A few weeks ago, one of you Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers (don't remember which one; doesn't really matter) challenged my assertion that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda.  Of course, no one asserts and Iraqi role in 9/11.  However, as I recall, a challenge was issued.  Happened to come across this in the Weekly Standard (if you want to see entire article, which also details Kerry's recent distortions).  Chapter and verse:

September 11 Commission report (p. 61)
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request . . . [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

September 11 Commission report (p. 66)
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

September 11 Commission report (p. 66)
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 92, p. 345)
The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 93, p. 346)
The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 94, p. 346)
The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 95, p. 347)
The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safehaven--that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control--was reasonable.

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 93, p. 346)
The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.


Get it?

Jimbo jimbo Jimbo-

I read your posts and occasionally get good chuckle- Am I now repsonsible for your next inanity?

Baathist and jihadists are not going to be bed mates too often.  And your post sorta proves it.  Given a lot of mutual enemies and opportunities to meet, little barriers (same language, reliance on soviet-style gear), they still did not do too much together.

Were there  occassional meetings?  Sure.  Even in Hollywood you can lunch with people you don't like.  Don't mean you are makin' a deal.

most dems don't dispute that there might have been conversations.  And that mutual hatred of the US might have been topic #1.  But we and the rest of the Western World don't see ANY causality for a WAR.

Hmmm.  A lot of GOPers were "American First"ers and German American Bund supporters in the 30s..... The GOP was behind the March into Poland!  Must have started WWII!  NOW do you see how dumb that sounds?


But nice try- almost sounded learned.  Better luck next time.

  James, if W told you in this day and age that the earth is the center of the universe you would actually believe him!!!!!
  I just hope you are not a criminal defense or litigation attorney!!  If you defend your clients with the intellectual lethargy and ineptness with which you defend W, then we have a lot of innocent people sitting in Jail right now!!
  Let me give you a prime example of what delusional people sound like to others.  In his mind Yasser Arafat still believes he is a great world leader.  I know in your mind you believe W walks on water but you see how that might sound to the sane world??  
  I know the RNC tells its followers its Jesus juice, but it really is the very kool-aid you dread.  Please stop drinking so much of it!!!!!

Hum, ebonics?

-- Modified on 9/14/2004 11:32:13 PM

when the challenger cannot concede the point when it's been demonstrated?

And I'm particularly impressed by the responder who attempts to raise the bar (no "established formal relationship"), which is about the closest thing to a concession that's posted.  Of course, that wasn't the assertion that was attempted to be proven, nor was it the basis for the threat.

They had an apparently quite vigorous meeting but haven't established a formal relationship.

With all respect, do you honestly think that insulting those that you disagree with, or questioning someone who has a different opinion than you strenthens your argument?  I think not.

People asked for a connecton, he did his best to show that & then you insult him?  Woudn't it be better for your argument to go point by point through his argument and prove him wrong if you can?

Like you need an "established formal relationship" to work in concert with someone?  I'm not expecting to see a formal signed legal agreement between two parties to know that they are working together.

Let me ask this then.  Do you have an "established FORMAL relationship" with the providers that you see?  Sure you may see an ATF quite often, but I doubt that it is something that is written down formally.  to do so would leave of course a paper trail & evidence in which to convit.

Please, you can do better than that.

Actually "word" is no longer a Hip-hop term- it's more mainstream than you will ever be.

  I don't mean that in a disrespectful way to you.  I do understand why you are asking me to be more civil, however, we are talking about a issue where 1000 American soldiers are buried and many more to come.  This issue has global consequences for a very very long time to come.  There is a time for civility, and there is a time to fight fire with fire!!

Ok, flame away then, but just realize this, nobody on this board gives a rat's ass... just look at the number of reads any particular post has.  I would suspect that everyone that reads this  has their mind already made up.  So.......
I hope that if you attempt to influence and or change someone's mind in the "real world" that you exersise a much higer degree of civility and care, otherwise you come across as a left wing wacko.  Really, do you honestly think you can change anyone's mind by screaming at them?  Or is the better way to influence people by being a little more rational & logical.

You are right however that this has lasting global consequences & I am thankfull that we have Bush rather than Al Gore in charge.  I further hope that as much as I don't like some of the things that Bush has done, he is a strong and deciscive leader something that Kerry given his 20 years in the senate, clearly is not.

Thanks for reading.

And the CIA visited OBL while he was getting Dialysis so, according to your logic....... we should attack our own country also.


No, I do not have an established formal relationship with mere acquaintances.