition - because they defined it this way) didn't have "strong ties" with Al Qaeda, and (therefore) Bush etc. are liars because they said otherwise (<-this part's just a plain old straw man; even here Cheney's only saying Al Qaeda was in Iraq, and nothing about "ties").

Similar phenomenon occurs with the definition of "Al Qaeda" itself. Obviously, Zarqawi was in Iraq. But the left really, really wants to always be able to say "Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq". Solution? Simple: even if he was in Iraq before the invasion, Zarqawi "wasn't in Al Qaeda" at the time. Same person, but not "in Al Qaeda", therefore Iraq = no ties to Al Qaeda (even if there were ties to Zarqawi!), thus Bush lied etc. The question of just why exactly we're supposed to care, necessarily, whether someone like Zarqawi is "in Al Qaeda" or "not in Al Qaeda" at any given time, or even whether being "in Al Qaeda" is necessarily such a well-defined thing in the first place, is never answered. The formula is simple: whatever ties you find to whatever terrorists, just insist that they weren't "in Al Qaeda" at the time of the ties. According to the left, this makes it ok and it makes fighting them wrong. We're only allowed to care about people who are officially "in Al Qaeda" for some reason.

The entire approach is fundamentally intellectually dishonest and impossible to take seriously anymore.

[The Pack Knight]

We're only allowed to care about people who are officially "in Al Qaeda" for some reason.

Not only that, but they ignore the fact that few terrorists are really "in al-Quaeda". Al-Quaeda is not an organized militia or terrorist group like Hezbollah or Hamas. It's a terrorist network that primarily provides support and inspiration to autonomous cells who may or may not identify themselves as being affiliated with al-Quaeda.

What research I've done on the subject leads me to believe that al-Quaeda is more like the terrorist version of venture capitalists. You come to them with a "business plan", so to speak, and, if they like it, they give you money, personnel, and ideological support. What we know of the early stages of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atef's early planning of 9-11, and their obtainment of bin Laden's approval, fits this model.

The membership of such a network-oriented organization is difficult to define. It is also just the sort of organization that would be very useful for a state to use as a middle man to plot covert attacks with plausible deniability.

[marron]

The entire approach is fundamentally intellectually dishonest and impossible to take seriously anymore.

This whole post #15 is worth re-reading and is in part (along with some really good collections of links in other posts) why I am bookmarking this thread.

The last few years have been like a post-graduate course in propaganda, every possible propaganda technique has been pulled out of the toolkit and is right out there for us to see. Honest reporting is a rarity, most articles are as ripe for de-coding as anything written by Fisk.

You are right in noting how a long line of contacts between Saddam's intelligence circles and Bin Ladin's people can be simply defined out of existence. There were no "strong" contacts. There was no "operational" relationship. What does any of that mean? It means whatever you wish it to mean. Prove a long line of contacts, and unless you have the minutes of the meetings, they were just drinking tea as far as anyone knows.

This ignores the obvious fact that "espionage" is intended to be secret, below the radar, deniable. There isn't supposed to be a lot of public documentation of these contacts. Any contacts you can find will be by definition the tip of the iceberg. When you find hundreds of documents and hundreds of contacts in what is primarily an espionage relationship, you have to recognize that its a very big iceberg.

Something that has almost completely dropped down the memory hole, but which I remember, were the stockpiles of nerve agent found at several ammo dumps during the invasion. This occurred at least 3 times that I remember. In each case, there was some excitement from the reporters involved that they had found WMD. In each case after a day or two it would be reported that, no, it was just agricultural pesticide.

There was a process plant discovered that produced nerve agent. The plant manager was a military general, the place was fenced off and surrounded by guard towers, with infantry for security.

Again, after a couple of days, it was announced that no, it was just an agricultural pesticide plant.

I remember this every time anyone argues that we never found WMD in Iraq. The difference between pesticide and nerve agent is only in its application. Spread it on your fields, diluted, and its pesticide. Spread it on Iranian troops, concentrated, its nerve agent. The Iraqis used to call it bug poison, for a reason. It is.

So stockpiles of WMD have been defined out of existence.