1 The horse has been dead for years, yet you still beat it. No serious observer can claim Saddam was cozy with quaeda, or even an imminent threat for that matter, and no reports of meetings with solitary actors tangentially related to al Qaeda will change that. Zarquawi's training camp was out of Saddam's sphere of influence, and Bush actually held off bombing it pre-2003 so as not to blow up a key piece of Saddam-linked-to-quaeda pretext (it's true, look it up!). Iraq was not a legitimate target in the GWOT, and makes the GWOT look like a ruse to justify military action taken for entirely different purposes. Then again, what Bush says must be true... leaders would never obfuscate their true intentions or propagandize with lies, right? We must analyze the GWOT by accepting everything bush says as truth. Then and only then will we really understand what's going on! Laughable.

2 You are an uneducated dolt, desperately grasping at non-extant straws to save your already dead hide. Wake up and smell the rigor mortis.

3 ah yes the magic "documents" that were so valuable to us intelligence that they gave them to fox to review!!!!!

4 I can tell by the disjointed thoughts of the previous posts that Peter Daou's readers has arrived once again to trumpet what they "know" instead of taking the extraordinary step of reading the referenced material. The "Cliff's Notes" mentality really shines through with the comments that have come through so far. Not a single fact rebutted, not so much as a single bit of analysis intelligently argued against. Instead, we get cut and paste generic arguments (no specifics, of course, because details can be challenged)) that haven’t been updated since the war started, and the requisite name calling that shows the true spirit of the “superior” liberal mindset. How about a change of pace, gentlemen and gentlewomen? Why not try discussing the actual evidence presented in this post? You could argue that the high level meetings between members of Saddam’s government and members of the Taliban leadership for “diplomatic and intelligence based cooperation” were done by freelancers, and did not constitute official or even back-channel communications between two known state sponsors of terrorism. You could presumably argue that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar didn’t really have the authorization to speak for the Taliban when he asked Saddam’s government specifically for a “center” in Baghdad or Tajikistan, and you could argue (without any support,.mind you) that this al Qaeda associate was talking about a center of a different sort—a Planned Parenthood center in Sadr City, perhaps? You could even argue that Fazlr Rahman Khalil’s visit to Iraq as a known Taliban/al Qaeda associate who signed bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa against the United States was unsanctioned, or try to present evidence it didn’thappen because Khalil was somewhere else. ANY of these approaches would be welcome, because they question facts and analysis of those facts. Do you think that arguing the facts is possible, or is name-calling and unsupported platitudes based upon what you “know” the best you have to offer?

5 get over it. we have lost 2500 soldiers, spent 300 billion dollars, and killed 50,000 innocent iraqis all in order to overthrow a third rate dictator that posed absolutely no threat to us. AND YOU STILL THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. wanna buy a bridge? do you belong to any cults besides the bush cult?

6 There's no point in "arguing the facts" unless and until we can be sure they ARE facts. If the Administration had any real confidence in this information, they would have to be utterly insane or politically suicidal not to have officially publicized it long ago. They do not seem to be either; I conclude that they don't have confidence in this information. However, they may be cynical enough (because they are pols, not because they are this particular Administration) to milk it all the same by giving those who are willing to believe the chance to latch on it and publicize it on their own. Think about it.

7 I'll cut to the chase: even IF these documents bear a passing resemblance to reality, and even IF the worst of the implications were accurate - there is still FAR LESS connecting Iraq to the Taliban and Al Qaeda than there is Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and others. 'Reaching out' to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to hold meetings about possibly maybe one day working together in the future, simply does not equal the donations of millions in support, resources, passports, money laundering, and other services provided by OTHER Middle Eastern governments to Al Qaeda. Things which have been done by powerful men in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and others. And things which are documented, *undisputed* fact. I remind you that NOT ONE of the hijackers was Iraqi, and that 3/4's of them were from Saudia Arabia. UBL himself is Saudi, and worked with the Taliban. Zarqawi was Jordanian. And yet we invaded a country with a safely contained emasculated dictator, and *brought* Al Qaeda there, increasing their recruiting in the process. This is not a success.

