Comments on: V.P. Cheney still trying to sell al-Qaeda/Saddam connection http://www.bloggernews.net/15781 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:29:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: pollyHuber http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-14492 pollyHuber Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:10:09 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-14492 Hi, Most obviouly your quite wrong. Hi,
Most obviouly your quite wrong.

]]> By: Wei Pan http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-11490 Wei Pan Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:03:23 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-11490 Cheney obviously is putting up a charade of being 'genuinely believes' (now even without proof) that there was connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The investigations of Hlliburtun is long overdue and coming soon one hopes. Will he not defend himself ahead of time that this whole Iraq war was started becuase of Halliburton? Who does not know that Saddam was never ever to let anyone highjack the country internally , let alone externally like Al Qaeda ? Cheney, you cannot foll all the people all the time. Cheney obviously is putting up a charade of being ‘genuinely believes’ (now even without proof) that there was connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The investigations of Hlliburtun is long overdue and coming soon one hopes. Will he not defend himself ahead of time that this whole Iraq war was started becuase of Halliburton?

Who does not know that Saddam was never ever to let anyone highjack the country internally , let alone externally like Al Qaeda ? Cheney, you cannot foll all the people all the time.

]]> By: John Williams http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-11289 John Williams Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:49:35 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-11289 One further comment: Jason Easley apparently misread the report, although the difference is not very important. On p. 7 of the PDF version, the quote (presumably of a CIA report) should be, "Saddam and Bin Laden are NOT natural partners [jmw: emphasis mine] ... The two groups nevertheless remained suspicious of each other's motives" The report is available at: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf One further comment: Jason Easley apparently misread the report,
although the difference is not very important.

On p. 7 of the PDF version, the quote (presumably of a CIA report)
should be,

“Saddam and Bin Laden are NOT natural partners [jmw: emphasis mine]
… The two groups nevertheless remained suspicious of each other’s motives”

The report is available at:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf

]]> By: John Williams http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-11281 John Williams Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:02:29 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15781#comment-11281 Jason Easley reports, "In fact the recently declassified report points out, that although it would seem like Iraq and al-Qaeda would be natural partners, they did not work together because each does not trust the other’s motives." If they don't trust each others motives, they aren't "natural partners". Typical military intelligence. Dictatorships and terrorists actually are natural enemies. Look at the way Stalin killed all the anarchists. There's no chance that Saddam would have allied himself with a terrorist organization. However, he might have founded a network of spies, assassins, and spokespersons to inflitrate some foreign enemy. Such activities rather would be, like spying in general, acts of war. I also just have read the declassified report. My concern is with the implied legitimacy of a governmental faction, unregulated and not authorized by law, calling itself "The Intelligence Community" and claiming authority to exclude policy spokespersons from its membership. Mr. Bush has fabricated a "Department of Homeland Security" from legitimate government agencies. Perhaps he should have spared the wasted effort and instead fabricated a "Department of Intelligence" -- with some accountability of membership thrown in. Jason Easley reports, “In fact the recently declassified report points out, that although
it would seem like Iraq and al-Qaeda would be natural partners, they did not
work together because each does not trust the other’s motives.”

If they don’t trust each others motives, they aren’t “natural partners”. Typical
military intelligence.

Dictatorships and terrorists actually are natural enemies. Look at the way Stalin killed all the anarchists.
There’s no chance that Saddam would have allied himself with a terrorist organization. However, he might
have founded a network of spies, assassins, and spokespersons to inflitrate some foreign enemy.
Such activities rather would be, like spying in general, acts of war.

I also just have read the declassified report. My concern is with the implied legitimacy of a
governmental faction, unregulated and not authorized by law, calling itself “The Intelligence
Community” and claiming authority to exclude policy spokespersons from its membership.

Mr. Bush has fabricated a “Department of Homeland Security” from legitimate government
agencies. Perhaps he should have spared the wasted effort and instead fabricated a
“Department of Intelligence” — with some accountability of membership thrown in.

]]>