Iraq and Al-Queda Linked?

November 15, 2003 8:45 PM

Iraq and Al-Queda Linked?The WeeklyStandard claims to have received a letter sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy to the chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee, outlining the connections between Iraq and Bin Laden. Shortly thereafter, the DOD criticizes the WeeklyStandard for mischaracterizing the memo. Story still developing...
posted by nads (16 comments total)

go nads!

sorry. i just had to. read this to see why.
posted by quonsar at 9:06 PM on November 15, 2003

Hmm this sounds pretty credible to me. Go Weekly Standard. Those guys fuckin' rock!
posted by chaz at 9:44 PM on November 15, 2003

Hmm this sounds pretty credible to me. Go Weekly Standard. Those guys fuckin' rock! And Douglas Feith was the source, so it's got to be true!
posted by chaz at 9:44 PM on November 15, 2003

Only someone with a pathological hatred of the Bush Adminstration would find this surprising or suspect.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:07 PM on November 15, 2003

WarFilter
posted by destro at 11:08 PM on November 15, 2003

Only someone with a pathological hatred of the Bush Adminstration would find this surprising or suspect.

And with that, I think the "Bush-hater" diversionary tactic is now officially used up. But don't worry, you'll soon some other way to avoid confronting the actual arguments against the activities of the current administration. It doesn't have to be any good, just inflammatory and accusatory enough to derail discussion. Kinda like the "Bush hater" one was -- good enough to provoke the easily-provoked, and get the facts lost in the ensuing noise. The pitiful thing is, it isn't actually hard to do.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:22 PM on November 15, 2003

Good thing we went in there and took care of that or Al Qaeda would be running loose blowing up embassies in the Iraq and temples in Turkey! Oh wait...

Sorry boys, but the game has been over for quite some time. New developments, if true which seems doubtful, at this point are a crap shoot. We were promised and 'shown' solid evidence of chemical and biological weapons and Al Qaeda conspiracies.

See the point is the whole lying thing, the fabricated and overexagerated BS about Iraq. Let's not forget too quickly. Meanwhile every anti-war criticism has come true - post-war Iraq is a terrorist magnet, occupation would be difficult, WMD would be hard to find if they even exist and would not be an 'imminent threat' to the US, it would be a little Vietnam, the US would be paying out the nose and recieve very little international help, Iraqi factions would be fighting for post-war power, forced democracy isn't working, etc.
posted by skallas at 11:53 PM on November 15, 2003

Gee Paris, I certainly qualify as a "Bush hater", and was against the war, but I want to know the truth about who was behind 9-11, and let the chips fall where they may. I also want to know what our government (that includes the previous administration) knew leading up to it and what was done to prevent it.
The problem with this particular memo, I believe, is that a lot of the assertions have been debunked previously.
Now what kind of pathology would one have to suffer from not to look at any and all information coming from any administration and not find it suspect?
posted by 2sheets at 12:03 AM on November 16, 2003

Call Me a Bush-Hater
posted by homunculus at 12:16 AM on November 16, 2003

the Pinkos down at the DOD actually state that

The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.


and FreedomParamus,
speaking about pathological hate, I see that your pathological Muslim-hate thing is still going strong -- doesn't matter if even the Pentagon doesn't endorse the Saddam/Osama link, we'll just stick with the unbiased Weekle Standard analysis, I guess. but don't worry, Laurie Mylroie is with you, so you're not alone

btw I see that your "roach motel" thing is working wonders, huh?


posted by matteo at 3:59 AM on November 16, 2003

And here come the counter leaks:

CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:59 AM on November 16, 2003

Hmm... the neocons seem to be very silent about calling out BushFilter, IraqFilter, WarFilter or posting to MetaTalk complaining about this being a NewsFilter post. This was leaked, and the DOD reveals that it was a leak of classified information. If this report really had legs it'd have been publicized legally. Bush has tried to justify his actions with much more tenuous information which has later been proved false in the past.

Not only is the Bush administration, and the neocons who support it, deceitful, but they're ineptly deceitful. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf they have destroyed their credibility. Unfortunately their lack of credibility has also undermined the safety of the United States. Nobody worries about whatever colour of alert we're at nor do they worry about the latest warnings of possible terrorist attacks. By and large people have realized that the system has been abused to provoke a state of paranoia and they resent it. At some point one of these warnings will be credible and will be acted on and will result in the loss of American lives. The warnings will have been ignored because of the administrations disingenuous actions.
posted by substrate at 7:30 AM on November 16, 2003

I am neither convinced nor unconvinced by the Weekly Standard post because I am left with this puzzle:
Bush, under much criticism from those opposed to the war in Iraq might easily at any given time released a report to back up claim that Osama and Saddam linked. But he did not. Weekly Standard, run and owned by neo-cons favoring thewar suddenly have access to something they are not supposed to either have or print. And they do. Who led them to this? If I were in the White House, I would not at so late a date released a piece showing link to Osama but would instead get it to an "outside source."

Till further evidence more convincing is made available, looks to me as though Weekly Standard is Weakly Standardless for the time being.
posted by Postroad at 7:49 AM on November 16, 2003

the Pinkos down at the DOD actually state that
what does that mean?

if we are to really go leaker crusading, Bob Woodward would have his head on a DoD pike.

the real hairy part of Intelligence work is proving something, Hell thats the whole idea....right. To be sneaky and keep your number of weapons and secrets and lies and plots and scams SECRET. All the reasoning about these articles will avail one nothing. The spin is the real beauty queen of the hour because the facts do not matter just that some big country is "trying" to link Saddam to Osama. What, you want DoD and Intel to print that funny head in the barrel picture when they where at Niagara Falls?

well, the real argument here seems to be classic, which source to "believe" Like the real work of history, verifying sources.

If I were in the White House, I would not at so late a date released a piece showing link to Osama but would instead get it to an "outside source."

you mean have, say Italy or Rumania release it?, someone elses press? Why?...how can you release information that is by no means concrete and if it where concrete why release it and give your intel gathering methods away.....AH HA. info gathering methods... which by its definition is secretive, elusive, suspect... all those adjectives that make info gathering so fun.
posted by clavdivs at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2003

the Pinkos down at the DOD actually state that
what does that mean?

it means I'm making fun of all the people all over the Net (just check out the usual warblogger suspects, yelling "Case Closed" in the usual foaming-at-the-mouth warblogger stance) who creamed their pants over the WS story, only to have the DoD itself (hardly a "Communist base" like the much-maligned by the right-wing State Dept -- a McCarthyite classic if there ever was one, the slurs against Foggy Bottom's "Pinkos", hope you agree) pour cold water over their enthusiasm

look, I'll be first one here to crack open Miguel's Vintage Veuve Cliquot if somebody comes up with the evidence that, say, Atta was Saddam's secret third son and Osama is Saddam's lover and they planned 911 together.
at the very least, that would mean that all those poor soldiers being slaughetered in Iraq are dying for a decent reason, and not to satisfy a WH/Halliburton less noble endeavor

but this Weekly Standard thing is just not good enough
If it does meet your standards of reliability, help yourself
posted by matteo at 2:03 PM on November 16, 2003

CIA Seeks Probe of Iraq-Al Qaeda Memo Leak
posted by homunculus at 9:28 PM on November 17, 2003