8 Here we go again....Everytime the cheney administration is caught destroying another constitutional item, a new "document" (or something) purporting to prove the administrations claims surfaces. Are you folks really that blind to the manipulation of your thoughts and feelings? I mean, come on. Please use your own brain for a change. It just might surprise you to know that all the folks you are supporting don't give a damn about you, your family, your country, or your future. They don't care about you at all. I know alot of you have invested so much emotion and time in these peop-le, but please stop. I have tried many times to understand why (and how) people would want to be so lied to, and the only reason I can think of is that you are so frightened. I really thought the "right wing" was a strong and confident bunch of Americans. I am now admitting that I was wrong. Those folks are scared out of their minds. What are you afraid of? If it is osama been forgotten, you are mistaken. Even the cheny administration doesn't think about him at all. Why should you? What are we getting for our $300 million dolars a day? And lastly please answer one simple question for me: what civil right would you folks NOT allow to be taken away? Their looking at our medical records, phone and internet, bank and credit, library records, spying on the Quakers, etc...Please answer. What would it take for you folks to finally say "enough". Please remind me again why being a patsy to the administration is patriotic?

9 Jim said, "not one of the hijackers were Iraqi" Brilliant Jim, and not one of the pilots dropping bombs on pearl harbor were German. Tripartite pact anyone? The enemy of my enemy is my friend anyone? Come on now libs, it is much better to admit you are wrong than to show yourselves completely ignorant of history... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact

10 The BIG LIE has been the lefts' strategy from the beginning of Bushes first administration. Remember that the recession started under Bush? And the economy is poor? Then we have ALLLLLL the GWOT and Iraq War lies. No WMD! No relationship with Iraq and al Qaeda! We're losing in Iraq! We have caused al Qaeda to expand. We brought al Qaeda to Iraq! And, may I add the often unsaid, but "known" fact, it is allllll our fault. But, facts do seem to get into the way. These documents are slowly uncovering the lies. WMD found! More and more opeational contacts uncovered between the two parties that never "operational" relationships! Fewer and ever fewer strctly US only ops and increasing Iraqi only ops in the Iraqi war on terror. We can't be losing because that was the goal from early on! I think if we could poll/count heads of al Qaeda we would find that their leadership has been dramatically reduced. Ask ole al Zar! The Big Lie that drives me up the wall is "The Iraqi want us to out! Usually with the implication NOW! But when we ask the Iraqis the same question with NOW! appended the answer is NO!!!!!! Silly season is starting. The Dems have manuevered so that they can take credit for the inevitable redeployment/withdrawal. The rabid red eyed beasts that they consider their base will actually believe the tranparent strategy. Just as they have converted the "Big Lies" to their belief structure. As someone once told me: It is very hard to change someone's beliefs. Slowly my beasties you will see the light. Slowly!

11 Hurray Hurray Hurray!!!! The Right Was Right!!!! Saddam was an Evil Evildoer of Evil Evil for Evil EvilDoers of Evil Evil. Now let's have that victory parade for the Dear Leader and come home before anyone else gets hurt. OK, Righties?

12 Hussein was also host to Rumsfeld when the U.S. was providing Hussein with weapons and money to support Iraq's war with Iran. Watch the video from the NSA archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Stop beating a dead horse. You have no credibility.

13 Saddam Hussein is on trial for murder. Rumsfeld can travel as he pleases. It must suck to be a loser.

14 Wow, who let the loonies out? Hey boys and girls, you are absolutely clueless. The Bush lied and there are no WMD's mantra. You folks need to get over it. Here are the facts. 1) Saddam funneled money to Palistinian Terrorist. 2) Saddam played host to a number of world terrorist. 3) Saddam sent hitmen to kill George H. W. Bush. 4)Saddam stalled lied and manipulated the World Body for years. 5) Saddam continued to shoot at coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones after Gulf War One. Now when they find munitions with sarin and mustard gas the first thing out of the loonies pie holes are. "well its old, nothing to worry about". Did you guy's forget about Syria? Bashir and Saddam had ties to each other. Syria is hosting a bunch of Saddam bathist party members. He had ample time to move his chemical and nuclear programs to Syria. And furthermore why should the Gov't come out and say they found weapons. It doesn't make any difference to you folks it will be spun into a lie and a conspiracy. You guys keep touting the 300million a day. Does any of you know that it takes appoximately 200million a day just in salary and benefits that our troops recieve. Thats even if there at home. They still get paid and they still cost the gov't money. Personnaly I would rather spend the money on them than some B.S. welfare program for people that don't even appreciate what they have nor would get off of their lazy A$$ and get a job.

15 Conservative management of government has now officially been proven to be a disaster, for everyone but the elites that is. Grasping at straws with which to drink the kool-aid is pathetic. I trust you are not a billionaire. If I am correct you had better wake up and start holding the Bush Crime Family accountable. Shrub has no intention of EVER leaving Iraq. Don't bother talking troop levels and withdrawals. Remember the PNAC, and the fourteen PERMENANT bases we're building there. Everything the Crime Family says and does is smoke and mirrors. They plan to keep us all distracted for another three-and-a-half years, and steal '06 and '08 like they did 2000 and '04, so they can keep troops there forever. He plans to give Iraq's oil to Exxon-Mobil, cell phone monopoly to Verizon, etc. He thinks that will be his legacy and make up for all the dead.

