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

[Randy Arabie]

Quoting "Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net>:

> * 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,

I don't disagree with what you are saying.  In fact, I would say that *every* 
war we have *ever* gotten into "has had a not insignificant degree of mendacity 
behind it."  That is the nature of man and an unfortunate fact about war.  Take 
a look at the reasons behind the Spanish American War, the Mexican War, even 
the Civil War.  They all have their fair share of mendacity.

A healthy distrust of government is always good.

-- 
Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/