I didn't click on the link you said only talks about AAI and AQ. In the other three, I found Given the hedging (speculated, reportedly), the sources, and the actual accusations (hey, the 9/11 hijackers boarded planes in areas controlled by George Bush, that doesn't mean he was in on it), I don't find this at all credible for this argument. This is the main point, IMHO, of the Telegraph article In other words, the person who is writing this didn't do the actual reporting, they're just Judith Millering stuff. The source? Note the phrase "Western military advisers." Since the writer didn't say "American military advisers," I'm gonna ask why. Maybe someone else has a better answer, but, to me, the likely reason is because these were Kurds who were working with us. I think I can safely say, without being accused of America-hating, that the record of our pre-war intel isn't of the highest caliber. So please excuse me while I disbelieve this. It's possible that the reporting is accurate, but it's alot more likely that Kurds were using this reporter to get a story out there in order to increase American support for an invasion of Iraq. Here's the highlight from the CSM article. My emphasis. There's also this. superdave sources say that Axis Alex responding to his request for sources by googling, and then hoping I wouldn't read the links, would not surprise me. See, Alex, this is what I get for treating you with a respect you clearly don't deserve. I'm not doing that again. I'll just insult the intelligence and honesty of your posts, and assume you're a big liar. But tell the truth...you just did a google and didn't read the links, didn't you? Ted, Just Admit It.
I'm gonna assume you DON'T mean this in a, you can't prove there aren't any more dinosaurs way, because then we need to move this discussoin to the Epistemology forum. If that IS what you mean, it's a pointless argument. We can't prove George Bush isn't the anti-Christ, because of the difficulty of proving a negative, but I wouldn't favor killing Bush because you can't prove that. Assuming you're playing this straight...the document in question has the name of a Niger official on it, who hadn't held the position for years as of the date on the document. It's been in all the papers. So, yeah, it's been proven false.
The US sent an envoy to Niger in early 2002, and he told his bosses in the US that Niger was NOT providing Iraq with uranium. The uranium in Niger is controlled by the IAEA. The original story was based on some poorly forged documents. Bush was advised by his professional intelligence staff on several occasions to remove the reference. He kept it. Bush lied, you swallowed. Rumsfeld was just making stuff up. You even admitted in previous posts that he winged it when he was under pressure from the press (poor baby, that is why he is an incompetent liar. He can't handle the press corps!) They made the stuff up about WMD in order to scare people into providing popular support for the war. (remember Perle's quotes from earlier this summer?) A free democracy in Iraq cannot be established at gunpoint, and it cannot be established on a series of lies.
Well, under that irrational perverse attempt at logic, I guess then that I am "allied" with Dick Cheney ... after all, the American Red Cross received funding from both Cheney and me. Unless, of course, what you're trying to say is that Hussein and al-Qaeda opened up a joint checking account, and that's where the funding in question came from - if that's the case, then sure - you've got some real good evidence there!
We gained an ally?? Is that why Defense Department officials said yesterday that "new intelligence assessments are warning that the United States' most formidable foe in Iraq in the months ahead may be the resentment of ordinary Iraqis increasingly hostile to the American military occupation"??? (See NY Times article)
So when they attempt to link Hussein with al-Qaida, which has been pretty clearly linked with 9/11, they're not trying to link 9/11 with Hussein? When they invoke 9/11 as a reason we have to go to war with Hussein, they're not linking? You're either willfully ignorant or (something Dante has asked that we not do any more of).
No, because Japan and Germany's alliance was proved while al-Qaida's and Saddam's alliance has merely been speculated upon by this adminstration without any concrete proof.
God forbid that the American people should be asked to make a few sacrifices in a time of war. That would be terrible.
Was it a good call? Probably not. But it is not a lie. The Brits firmly believed that Saddam made some purchases from Niger. I sure as hell can't prove otherwise, so let's just say it wasn't good call to include it in his speech and let it go.
You mean Bush might have to repeal the new tax code which allows "small businesses" to immediately deduct $106,000 on the purchase of a new $110,000 Hummer H1, which gets around 10 miles to the gallon? You mean he might be forced to actually devote real financing to supporting renewable fuel sources? Oooohhhhh ... scary!
Thank you for cutting my post so you could use it how you like. I said in there "until we find an answer to energy question" (ie alternative fuels), we are reliant on foreign oil. In 25 years (hopefully) when hydrogen is a reliable energy source, we can tell the Saudis to *#*#*#*# off. But doing so now wouldn't be the smartest move. I just want to make it clear that I hate the Saudi's. Thank you.
Manny, gold star if you can tell us why he used British intelligence sources in the SotU instead of American intelligence sources.
And as long as Bush's pockets are lined with oil money, we're never GOING to find an alternative. He has done, and will continue to do, everything possible to maintain OIL AS KING, to the benefit of his family, his friends, and the Saudis. 25 years for an alternative source, you say? Do you remember the last big clamour for alternative sources from ... oh, about 25 years ago ... during the last oil crisis in the 70's? No, you probably don't remember because you probably weren't even born yet - but does it look like this country solved the problem in teh 25 years since then? And you think it will now, with guys like Bush in charge?
From everything I've read here, it's clear that the link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is tenuous at best. To say that the administration never explicitly stated that Saddam was behind 9/11 is equivalent to quibbling over what the meaning of the word "is" is. The intent to blur important distinctions and conceal the truth is perfectly evident.
"What is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth." Robert Redford in Three Days of the Condor, which happens to be a great movie. Interpretation for the disabled - it is irrelevant whether Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. told a direct and indisputable lie about 9/11 and Iraq. The intent to deceive or exaggerate a case in order to justify a war is more than enough to send them packing ... and they will be packing in 2004.
Actually if you knew what you were talking about, the law that allows people to deduct part of the purchase on Hummers goes back a long time. Back in the day before we had SUV's Congress passed a law allowing vehichles over a certain weight to have special provisions to write off part of the cost, this was to help farmers purchase new vehicles. The law has been around for YEARS before someone's accountant took notice and said, hey a Hummer weighs over the limit so why not apply it to this. This isn't something that's new, the first time someone wrote off their Hummer (the truck that is) was in the late '90s. Bush was not President then.
For those that don't believe that the Bush administration has alluded to a connection between Saddam and 9/11, I'm curious about two things: Why do 60% of the people in the country think there is link if the administration does believe there is one? Why hasn't the Bush administration made numerous attempts before this week to explain to people that there wasn't a link when polls were showing so many believed there was a link? I agree that no member of the administration ever said clearly that Saddam was behind 9/11. However, I do believe that they used clever phrasing to allude to such a link and then let the conservative pundits on TV, radio and newspapers strengthen that allusion. That is why 60% of the people believe there is a link. And the administration never made an attempt to clarify Saddam's lack of involvement in 9/11 because it served their purpose. Both of these things are intellectually dishonest yet leave Bush untainted for 2004. And you thought Clinton was slick. Bush and his handlers are just as slick. Murf
And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that before Bush came along, you could only deduct $25,000. Instead of recognizing that the law was now allowing deductions for SUVs instead of the intended farm equiment, and fixing the loophole, he instead increased the amount of the deduction to $100,000. So save your petty and snide comments.
I'd actually read all of them (except for the HRW link) a long time ago. Your problem, Dave, is that you'd rather believe Saddam Hussein than believe George Bush.