Monday, June 06, 2005

My conversation with a person from another world. Part 2

We have continued our discussion via email. Below is our correspondance.


Why don't you just admit that you want to Nixon President Bush. Then, perhaps we can have a civilized discussion. You see my friend, context is everything.


Understanding is more important.


Help me out here buddy. I really need to understand why you are so sure it was wrong to depose Saddam when and how we did. As you know, I have been assuming this has nothing to do with Saddam but is rather a tool with which to beat The President over the head until he pulls a Nixon and resigns. Please show me where I am making the wrong conclusions because your defense of Saddam and assumption he was not a threat in the post-9/11 climate is disingenuous at best.


Now you are assuming disingenuousness. Communication, the fundamental goal of which is understanding, requires an assumption of good faith.

To once again be clear on the main issue here, it's about how pre-war intelligence was handled and presented by policymakers. Here are some resources that might help you understand:¬Found=true,2933,81148,00.html

I hope this helps.


Would you say you know everything the Administration knows about right now?

You assume way too much here. You assume that you have been told of every verified link between Saddam and Al Qaida. I believe there are many more links between these 2 entities that we have not been made privy to. One reason this may be is because efforts to reveal such links have been ignored in the past. Then there is the questions about why Old Europe was so against the war.

As it turns out, the nations on the UN Security Council that most stridently opposed the war—France, Russia, China—were the nations with the most to lose should the war take place. They were the nations most beholding to Saddam, the nations atop the genocidal megalomaniac’s bribes list; atop his armaments suppliers list—and hear this, dear Liberals—atop its oil exploration and development contracts list. (No blood for oil was righter than you knew!) All told, the four-poster bed these nations shared with Uncle Saddam was worth some $200 billion in fluffy anti-war pillows, satin sheets and goose down comforters.

Too convenient don't you think? If you can find conspiracy in The Bush Administration and Tony Blair's office then why not elsewhere? Perhaps you see connections only where you want to see connections?

How about the FACT that Saddam had not ditched his WMD programs as he was supposed to do under Res. 1441 and res. that came prior to that:

Then there are the connections, never asdvertised by the left-wing media of Saddam's communications over the years with Al Qaida.

How about a Saudi/Saddam/Al Qaida connection?

Here is more background on all the Saddam/AlQaida connections that have been vetted so far:

Kevin, I can tit for tat you at every turn. The fact of the matter is that although Saddam did not have the physical weapons the majority of the world's intelligence communities said he had, and in fact some people actually guessed correctly that such was the case, Saddam was indeed up to no damned good. And here is a copy of Resolution 1441 in case it has been awhile since you read it:

Have a great evening,


Let me get a preliminary response out here, you wrote:

> Would you say you know everything the Administration
> knows about right now?
> You assume way too much here. You assume that you
> have been told of every verified link between Saddam
> and Al Qaida. I believe there are many more links
> between these 2 entities that we have not been made
> privy to.

Firstly, the president has a legal obligation to communicate the whole truth about intelligence to Congress. If he withold information that he ought to have communicated, that is an impeachable offense. So
I'm assuming good faith here.

Now let me address the matter of what I have been told regarding links. I have been told by this administration that:

* "We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, September 2002 [54] (

* "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities." -- CIA Director George J. Tenet, October 2002 [55] (

* "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. ... There's numerous contacts between the two" -- President George W. Bush, June 18, 2004 [59]

The intelligence that they disclosed to substantiate these allegations had been discredited, in many cases years before they made these allegations:

* 1994 -- Sudan -- Farouk Hijazi, then head of Iraqi Secret Service, meets with Osama bin Laden in Sudan ([2] ( Hijazi told his aide that "he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because 'if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.'"[3] ( Hijazi, arrested in April 2003, acknowledged the meeting took place but said the two groups established no ties. [4] (

