One of the big Lefty/Hate Bush crowd talkinf points has always been the "no Saddam/Al Qaeda link" nonsense which of course is absolutely wrong.
As time passes, we continue to find more links that establish that link, like this.
Noteworthy:
"The type of trust and confidence necessary to give assets including money, weapons, arms, safehouses and training and reciprocal placement of Baathists into al Qaeda leadership positions only leads an outside observer to conclude that the two sides shared common grievances, common goals and common beliefs."
So where's the evidence that disputes the "absolutely wrong" no Saddam/Al Qaeda link?
ReplyDeleteYeah, Roch, plenty of it.
ReplyDeleteWhere have you been for the last 3-4 years?
Oh, that's right...you only read and listen to the Dem/liberal cabal who depends on defeat in Iraq to gain their victory here in the US.
Roch is blind to anything that doesn't support his view of the way things ought to be.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the lame stream media has done a pretty good job of sitting on info that doesn't meet their criteria/agenda, like Stephen Hayes' EXTENSIVE and DETAILED work in the Weekly Standard and elsewhere about this subject. And Hayes is hardly the only one who has documented thses things.
It's a similar process to the way they handle "Global Warming" skeptics' documentation.
Funny how that sort of thing works, isn't it?
Look guys, I'm only asking for a link or quote that shows some evidence of a Saddam/Al Qeada link -- especially since just last week a recently declassified Defense Department report found "that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq." (Source)
ReplyDeleteSo, gentlemen, you can dodge and divert by attacking me personally or, if you are able, you can back up your claims with some facts.
How many would you like, Roch?
ReplyDeleteLet's start here, with some things from Hayes.
Conclusion:
"But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."
...and then go here....
Excerpt:
"Hayes: I started doing general reporting on the build-up to the Iraq War and was surprised that this angle seemed to be getting so little attention from the media. (Imagine that!) Several reporters did out standing work on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in 2002 — Jeffrey Goldberg, of The New Yorker and David Rose of Vanity Fair, come immediately to mind. I took the foundation they laid and just kept asking questions — and with each one the story got more complicated and more interesting."
....for another viewpoint, go here.
Excerpt:
"The evidence is staggering, except to our MSM outfits and the lefties in this country who wish to keep their heads in the sand. All in the name of politics.
The truth be damned."
Want more?
There's LOTS!
Of course, you can reply with the puny lefty responses over the past few years, none of which added up to more than whining over the fact that their Bash Bush point had been thoroughly discredited.....
Gee Bubba, I hate to say it,but now I see why you are so quick to accuse others of seeing only what they want to see and not looking beyond the noses on their faces. You are projecting -- assuming that because you do it, others must too.
ReplyDeleteI'll let your "sources," who say things like, "Intelligence reporting is quite subjective, of course, and lends itself to various interpretations," speak for themselves. They are a great illustration of grasping at straws.
Real evidence would be the kind provided in your original post, of course, what seems to be missed by you is that the "ties" between Saddam and Al Qeada prior to the war are based on the flimsiest of "interpreted" evidence. The substantive ties between Iraq and Al Qeada, which you site above are, of course, new developments, encouraged and enabled by our invasion. Can you wrap your head around that?
"Can you wrap your head around that? "
ReplyDeleteYes, I most certainly can wrap my head around the fact that you have absolutely NOTHING that refutes the facts provided.
"Flimsiest of interpreted evidence", indeed.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Your response is, as predicted, puny whining.
The case is closed.
You (and others who are so quick to deny the facts here) have lost your argument.
Deal with it.