Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear faulty

The Miami Herald ^ | 3/3/04 | By WARREN P. STROBEL, JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND JOHN WALCOTT

[JohnGalt]

Dated April 7, with the theme that Salman Pak "reinforces suspicions" however, are there any updates to this story?

The original Salman Pak story came from two sources supplied by the INC and Ahmed Chalabi who is boasting how he was able to get the United States to topple Saddam, if perhaps he floated some 'bad intelligence.'

Thus, every bit of intelligence sourced back to the INC must be put into question and it is also reasonable to investigate those who trusted and promoted the Chalabi dupe, which includes folks like Judith Miller at the NY Times, Laurie Mylroie and Richard Perle, and Dick Cheney. Were they duped? Or were they engaging in act of supreme anti-patriotism bordering on treason, believing that the execution of the policy was more important than either the Administration's integrity or the political whims of the citizenry who may not have supported the war unless they believed mushroom clouds in Cleveland were a real possibility?

When Perle two weeks ago called for heads to roll at CIA, there was bound to be open warfare, and stories like this are likely to continue.

[JohnGalt]

Do you have any follow up articles besides war time reporting dated April 7, 2003?

[Stultis]

and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 attacks probably never happened

Spin for the sheeple (pretending there was only ONE meeting). IIRC Czech intelligence claims no less than FOUR meetings, and U.S. intelligence only disputes one or two of those (because their timeline for Atta had him in a different location). We KNOW Atta went out of his way to visit Prague.

[cyncooper]

Are you disputing that the camp was found?

The article you posted stated we found no evidence of the camp. That is flat out false.

And contrary to your assertions, reporters and Marines were eyewitnesses to what was found and it was not just hearsay as you pretend.

[cyncooper]

I mean what kind of "follow up" do you expect? That they figured the rappelling and obstacle courses were for boy scouts and the shell of the plane was to train flight attendants?

Good grief. It was found and described and photographed and they continued with their mission.

[JohnGalt]

Why are you spinning if your are so sure?

It is not even the point; if the intelligence community has taken up the position that its BS, that is a problem and no amount of links to the same single source reports will change their minds.

[cyncooper]

Spinning?

Pointing out the camp was found, contrary to your article's claims is spinning?

Okey Dokey

We here on planet Earth call it "pointing out facts".

[JohnGalt]

So no?

[Stultis]

the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship

Yeah, and the adminstration never claimed an "operational" relationship (except with regard to Ansar al-Islam, where they were CORRECT). They claimed "links" (including training of al-Qaeda operatives by Iraq, which these "reporters" ignore).

Take away the B.S. and they are admitting we had a generally accurate picture, not withstanding that the article spins madly toward exactly the opposite claim.

[cyncooper]

if the intelligence community has taken up the position that its BS,

Source for this?

There has been no taking up by the intelligence community that it was BS.

As to your "say no". Why should I? It was plain what your implication was. You wanted follow-up confirming a well documented find and I asked a perfectly good question: "Why is that necessary?" It was fully explained and described and photographed already.

Contrary to your assertion that the intelligence community has now decided "it was bs", you are the one who needs to provide "follow-up" documenting that.

[JohnGalt]

I am not sure why you are spinning on this thread, we both no each others position on this issue.

What is your take on how to handle the CIA?

I think its clear they are going to be talking to the press for the next 8 months to no benefit of Bush.

[JohnGalt]

Then just post your quip about the 'liberal media' and move on. Point taken.

[Ranger]

What is clear is that Osama Bin Laden was not in Iraq and that he attacked us in NYC. A huge diversion of resources has occurred in Iraq and away from the clear and present danger al-Qaeda presented and continues to present to this country.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Why hasn't Bush made this allegation?

[hchutch]

There is a chat in Prague - actually as many as four chats - to explain away.

There is that airliner at Salman Pak and the method of hijacking airliners reportedly taught to the terrorists that trained there.

Saddam was hiding SOMETHING. If it wasn't WMDs, then what could it have been?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Another installment of The Big Lie.

[AFPhys]

Please note this post and its final paragraph, azhenfud:

This is not serious journalism but merely another example of the WP -- and John Galt -- running interference for John Kerry and the left.

[lasereye]

If anybody is spinning it's you. People have posted links from an AP article quoting U.S. military about the camp they found at Salman Pak. You then say it's from Rush and National Review. It's pointed out the source is not Rush and NR, it's the AP and the U.S. Marines. You then demand followup articles without explaining why there would need to be any such articles or what's wrong with the originals. Then you say "the real problem is the intelligence community says it's BS", without providing any source for that - other than this article written by liberals.

[JohnGalt]

Keep spinning, Comrades.

[JohnGalt]

I "demanded"?

LOL

I asked if there were any follow up articles on Salman Pak. Conservatives by their nature are very skeptical of front-line reporting so it is reasonable to inquire whether further investigation backed up pre-war assertions as to what Salman Pak is/was. Since conservatives are well aware that historians rarely agree on anything, they are even more dubious about journalism and government reports.