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

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Jed S. Baer (thag at frii.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:43:38 -0700
> "Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net> wrote:
> 
> > Suffice it to say that I am operating from the stance that we don't
> > know if there was a OBL-Hussein link, and if their was the US must
> > prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to be operating under
> > the assumption that there obviously was one, and *solid* evidence is a
> > secondary concern. Also note, I am not talking about a tangential
> > relationship -- I am talking about Saddam plotting with, funding, and
> > knowing in advance about AQ attacking American targets.
> 
> In the world of intelligence gathering and analysis, to quote Churchill:
> 'I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in
> a mystery inside an enigma.'
> 
> The larger point is that the intelligence community, whether you agree
> with their reasons or not, will not, in many cases, prove beyond a
> reasonable doubt, to the public of their respective nations, the
> conclusions they draw. Politicians, such as members of the Senate
> Intelligence Committee, for example, aren't supposed to reveal classified
> information, and neither is the President.
> 
> I'm making a general case here, BTW. And it's difficult to think of
> national security reasons why definitive information one way or the other
> would be given a non-public classification. But the point is that solid
> evidence might exist, and the administration might believe it's not
> beneficial to release it. Maybe because it would cause problems with the
> Saudis, or who knows why. Maybe in 50 years it'll be released. Maybe it
> doesn't exist. I don't know. And neither does the NY Times, or The
> National Review, or Michael Moore.

Don't forget the Weekly Standard ;-)

> This phenomenon is also part of what we get with a representative form of
> government. I'm not saying that that excuses any particular case, or that
> we shouldn't ask for disclosures, but there it is.

You are right, Jed, my wording is too strong.  I understand that
intelligence people must act on evidence that is incomplete.   So while
there will always be some degree of doubt, I don't think it should be
anywhere near as big a doubt as I see currently.  As for the evidence
that is not released, well, we can't argue about that.

Sadly, for me, I no longer trust the government when they can't give
me *any* convincing evidence. Maybe once we could have trusted them
to be acting honestly (or maybe not), but I don't. It seems every war we've
gotten into over the last century has had a not insignificant degree of
mendacity behind it. So I can't trust 'em. Which, in a representative
democracy, is a giant problem.  Much bigger than any specific issue
regarding Iraq.

Tim
--
======================================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silver_NO-UCE_klein.net   ==
== ------------------------------------------------ ==
== Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...         ==
======================================================