[Dog Gone]

Well, much as I hate to say it, this doesn't indicate that al-Qaida is a partner of Iraq. It's more of a call to arms on behalf of Iraq.

It's not a subtle difference.

[piasa]

Yeah, he's said similar things before in support of Iraq. For the chillun, of course.

The phone calls from Abu Sayyaf to the Iraqi diplomat after blowing up a US soldier are more telling.

[Destro]

Shhhhhhhhhhh! You'll ruin it!

[MississippiMan]

Well, much as I hate to say it, this doesn't indicate that al-Qaida is a partner of Iraq. It's more of a call to arms on behalf of Iraq.

Yeah, I agree with you. I don't doubt that there are connections between Iraq and bin Laden, but I think pointing to this as some kind of new evidence is tenuous at best and has more of an appearance of grasping at straws to get the world to go along with us. I think we just need to accept the reality that we only have a precious few real allies, and go take care of business while telling the rest of them to...well...to shut up and stay out of the way unless they plan to really challenge us to protect Saddam.

MM

[rob777]

"Well, much as I hate to say it, this doesn't indicate that al-Qaida is a partner of Iraq. It's more of a call to arms on behalf of Iraq."



I agree, it is hightly unlikely that the secular Iraqi government is providing weapons to a group deeply rooted in Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam may be a monster, but he is not that stupid. Such a course would ultimately be suicidal, as he has been at war with the fundamentalist brand of Islam LONG before he came in conflict with us.

[daviddennis]

I find it a very strange idea that it's supporting Iraq in the name of Islam, while at the same time admitting Saddam is a godless, amoral man.

How is he any better than the US?

Here's a subversive thought: Al Queda would actually be able to operate much more effectively in an Americanized Iraq, with free speech rights and high technology imports. So why should they want their people to fight for Saddam?

D

[ARCADIA]

Well, much as I hate to say it, [bin Laden's message] doesn't indicate that al-Qaida is a partner of Iraq. It's more of a call to arms on behalf of Iraq.

It's not a subtle difference.

I thought the same thing, too.

The Guardian speculates that Powell mentioned the message before it was broadcast in order to put his own spin on it. However, Debka (...I know) reports that the message mentioned by Powell was different from one broadcast later in the day. The Guardian states that the message received by Birmingham England Arabic network was different than the one broadcast by Al-Jazeera.

Before the message was aired and the text came out, I heard two things previewed in the media that were not in the version broadcast.

1. Bin Laden claiming that America did not get the message he sent in New York and Washington (source Debka)

2. Bin Laden urging Muslims to kill Americans and Jews in secret ways (don't remember source)

What makes me think that there were two messages is that Al-Jazeera sort of fumbled a bit yet, first they had it, then they didn't. So, it got me thinking ... maybe there was an earlier more inflamatory message, that they decided not to run it after Powell's testimony - hence their claiming they don't have one. Later, when a more moderate version was available, they ran with it.

Any thoughts?