* 1994 -- Baghdad -- Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the bombers in the first WTC attack, flees to Iraq where he is provided with a residence and a monthly stipend by the regime ([5] ( Rita Katz, who directs the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute, noted: "While there may be indications that Abdul Rahman Yasin may have worked for the fallen Iraqi regime, evidence significantly linking al-Qaida to Saddam Hussein still remains unconvincing."[6] (

* 1995, September -- Sudan -- Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed, top explosives expert of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, allegedly meets with bin Laden in Sudan; a second meeting at which Mani-abd-al-Rashid-al-Tikriti, director of the IIS, is also present, supposedly takes place in July 1996 ([7] (, 9/11 Commission Report pg. 468 [8] ( But the 911 Commission final report concluded that such a meeting was improbable at best: "The information is puzzling, since Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, and there is no evidence he ventured back there (or anywhere else) for a visit. In examining the source material, the reports note that the information was received 'third hand,' passed from the foreign government service that 'does not meet directly with the ultimate source of the information, but obtains the information from him through two unidentified intermediaries, one of whom merely delivers the information to the Service.'"

* 1995 -- Salman Pak, Iraq -- several defectors independently report that hundreds of foreign terrorists were being trained in airplane hijacking techniques "without weapons" using a real airplane (variously reported as a Boeing 707 and a Tupolev 154) as a prop at the Salman Pak camp just south of Baghdad, between 1995 to 2000; the training is run by Hussein's Mukhabarat ([9] (, [10] ( This story has been reported by the following defectors: Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami (former Iraqi army captain), Abu Zeinab al Qurairy (former brigadier general in the Mukhabarat), Khidir Hamza (scientist who was director of the Iraqi nuclear program, [11] (, Abdul Rahman al-Shamari (a Mukhabarat agent in US custody), and "Abu Mohammed" (a former colonel in the Fedayeen, [12] ( Khodada provided details of the layout of the camp, now confirmed as accurate, as early as 1998, and Abu Zeinab corroborated the story in 2000. However, some of the sources for this story including Khodada and Abu Zeinab have been associated with the Iraqi National Congress, which has been accused of deliberately supplying false information to the US government in order to build support for regime change ([13] (, [14] ( Inconsistencies in the stories of the defectors have led U.S. officials, journalists, and investigators to conclude that the story was inaccurate. One senior U.S. official said that they had found "nothing to substantiate" the claim that al Qaeda trained at Salman Pak. The credibility of several INC defectors has been questioned on this issue, and the CIA was very skeptical of information coming from these sources ([15] (, [16] ( Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer disagrees: "We always just called them the terrorist camps ... We reported them at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance." ([17] ( and "The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by 'police' for counter-terrorist training. "Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained.([18] ( After the invasion of Iraq, the camp was captured by the Marines ([19] (, [20] ( "after it was discussed by Egyptian and Sudanese fighters caught elsewhere in Iraq". Brigadier General Vincent Brooks described the capture: "The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak." No evidence has been disclosed about any intelligence finds at the camp after its capture, leading some to doubt that anything was found. According to Douglas MacCollam, a journalist for the Columbia Journalism Review, "the consensus view now is that the camp was what Iraq told UN weapons inspectors it was — a counterterrorism training camp for army commandos." ([21] (

* 1995, circa -- Iraq -- Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi (an alias), an Al Qaeda operative, allegedly requests help in chemical weapons training from Saddam. The request is approved and trainers from Unit 999, an Iraqi secret-police organization organized by Uday Hussein, are dispatched to camps in Afghanistan. ([22] ( The source of this information was captured al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who has since recanted.([23] (

* 1997 -- Afghanistan -- Armad Jan, Taliban minister, tells Karl Inderfurth, Assistant US Secretary of State, that the Taliban "had frustrated Iranian and Iraqi efforts to contact" bin Laden. But Inderfurth told UPI that "he did not believe the Taliban claim was credible at the time, and that he had no recollection of Taliban officials mentioning Iraqi or Iranian attempts to meet bin Laden." He said, "I never saw any evidence in anything I was doing where there were any Iraqi connections." ([24] (

* 1998 -- Baghdad -- Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda second-in-command, allegedly meets Taha Yasin Ramadan, Iraqi vice-president ([25] ( The source of this unlikely claim appears to be Yossef Bodansky's controversial 1999 book, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America (p. 322), which makes many similar unsourced claims. There are no footnotes in the book, and there has been no other independent confirmation of this claim, which was republished uncritically by William Safire in a column in October 2001.

