Idiot of the Year: Orrin Hatch
ThinkProgress has this little morsel for ya... wait for it... wait for it...
This was said by Orrin Hatch. Orrin Hatch, everyone. Yep.
Nobody denies that [Saddam Hussein] was supporting al-Qaeda…Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.
This was said by Orrin Hatch. Orrin Hatch, everyone. Yep.
by MG at 4:57 PM
15 Comments:
I don't get it, this statement is undeniably true.
And let's not even bring up the "collaborative operative relationship" line, I personally debunked that a year ago:
http://www.brashlimburg.com/the-iraq-faq/thats-not-good-enough-brash-i-need-a-direct-link/
Oh stop it Brash.
Starting with the 9/11 Commission:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/17/1436250
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-01.htm (archived from the NYT)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512140147dec14,1,6954657.story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-bush-alqaeda_x.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/link.htm
Even Faux News had to say something about it...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91848,00.html
Listen, if they want to try and make it like Hussein was buddy-buddy with al Qaeda, then Rumsfeld's picture with Hussein is proof that the US was buddy-buddy with Hussein, and I doubt anyone wants to go there.
And by "undeniably true" you mean "the way the Bush cult rewrote history."
Hatch is just another Bush-apologetic tool. Move along, nothing more to see here.
Moxie,
Nothing in the articles you posted contradicts what Hatch said, or what I posted. In fact, they all mention how Iraq invited Bin Laden to Iraq in 96. If that isn't "support", I don't know what is. Read what I posted before trying to rebutt it.
"Nothing in the articles you posted contradicts what Hatch said"
Uh, yeah, actually there is. Plenty in the article contradicts it, as a matter of fact. Unless, of course, you think that bin Laden asking for help and receiving no response from Baghdad means "Hussein was supporting al Qaeda". In which case, I'd be curious to hear your "logic" . . . since when is "no response" synonomous with "support"? Even when there was two-way communication, there was absolutely no evidence (not even "shakey" evidence, let alone hard) that any support or collaboration existed. Or are you claiming that "support" also includes simply communicating? Well shoot, if that's the case, then Bush supported and is supporting al Qaeda, Hussein, the Taliban, the MEK, Tehran and countless other "terror organizations".
No, I mean "support" means a offer to help. The point being that offering to help a terrorist organization is only a hair away from doing so.
And there is at least "shakey evidence", read my Iraq FAQ.
Brash, I pasted this off of page 66. I'd like for you to read it, please, and pay special attention to the qualifyer words that I will put in bold. Notice how all of the earlier mumbo jumbo about meetings and what not are qualified, while the final two sentences of the writeup pretty much just blows all of what preceeded it out of the water. Let's remember that we had people like Chalabi and Curve ball giving us "evidence" and "reports" that turned out to be unfailingly and conclusively false. Always. Every singe time. Might it not be the case that the "evidence" and "reports" you are hanging your hat on from this excerpt from the 9/11 report could have come from such unreliable sources as Chalbi and Curveball? If not, indeed, Chalabi and Curbeball themselves?
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hus-
sein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the ini-
tiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelli-
gence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egypt-
ian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.
75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the ear-
lier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in devel-
oping or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
I entirely agree. I've seen exclusive footage of Saddam sharing a syringe full of crack magic LSD mushrooms with Osama Bin Laden, Ghengis Khan, Hitler and Tomas De Torquemada! Then they kicked some babies and buggered kittens until they passed out. Bastards!
In all seriousness, Brash, I admire your ability to cherry-pick reports in the true republican stylee, like with the "safe haven" piece you loosely paraphrase, neglecting to conveniently include the paragraph after that states, and I quote:
"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76"
In short, you offer no justification whatsoever for bombing the almighty shit out of Iraq. In fact, your argument even negates the validity of the Afghanistan invasion, since (to quote you) "no country played a direct role in 9/11". I can't even tell what point you're trying to make. I can't even tell if you're just performing a clever parody; it's getting too hard to tell the parodies apart from the preposterous blabber of the parody subject.
Sweet lord, I just can't believe people still try to defend this wretched bunch of red-tied hooligans as they goose-step over the world. I hope you at least got a good price for your soul.
Damn, I should just try Kitt's rapid response approach next time. :P
"Damn, I should just try Kitt's rapid response approach next time. :P"
...and also putting my name in.
First of all kitt, show me one intelligence report that doesn't have qualifiers like that. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Second, loonie, for the last time, "collborative operational relationship" means the two collaborated with Al Qaeda in devising the operations they carried out. No country can be described as doing this. That said, the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq did support those operations, and desroying that support (which enables the operations to be carried out) is what the war on terror is all about.
Honestly, you guys have been repeating the same tired lines for so long you actually believe them.
"First of all kitt, show me one intelligence report that doesn't have qualifiers like that. Don't worry, I'll wait.
--Brash
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the ear-
lier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in devel-
oping or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
For craps sake, Brash, It's right there for you. Those statements aren't filled with qualifiers, except in the Positive. Unless you want to include "But to date" as a qualifier. If you do then you are grasping even lower than low. If you like I'll find a dozen others for you but it was really not a very bright question for you to have asked, since the answer was right there for you on the page in question.
Okay, I don't really want to spend my time playing this game but I'll give you one more to mull over.
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
...he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.
The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."
The Ex-Cia official is Paul Pillar. The above isn't an intelligence report per se but "which analysts had dicounted" is about as conclusive as you can ever hope to read. Especially after, as the article makes clear, the Bush adminstration bull dozed and bull dozed for the answers they wanted for their 'let's go to war' story, but were never able to get.
I know I should't bother asking this but WTF, Brash, why can't you see the truth on this matter?
By Brash's logic, we should bomb Germany for invading Poland 65 years ago.
I saw a video clip once where I heard Osama mention the word "Iraq". Or at least a similar sounding word. WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED!
Post a Comment
<< Home