16 Hey, Ray. Brilliant. Except that the connection between Germany and Japan was already fact, on the basis of signed treaties. To make a more accurate comparison using WWII examples, invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading Easter Island because of Pearl Harbor. That is, if you are really interested in defeating the enemy who attacked you, both invasions are *pointless distractions*. I bet you could even find some Japanese soldiers stayed at Easter Island at one point. It's in the same region of the world, the Pacific. There's just one problem - it isn't where the enemy was stationed when you attacked. The rest of your response skips all my other points, because each of them destroy this article's argument.

17 Jim said "Hey, Ray. Brilliant. Except that the connection between Germany and Japan was already fact, on the basis of signed treaties." And that is exactly what this document proves, a treaty for diplomatic, intelligence, and security cooperation. Did you read it? I mean, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If you chose not to read it, then how about not wasting everbody's time with un/misinformed commentary that shows no capacity for research or critical thinking. I mean you could just go on over to the MTV blog and say "bush lied" or "vote or die" and that would be just as effective as trying to argue that this document does not show collaboration. Stop embarassing yourself, the grown ups are trying to speak now.

18 Pssst! I have some documents that show Saddam tried to buy uranium from some place in Africa! They came from the notebook of some guy names...ummm...Muhammad. Thats it. Muhammad. And they were translated by a guy named...errr...Ali! So obviously they are real. Snark aside the US had better diplomatic relations with the Taliban then Saddam. We were paying them off to not grow opium. I wonder how much H an enterprising PFC can hide in the hold of a C-130?

19 I wonder how much H an enterprising PFC can hide in the hold of a C-130? About half as a Kennedy can hide booze in a rum runner, or twice as much as William JEfferson can hide in his freezer. Why do you ask?

20 Man, those Kennedy and Clinton jokes just never get stale! No wonder pseudoconservatives are losing the comedy war.

21 Dumbass: "I can tell by the disjointed thoughts of the previous posts that Peter Daou's readers has arrived once again to trumpet what they "know" instead of taking the extraordinary step of reading the referenced material. " CNN Article: Old news. Thanks anyway. Doesn't prove jack. Navy Article: Abu Nidal: Location/Area of Operation Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintained a presence until Operation Iraqi Freedom, but its current status in country is unknown. Known members have an operational presence in Lebanon, including in several Palestinian refugee camps. Authorities shut down the ANOÂ’s operations in Libya and Egypt in 1999. The group has demonstrated the ability to operate over a wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. However, financial problems and internal disorganization have greatly reduced the groupÂ’s activities and its ability to maintain cohesive terrorist capability. External Aid The ANO received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations. Yeah, we've known about them forever too. But there's one important caveat to using them as EX POST FACTO rationale for those whose Kool Aid wasn't strong enough. I'll tell ya at the end of my post. USA Today in 2003 on Yasin: "The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved." Now, what's that about Al FRIGGIN' QAEDA? WHAT? OHHHHHHH... N O T H I N G ! ! ! CY, exactly what are you trying to accomplish with your links from 2003? Pretend you don't love the hits that Daou generates. If only you didn't have to lie to get them...

22 The Iraqi insurgents are not terrorists. The War On Terror is a fake. Remember, we are killing the Iraqis to set them free, free of their bodies, that is. So our multi-national corporations can take over their economy and we can build permanent bases there.

23 "About half as a Kennedy can hide booze in a rum runner, or twice as much as William JEfferson can hide in his freezer. Why do you ask?" Yeah, liberal. Take that! It's also about 1/4 of the number of oxycontin/viagra/vicodin/etc. that Rush can cram between his man-tits. Oh, and it looks like he's not done yet. Busted AGAIN!!! Incidentally, look where he was with his viagra: From a 2001 Wired.com article: the Dominican Republic is one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, thanks in part to Internet sites that extol the country as a "single man's paradise." ... Among banner ads for Viagra, members can shuffle through pictures of dull-eyed prostitutes engaged in flagrante delicto with the members/amateur pornographers. You neocons are such hypocrites, that it's just too easy.

24 This is pathetic. You guys sound like little kids arguing on the playground. All of you. You guys don't deserve to have policy debates.

