[CLUE-Talk] More Evidence for a Hussein - AlQaeda Link

[G. Richard Raab]

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 02:00 pm, Randy Arabie wrote:

>
> Aside from satellite pictures, surveillence photos, and wiretaps, "raw"
> intellegence IS "hearsay nonsense".  The ONLY way to obtain "operational
> details or the purpose of such meetings" would be what you call "hearsay
> nonsense".  Satellite pictures, surveillence photos, and wiretaps do not
> provide "operational details or the purpose of" face-to-face meetings
> between terrorists and their collaborators.
>

Randy, W. stated before that the intel world had proof positive that Sadaam 
was busy buying Plutonium and Uranium. The Intel world specifically told him 
that it was totally fabricated. And that was before his infamous speech.

	Likewise,  there is plenty of evidence that you can sift through available 
from on-line sources that will show that the intel world provided W's admin 
all the information that he needed that we were about to be attacked. He did 
nothing, but he did blame the entire intel world (following with relaxed 
conditions and an increased budget). That means that W blamed the intel world 
for his shortcoming iff you accept it.

Somebody from W's admin blew an operative's  (and her agents) cover. They did 
this simply to make themselves look better. BTW, I find it interesting that 
nobody has been caught on that and that it has disappeared from the press. 
(While I do not believe in the death penalty, I would have not qualm applying 
this to all who are involved in this as these ppl endanger everybody in the 
states)

Now, W's admin ppl show what? What sat. pix, wiretaps, and raw intel do YOU 
have that YOU know was aquired by a good source (good meaning not faked)?
So far you are backing stuff said by W's ppl who have shown that they can make 
Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon look good (none of them were treasonous to the 
point of endangering us; well, maybe reagan).



> Thus, by your standards, the US Intelligence community is in a Catch 22.

No, I do not think that you know what the intel world knows. And I really do 
not believe that W is telling you what is real, just what he wants to make 
you think. 

> Anyway, regarding your question, "Is this the best we can do?"  I guess you
> didn't read the link...did you?

I would guess that you have not been following W's antics or have simply 
chosen to overlook all the lies and loss of rights.


>
> <quote>
> One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that
> it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available
> to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both
> Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret.
> (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence
> document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S.
> government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda
> equivalent of the CIA's 1,400- person Iraq Survey Group currently searching
> Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

You can not really believe that? Do you really think that W is not pushing 
hard to find a real connection? Do you not think that he has literally 1000's 
of ppl pouring over all the docs to find just one real shred of evidence?


>
> Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi
> intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These
> documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in
> Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but
> also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will
> be a slow process.
>
> So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort
> of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the
> highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.
> </quote>
>
> But, I guess it really doesn't matter what they uncover, since it appears
> the only thing that would convice folks like you would be a photograph or
> video footage of Saddam and Bin Laden comparing notes over a scale model of
> a US Government facility.  Even then, I suspect the naysayers would suggest
> that they just happened to be enrolled in the same architecture class at
> the university.

Clark had a photo of him with a Slovack.
Does that make him a Butcher?

W. has had pix of him with KKK members (the guy from New Orleans and his 
buddies). 
Does that make him KKK ?

Personally, I want real data from honest ppl that can be trusted. So far, W. 
has been presenting data that is about as solid as something from SCO. Look a 
little bit under the cover (if you can), and you will find that it is 
fabricated.


>
> > More importantly, the majority of the meetings were in the mid 90's, and
> > by 2000 had completely stopped.
>
> No.  Granted, there is contradictory evidence regarding the nature of thier
> post-1999 relationship, but that's quite a bit different that "completely
> stopped."  Had you read the link, you may have seen this:
>
> <quote>
> INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and
> al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi
> intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that
> the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden
> wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's
> office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further
> contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted
> to distance himself from al Qaeda."
>
> The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One
> report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in
> northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that
> the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden
> throughout 1999. 

That Training camp was in Northern Iraq and it was with the Kurds, not Saadam.
Check out the videos from CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS.

> </quote> 
>
> But, even if the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam had ended...who
> cares?  The bottom line is Saddam's regime did support *terrorists*.
Other than his support against Israel, what other proof do you have?
And if so, then what about Saudi Arabia, kuwait, and Most importantly, North 
Korea who is a very real threat to the world as a whole.

-- 
cheers
g.r.r.