The Administration has said, however, that it was worried about a number of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, including contacts between senior Iraqi intelligence officers and senior members of al-Qaeda.
Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. [Emphasis added]
So for the White House memo to be conveying truthful information, the Bush administration would need to have followed up any references to” contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda” with reminders that the intelligence community saw no indication that those contacts were fruitful–and that in some cases entreaties were apparently rebuffed. Did they say that?
We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.
The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
Any given day. You can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam. (For more administration assertions of the dubious link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, check out the IRAQ’D mixtape sweepstakes.) If the American people mistakenly think Saddam is tied to 9/11, it’s not surprising . On that count, I think I agree with Dick Cheney.
Peter K. Clarke – https://www.rksloans.com/title-loans-ms 10/9/2007
Kindly provide full fledged citations documenting what the NYT knew, when they knew it, and what any of this proves about Al Qaeda being any more linked to Saddam than Osama was to the CIA. Navel-gazing discussions trying to parse the phrase full-fledged, just waste everyone’s time.
Doesn’t the receiver of information bear any responsibility to assure that what they think is being said, is actually being said? Not to insult but this lack of responsibility is in line with the liberal, entitlement philosophy that “others” that have caused their pain, never themselves. (a paramount difference between Reps and Dems)
When you say, “every fact that the administration said regarding this particular matter was correct”. I don’t see how anything following is material. What better standard do we have than “facts”? Certainly not “impressions.”
The statement, “My charge is that “there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association” ultimately is yours, and the media’s, opinion. Not that you are to be condemned for that, all have their bias’ (for the media however, it is crossing the line).
In the end it is disingenuous for the anti Bush crowd to assert that, “whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.” In fact it is doing the same thing that Bush detractors accuse the administration of, which is, to implicate guilt by association.
andy mahan – 9/
You raise an interesting point, which is if I am not mistaken, that anyone capable of being manipulated when the truth could be sought after deserve what they get.