Fair enough. For the record, I don't support war with Hussein "because Atta met with an Iraqi" or even because of supposed links to 9/11. 9/11 has nothing to do with why I support war with Hussein.
It's good to keep in mind what our discussion actually was. You're all over the map, and let me just try to bring your focus back: you said that you doubted the meeting took place not because you have evidence to the contrary, but simply because of your "studies" and other theoretical considerations (i.e. the terrorists "didn't need" money in your opinion). My only point to you is that this is illogical. It is illogical and foolhardy to put your mental models of how people behave ahead of actual witness testimony regarding how people behaved. OK?
As I have said repeatedly, I highly doubt that Atta shared any information about the 9/11 attack with the Iraqi government official.
Doubt away. Meanwhile, CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. For the umpteenth time, your internal feelings and hunches do not change reality. Reality exists independent of your thoughts, and CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. Either explain away this piece of data with actual facts (i.e. prove that the Czechs are lying, explain why they would lie, or something...), or don't, but don't expect anyone to be swayed by your personal feelings of "doubt" about the subject just 'cuz you've read some boo.... er, sorry, "studied terrorism".
If he did not share the information with some of the 9/11 terrorists, then he most assuredly would not discuss the operation with the Iraqi government.
If pigs had wings, they would fly. What the heck are you talking about?
You mean, if your personal hunch is correct, then under that hypothetical combined with your mental model of how terrorists behave, then such-and-such would be true? Uh, why is anyone supposed to care?
Furthermore, the Bush administration needs to show some evidence that the Iraqi government supported the attacks.
Bullcrap. No, they don't. Says who? They don't "need" to show any such evidence. There may be such evidence, and there may not, and if there were, it would be interesting to see it, but the case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
The case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. The case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. The case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se.
Do you understand what I am saying yet? It's very annoying that you keep pretending I said things I didn't say and arguing against positions I never even took (such as the idea that whether we should have a war with Iraq depends crucially on whether there's a "link" from Hussein to 9/11, which I have never said because I don't think it's true. After all, the case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se, remember?)
I never said that Atta did not meet with an Iraqi government official. I have repeatedly said that he would not have shared operational details with the government agent. This is not my personal opinion. Every reputable terrorist expert will tell you the same thing.
Doubt away. Meanwhile, CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. For the umpteenth time, your internal feelings and hunches do not change reality. Reality exists independent of your thoughts, and CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. Either explain away this piece of data with actual facts (i.e. prove that the Czechs are lying, explain why they would lie, or something...), or don't, but don't expect anyone to be swayed by your personal feelings of "doubt" about the subject just 'cuz you've read some boo.... er, sorry, "studied terrorism".
Not me personal feelings, see above.
You mean, if your personal hunch is correct, then under that hypothetical combined with your mental model of how terrorists behave, then such-and-such would be true? Uh, why is anyone supposed to care?
Repeat after me: Not my personal hunch or mental model, but the commonly accepted view of how terrorist groups operate.
Bullcrap. No, they don't. Says who? They don't "need" to show any such evidence. There may be such evidence, and there may not, and if there were, it would be interesting to see it, but the case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
Why attack Iraq now and not before the 9/11 attacks?