* 1998 -- Washington -- Daniel Benjamin, head of the National Security Council's counterterrorism division, heads an exercise aimed at a critical analysis of the CIA's contention that Iraq and al Qaeda would not team up. "This was a red-team effort," he said. "We looked at this as an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom, and basically we came to the conclusion that the CIA had this one right."[26] (

* 1998, February -- Baghdad -- the Mukhabarat arranges for an envoy from bin Laden to travel from Sudan to Baghdad to meet with Iraqi officials; the meeting is extended by a full week ([27] ( These talks, according to the Observer, "are thought to have ended disastrously for the Iraqis, as bin Laden rejected any kind of alliance, preferring to pursue his own policy of global jihad."( [28] (,14478,,00.html?overtureID=observer_generic&displayMode=trail&maxAdCount=3&isSearch=0&siteName=Observer&div_name=§ion_id=102275)).

* 1998, December 18 -- Afghanistan -- Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, allegedly meets with bin Laden in Afghanistan ([29] (,3604,314700,00.html), [30] (,12469,798270,00.html)). Former CIA counterterrorism official Vince Cannistraro notes that bin Laden rejected Hijazi's overtures, concluding that he did not want to be "exploited" by Iraq's secular regime.[31] ( Hijazi, arrested in April 2003, denied any such meeting took place. [32] (

* 1999, July -- Iraq -- Saddam Hussein allegedly cuts off all contact with al Qaeda, according to Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, a former Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody.[33] (

* 2000 -- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi, an Iraqi national with connections to the Iraqi embassy and possibly a leutenant-colonel in Saddam's Fedayyeen, supposedly helped arrange top-level Al-Qaeda meeting attended by Khalid al-Midhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and his brother Salem al-Hazmi, three of the 9/11 hijackers, and Tawfiz bin Atash, responsible for the USS Cole bombing ([34] (,0,6059318.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines)) (see 2000 al-Qaeda Summit) The CIA has concluded that while Shakir al-Azzawi was indeed an Iraqi with connections to the embassy in Malaysia who helped organize the Kuala Lumpur meeting, he is a different person from a Fedayeen officer with a similar name ([35] (

* 2001, April 8 -- Prague, Czechoslovakia -- Czech counterintelligence service claimed that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 hijacker, met with Ahmad Samir al-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat, in a cafe in Prague ([36] ( This claim was based on an eyewitness report by a source for the BIS, the Czech counterintelligence service, and was officially stated by Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman and Interior Minister Stanislav Gross ([37] (, but Czech officials later backed off of the report[38] ( Al-Ani was expelled by the Czech later in April 2001 for attempting to recruit for a terrorist attack against the U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has claimed that "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S. at the time he was supposed to be in Prague. ... We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." ([39] ( There are no known travel records showing Atta leaving or entering the US at that time. Al-Ani, who is in U.S. custody, denies having ever met Atta ([40] (, [41] (

* 2001, summer -- United Arab Emirates -- According to Vanity Fair reporter David Rose, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, two of the 9/11 hijackers, supposedly meet with unidentified Mukhabarat officer ([42] (, [43] ( No evidence has emerged to support this claim.

