On MSNBC, Pitney discusses report that KSM was waterboarded to prove Iraq-al Qaeda link
May 15, 2009 4:39 pm ET
Sam Stein's Huffington Post report is available here.
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Maybe that's why the Republitoads are pointing so frantically at Nancy Pelosi's insignificant role in all of this. I think they know, deep down, that if anyone starts picking at this scab, Bush and his puppeteers will quickly be up to their chins in crap.
Iraq was not involved in 9-11. But they were supporting other anti-U.S. and anti-Isreali terrorists in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. They would have been remiss not to question Kahlid about Iraqi contacts.
Saddam was making payments to some terrorist suicide bomber families in Israel (I'll give you Lebanon, but I think on that case you are confused with Iran). That should be condemned of course, but it had nothing to do with some supposed link to Al Qaida - which is what we are supposed to be discussing.
Actually, "well established," is a quote from Cheney, who used those words on Meet the Press (qualified with "pretty") to assert an operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Cheney even referenced the already discredited fable that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, about six months before 9/ll. In order to posit any close relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda one has to ignore the fact, well known to non-politicized US intelligence, that the secular Iraq and religiously motivated al Qaeda despised and distrusted each other. The idea that Saddam might have given them access to WMD technology (had he still, indeed, possessed it) is absurd, as Charles Duelfer said on Rachel Maddow's show the other night.
I'm sorry but I really do believe that the prize for ignorance should go to you. Ansar al Islam WAS an Al Quaida organization. Saddam's government never had control but had NOT lost its ability to maintain contact. Saddam DID have negotiations on-going with Al Quaida for cooperative actions. Iran IS a Major Sponsor of anti-Isreali terrorism including Hezbollah and prior to his overthrow, so was Saddam. Bush and Cheney did not lie about reasons to attack Iraq. The weapons of mass destruction were not found in quantities sufficient to explain the materials tracked going into the country, but the materials going into the country have never been adequately accounted for. If they didn't turn into weapons, where are they? Many of these things had no other use and Iraqi exports were being monitored as closely as possible. There are other holes in the Iraqi innocence theory but you don't care so why repeat them.
Some people on your side lie to you when they see an advantage in doing so, just as some on my side lie to me when they see an advantage. Most of the critical elements of your replies are based on such lies. I am confident of this because they don't pass either logical consistency or third-party verification tests. You won't believe me, but there is an old Left-wing saying, "Question Authority". See if you can apply that to yourself and to the sources you consider "authorities." I will continue to doubt and double-check my sources, that's partly why I'm here. Try practicing the same, it may be worth your while.
So ... with what degree of confidence do you asure us that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Quaida?
I think most of the information that suggested WMAs and Al Quaida ties was passed to Bush by the preceeding Administration wasn't it? Of course, you CAN invent rules that make that irrelevant. But if it was all a lie ...