25 Still holding on tight to that lie and trying to breath some more life into it eh? Everything the conservatives have said would happen in Iraq has turned out to be wrong. Everything liberals said turned out to be right. The conservative movement is morally bankrupt. Even your theories on tax cuts equaling smaller government have been proven wrong by the Cato institute. You are a group of people who say one thing and do another, whose principles are determined by whatever wins elections. the conservative movement is a joke. For years you have railed on anti poverty programs that amounted to almost a billion dollars a year (heritage foundation) yet your pathetic incompetent government spent 1.5 billion on Public Relations in the same year. And the conservative movement is full of cowards. Cowards who are willing to trumpet the military but not sign up, who are perfectly all right risking the lives of innocent iraqis in the "fight for freedom" as long as they do not have to risk a single thing themselves. Fight them over there not here? Thats the call of cowards afraid to risk their own for what counts. The recruitment age is now 42. Go put your blood where your mouth is. I am not afraid of Al Q and never have been. The conservative movement however is frightened of their own shadow. the elephant afraid of the mouse.

26 Ray, what did you read? This is what I read. Quoted directly from the article at the top: "Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad." So, IF these documents are correct, some people who worked for Saddam invited some guy who worked for Al Qaeda to talk about possibly having training centers in Iraq at some time in the future. - How is that a signed treaty? - How does that even prove a treaty ever existed? - How is that even an operational connection of any sort? - How does that show that Saddam and Al Qaeda every actually did anything? Answer: it does not, in any way, show that any of these things actually existed. You might as well say that Rumsfeld and Saddam worked together to gas the Kurds, because they met twice. That would be just as ridiculous. Ray, please look at the quote, and look at what you made it mean. The difference between the two, is the difference between what is, and what you want to believe.

27 "This is pathetic. You guys sound like little kids arguing on the playground. All of you. You guys don't deserve to have policy debates." You want policy debate? You came to the wrong place, buddy...er...Dad.

28 You might as well say that Rumsfeld and Saddam worked together to gas the Kurds, because they met twice. That would be just as ridiculous. Right. It wouldn't be riduculous, however to say that Rumsfeld and Saddam worked together to gas the Iranians.

29 Uh huh, right. So where is the evidence for any kind of active collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda? After all, if merely hosting a representative make you part of their team, then Saddam was on Rumsfield's team. Yes, Saddam seems to have been trying to stay on good terms with al Qaeda: "Yeah, guys, we'll have to do something together sometime soon. I'll call you. Buh-bye." Then again, that's probably good diplomacy in dealing with fanatics who are prone to send in stooges with explosive vests if they decide that you are a Bad Muslim.

30 KC - sure. That was probably exactly what they meant to discuss. That's why the US was Saddam's ally for most of the 80's and up to the first Gulf War - he was the enemy of our enemy Iran. We sold him tons of weapons, propped him up financially. And when I say 'we', I of course mean the Reagan-Bush administrations. With many of the same players, including Rumsfeld and Cheney. This inconvenient history somehow gets lost by conservatives in the Iraq debate. I wonder why?

31 jim x said "Ray, please look at the quote, and look at what you made it mean. The difference between the two, is the difference between what is, and what you want to believe." is now a good time to tell you I may know what the quote means better then you do? I mean, I am the author after all.... the very fact that you did not know I am the author is a good indication you really have no idea what you are talking about... now put your head on your desk and play the quiet game.....lol BUT ANYWAY -How is that a signed treaty? - How does that even prove a treaty ever existed? - How is that even an operational connection of any sort? - How does that show that Saddam and Al Qaeda every actually did anything? It is a verbal treaty as evidenced by the fact that both the father of the taliban and the IIS director agreed to cooperation on dimplomatic, security, and intelligence fronts. The bosses agreed to it, that makes it a fact. Again, they both said they would work together on diplomatic, intelligence, and security matters. How is that not operational? How does that prove they really did anything? I am sure that both parties had something better to do than to sit around and make agreements for no particular reason. I mean, we have three terrorist leaders meeting with the highest ranking people in the Saddam regime. Doesn't that tell you something? Of course, you couldn't figure out who you were talking to anyway. Guess drawing those dots isn't a particular talent of yours, LOL