* 2001, summer -- Saadan Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Aani, colonel in the Mukhabarat (alias "Abu Wael"), allegedly serving as the secret liaison to the Ansar al-Islam Group, works with Al-Qaeda members from Afghanistan to set up a backup base in northern Iraq ([44] (, [45] ( According to Con Coughlin in the Telegraph, "While the White House has attempted to link the group directly to Hussein's intelligence agents, both the CIA and MI6 insist that all their intelligence suggests the group operates in area over which Saddam has no control."[46] (

* 2001, July -- Rome, Italy -- Habib Faris Abdullah al-Mamouri, general in the Iraqi intelligence, allegedly meets with Mohammed Atta, 9/11 hijacker ([47] ( Daniel McGrory, the reporter who claims this information came from Italian intelligence, admits "There is no proof the men were in direct contact." (London Times, 27 October 2001). A June or July meeting in Rome is completely at odds with everything known about Atta's whereabouts in mid-2001.

* 2001, September 5 -- Spain -- Abu Zubayr, an al-Qaeda cell leader in Morocco, allegedly meets with Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, 9/11 financier. Some allege that Abu Zubayr was also an officer in the Iraqi Mukhabarat. ([48] ( Abu Zubayr was arrested in Morocco in 2002 and while news accounts widely noted that he was "one of the most important members of Al Qaeda to be captured," no mainstream source substantiated (or even saw fit to mention) the allegation that the Saudi citizen abu Zubayr worked for the Iraqi Secret police. (James Risen, "Morocco Detainee Linked to Qaeda," New York Times 19 June 2002; see also Al-Hayat 20 June 2002)

* 2002, October 3 -- Phillipines -- Hamsiraji Sali, leader of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf terrorist group, contacts Husham Hussain, deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy immediately after a successful bombing ([49] (, [50] (

* 2002, November 14 -- Baghdad -- Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, officer at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan, is identified as "responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group" in a list of names published an issue of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper by Uday Hussein, interpreted by Judge Gilbert S. Merritt as some kind of private memo ([51] ( Judge Merrit leaves out the passage published at the top of the list, which undercuts his story: "This is a list of the henchmen of the regime. Our hands will reach them sooner or later. Woe unto them." The Defense Intelligence Agency's only comment on the list was, "There are innumerable lists. So you have to ask what does it mean to be on this list? It takes time to sort through all this. People give names all over the place."[52] (

* 2003, February 11 -- Satellite TV -- Osama bin Laden audiotape broadcast on Al Jazeera urges Iraqi Muslims to fight the American invaders who will soon be attacking Hussein's Baathist regime. He reaffirms his view of Saddam as an infidel: "Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."[53]

From a former conterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, I was told:

* "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever" -- Richard Clarke, March 21, 2004 [57] (

From the CIA counterterrorism analyst who specialized in Iraq during the George H. W, Bush administration, I heard:

* "In my judgment, Saddam assessed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Laden wanted to attack Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces." Judith Yaphe, (Boston Globe (3 August 2003).[60](

I have only to conclude from what has been disclosed to me that, while the Bush administration says one thing, the intellgience says something completely different.

To believe something without any evidence is to simply imagine it. However, we can be reasonably certain of the state of intelligence regarding saddam and al-qaeda, as a bi-partisan congressional investigation commmitee did a full investigation into exactly this question (that is, they examined ALL of the intelligence). Their results of their investigation were published in a book called "the 9/11 commission report". In this report, it states that they found "no colaborative relationship between saddam hussein and al-qaeda".

(source: (GNU Free Document License))


"Firstly, the president has a legal obligation to communicate the whole truth about intelligence to Congress."

That is bullshit! After the mockery the media and partisan Democrats have made of what info the President has shared I doubt he is going to be up front about any secret information he knows unless not telling means people lose lives. You know I am right.

Advice: Concentrate on the future. Find something to connect to with the people on!



Do I understand you correctly that you are conceding this dispute in light of the evidence that I have presented?


I am conceding nothing. You refuse to believe anything is different than the way you think it is. You believe your guesses are correct. You assume mountains of stuff you have no way of knowing is true.

You want to get rid of the President. You start with that in mind and then you evolve a scenario of conclusions that naturally leads to that happening. That is not the way the world works.

