Re: What has America lost?

Jeffraham Prestonian wrote:
> "Don Swayser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>
>> Fallacious foundation for any kind of argument. Hussein ran a
>> totalitarian state. Such states are very well informed about the
>> state of presence of any non-citizens. I can only assume you're
>> ignorant of the methods totalitarian states can employ to detect
>> and track such
>
> people.
>
> What I'm really ignorant of is the information you use to base the
> assertion that Saddam knew about some al Qaeda dude getting medical
> treatment in Iraq... and upon knowing, did *nothing* to stop it
> (gee!). Why not share your source for that information so I can also
> be similarly enlightened.
>
Why should he stop it? He sheltered Abu Nidal, one of the best known of
the worlds terrorists. If you think Hussein wasn't aware of his presence 
then you should buy a ticket to Baghdad and go to Tikrit to join Saddam 
because you don't deal well with reality.

>> Questionable. It seems to have been a no mans land, but I'm sure
>> there are arguments on both sides.
>
>
> You're sure?  Meaning... you... don't really know?
>
Ok, have it your way. There's not arguments on both sides. It was under 
Husseins control.

>> However there has never been any reported armed clashes between
>> Husseins armed forces and the terrorists. Since there were between
>> the Kurds and them I'll leave it to the reader to decide the
>> obviously apparent facts of the matter.
>
>
> Sure -- any conflict with the Kurds is pro-Saddam! Your grasp of
> geopolitical interactions is anything but shallow!  ;)
>
I didn't say that, did I? No, I didn't fool. The logic is there for 
anyone who is not a propaganda chanting fool to see. If it were 
controlled by the Kurds it would be a small matter to move into the area 
and deal with them scum. However if it was defacto under Husseins 
control they could have provoked another nerve agent attack Hussein was 
so fond of using against them. Now, that's clear enough even to someone 
with severly diminished logical faculties. Is it clear enough for you?

>
>> Non-sequiters won't be answered.
>
>
> Non-answers will be noted and forwarded to your mom.  :)
>
>> Discredited by whom. You cite the ones which have been, by whom and
>>  provide substantiation. I know of none which have been discredited
>> so I wouldn't know which ones to cite.
>
>
> You haven't cited a believed-credible source on a believed-credible
> claim. You've asserted and implied a few things, but there's no sense
> in asking me to chase your ghosts for you when you fail to provide
> cites. An assertion without a cite is always suspect.
>
>
I provided the one below.

>> For instance, was the meeting in Prague, reported by Czech
>> intelligence discredited? By whom? How do they know? What is there
>> proofs?
>
>
> If you're referring to the spun-up leak of that Feith memo, the DoD
> had this to say:
>
> -- start DoD --
>
> No. 851-03 IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 15, 2003
> --------------------------------------------
>
> DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections
>
> News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new
> information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a
> letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
>
> A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27,
> 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in
> response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of
> the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide
> the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in
> his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the
> relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
>
> The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a
> list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee
> could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the
> Intelligence Community.
>
> The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or
> products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision
> of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by
> other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence
> Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond
> to the Committee's question. The classified annex was not an analysis
> of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al
> Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.
>
> Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are
> doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable
> and may be illegal.
>
> -- end DoD --
>
> You have to admit, the DoD *ought* to be eager to say that Mrssrs.
> Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were 100% on-the-bling about that
> Saddam-loves-Osama thing... but they ain't sayin' it.
>
Gee, seems to me that particular meeting was in no way refuted. Perhaps 
you missed the most important part of the quote you yourself provided;
The classified annex was not an analysis
"The classified annex was not an analysis  of the substantive issue of 
the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."

Here's what the Washington Times reported;
 "The Czech government notified the State Department in October 2001 
that its domestic security service, known by the acronym BIS, had 
monitored a meeting in Prague between Atta and al-Ani in April 2001 — 
five months before the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks."

Notice the word "monitored". Now just how did the DoD discredit that? It 
came from a completely independent Czech internal security force and 
such organizations are not in the habit of divulging such information.

>> Before the war they struck targets throuout the world. The US and
>> Bali, embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the
>>  Philippines. Their only serious attack since the war was in Saudi
>> Arabia.
>
>
> So, it's unlikely to you that instead of killing civilians all over
> the world, they're now streaming into Iraq to kill U.S. troops
> instead?  That's what the administration wanted us to believe a few
> weeks ago, wasn't it?  Oh, and terrorism in Israel... let's see THAT
> graph, too.  :-/
>
Oh, I forgot, the violence in Israel didn't exist until after March of 
this year. And yes, I'd much rather them be in Iraq fighting armed 
troops instead of the US bombing civilians. That is what they get paid 
for. They are all volunteers and knew the risks.


>> You're an individual who seems incapable of recognizing obvious
>> facts.
>
>
> I'm really good at pointing out baseless assertions, and lack of
> cites, though, so I'm not all bad.  :)
>
Yes, and Winston Churchills assertions called "baseless" until 9/1/1939.
>
>> I can only assume your mind is clouded from the truth by propaganda
>> and indoctrination. Unless you can limit your rebuttals to cogent
>> arguments and serious questions go away before you get me
>
> irritated.
>
> Hey, respond or don't. Your call, your nickel.
>


--
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an
equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906)