What I meant about the advice is that unless you know for sure you can get the president and Republicans thrown out of power, your party had better start planning on a message to get out to the people in the 2006 election cycle!


i have not told you the way i think it is. i have not told you my guesses. i have not made any assumptions. i have given you a record of statements that have been made and the state of intelligence prior to these statements, and the conclusion from the bi-partisan intelligence investigation commiteee. none of these things are my opinion.

Again, you are not assuming good faith, which makes it inherently difficult, if not impossible, to communicate, because when you don't assume good faith, you don't genuinely listen to what the other person is saying.

I have not evolved any scenarios, i have presented a thorough record of what has actually happened.

As regards the unrelated topic that you keep bringing up, namely, competition, William Jennings Bryan, known popularly as "The Great Commoner", spoke very eloquently on this subject in a 1896 speech:

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention, I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. ...

We object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The individiual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal, and this has been a contest over a principle. ..."

Many people seem to think of politics in the context of sports. Unlike sports, however, politics is not a game. Political decisions are inherently sociological in their import; they have serious and profound
ramifications that transcend the individual. It is thus that it is imperative to the general welfare that these decisions are considered not as a competition between people, but in the context of their ramifications.

You are right that "unless you know for sure you can get the president and Republicans thrown out of power". That is why we have law. And that is why many people are asking questions to the people who
_do_ know what actually transpired, and honestly trying to get answers. That way, we can all know for sure, instead of relying on guesses or assumptions, as many people have come to do.


Anonymous scroff said...

Great work! That's quite a compendium on intelligence links!

I hate to say this, but it has become apparent through my own discourse with 'the others'... I think we talk over their heads, which is why they reply with the same basic retort... Bush Good, We Bad... it is also why "liberals" are viewed as elitist. We need to start talking like...

Well, see, there's this bad man, and his name's sad damn, see, and he might have set with this other feller, Al Kyder, for a few, but we couldn't really prove it, see, so we just went ahead and spread democracy, just in case, but it might have been against the law, so, now we have to figure it out.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe people the likes of the other Kevin are the ones who will be contributing to any movement concerning the DSM, regardless of how much effort we put into trying to debate the topic with them. It is amusing though.

20/6/05 12:25  
Blogger Techunter said...

I had forgotten we had this conversation. It was a good one. We shlould speak again soon. See me at


17/9/05 20:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results.”
- Herman Melville

RSS is the way of the Future...
rss channel

4/10/05 08:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Find great deals on eBay with the search engine

Great site -

27/10/05 09:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get 1000s of Links pointing back to Your Site... Starting Today!

27/10/05 23:31  
Blogger Dominicans resources said...


Free definition of blogging hosting speicalist

29/10/05 10:11  
Blogger WDM Info Services said...

I like your blog, please list it on my favourite Blog Directory.

It has lots of links to pink blog blogs

William MacDonald

30/10/05 01:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

High Google and Yahoo link popularity can be yours,

30/10/05 23:05  
Blogger WDM Info Services said...

I like your blog, I found it looking for cubs blog. Could you add it to my favourite blog directory please. It has lots of blogs relating to cubs blog

31/10/05 14:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice blog enjoyed it :)

Keep up the excellent work! and i bookmarked u!

31/10/05 17:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

High Google and Yahoo link popularity can be yours,

6/11/05 08:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, excellent website. A great Iraq resource is Deaths in Iraq. It breaks all of the casualties down by age, race, branch of the military, country, etc.

6/11/05 17:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post your Ad to everyday after that, you'll also be able to generate a Viral Traffic Streams absolutely FREE!

11/11/05 03:57  
Blogger Kevin D. Korenthal said...

Kevin Korenthal here, news that Syrian forces are using chemical weapons in Syria brings this topic back into relevance. Where prey-tell did those weapons come from? If a lot of reporting at the time is to be believed, they came from Iraq.

26/8/13 11:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home