32 is now a good time to tell you I may know what the quote means better then you do? I mean, I am the author after all.... You are not the author of the quote, are you? The evidence you don't know what it means, is proven below. It is a verbal treaty as evidenced by the fact that both the father of the taliban and the IIS director agreed to cooperation on dimplomatic, security, and intelligence fronts. The quote doesn't say that. AT ALL. The quote says they would have a meeting to discuss it. Period. You really do need to go back and read it again. You being the author of the article, makes this misinterpretation into what you want to believe, even worse. The bosses agreed to it, that makes it a fact. Got a signed document? No. Got a taped agreement? No. Got a credible witness? No. Got any evidence after this that they worked together? No. If you have no evidence, then it is not a fact. Period. Again, they both said they would work together on diplomatic, intelligence, and security matters. How is that not operational? That is not what they said. Do I have to quote the quote for you again? The quote, if true and accurate, only says they discussed meeting to discuss it. If someone schedules an interview to hire me, does that mean I got the job? I can tell you, no. So. What leads you to be so certain a discussion DEFINITELY means an agreement, with no other evidence? Of course, you couldn't figure out who you were talking to anyway. No. I assumed the writer of an article would have a clearer understanding of a quote that he was building his case on. My bad. Guess drawing those dots isn't a particular talent of yours, LOL No, I don't draw dots and then connect them. I at least try to find dots that are already there. In other words, I try to make decisions about the world depend on evidence. When they aren't clear, and what is clear is that there is no pressing danger, I don't send in soldiers to die. Nor do I draw dots afterwards, in a desperate push to prove a bad idea was a good one.

33 jim x said "You are not the author of the quote, are you?" I will try to make this as simple as I can. Yes, I am. Look at the name on this comment. "Ray Robison" Look at the name of the author of the fox news article that this post is about. "Ray Robison" For the reasoning impaired: I am the author of the quote, I wrote the article, I am the author of the Saddam Dossier, I did the original research, I read every word of the translations Maulana Falzur Rahman and the vice president of Iraq both said "we will enter into a secret intelligence relationship." doesn't get much clearer than that. if you choose not to understand that, well you can take a horse to water....

34 a little help then? the VP of Iraq "For the future we think that we will arrange relations between us, as an intelligence service, and them in a secret way to establish the strong base of this relation." Fazlur Rahman: "Concerning the relations between the Taliban and Iraq I was informed that they are going to start those relations in a secret manner and they are waiting for the answer and I will inform them that you will answer them through the embassy" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200820,00.html

35 Well then, thank you for clarifying that, and for for finally providing some sourcing. Now, quoting from Fox's own analysis of this information, at the bottom of that URL which you provided: Due to the information provided in this notebook, we see a possible secret, intelligence based, operational relationship between the Taliban and the Saddam regime Emphasis mine. Intelligence-based, with the Taliban. Which, while being a vile government, was not itself in any way an international terror organization. The US itself maintained relations with the Taliban up until just after 9/11. ...We also have an annotation that indicates Pakistani Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a known bin Laden associate, Al Qaeda terrorist and a 1998 fatwa co-signatory, also was traveling to Iraq in 1999. This annotation is about meeting with a member of Al Qaeda. The note, and the analysis, says nothing further about any operational connection of any sort between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. So, "for the reasoning impaired": - The Iraq agreements you mention were proposed with the Taliban. - The Taliban does not equal Al Qaeda. Right? Is that simple and direct enough? The Taliban was/is a government, or at least a group of warlords, in a specific geographical area. NOT an international terror group, and most specifically not Al Qaeda, which was run by the Saudi UBL and was almost entirely Saudi funded. - In the info you cite, there is STILL no operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Got some other actual connections to cite, that don't offer this false conflation of the Taliban with Al Qaeda?

36 jim x said "Well then, thank you for clarifying that, and for for finally providing some sourcing." jim, this post which Bob has created on his web site is about the source article, the one quoted here, the quote that you argued with me about. you may have realized if you went to the link "getting stronger". Trying to say I had not sourced my statement is completely stupid. Cease and desist from embarrassing yourself any further as I dont think my sides can take the laughter any more. Really, my sides literally hurt from somebody explaining to the author of a quote what the quote really meant. But at least you have been wonderful fodder for the visitors on my website whom I have linked over to this article so that they may have a good laugh as well. thank you for that. "Emphasis mine. Intelligence-based, with the Taliban. Which, while being a vile government, was not itself in any way an international terror organization. The US itself maintained relations with the Taliban up until just after 9/11." rrrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttttttt, I guess that is why we went into afghanistan to destroy the taliban. You do realize we fought a war in afghanistan with the taliban, don't you? "the US maintained a relationship with the taliban" FYI, threatening to kick some ones ass for several years is not a "relationship". Clinton was shooting missiles at them for crying out loud. Shooting missiles at someone does not mean you have a relationship. our dealings with the taliban was to make them kick out bin laden so we could get him. Christ, the guy even says so in the translation that they are at war with the US, how do you get we had a relationship with them up until 9/11? this was 1999 for crying out loud! they would not. therfore, they were harboring bin laden. therefor they were working with al-qaeda. it's all very technical you see. "This annotation is about meeting with a member of Al Qaeda. The note, and the analysis, says nothing further about any operational connection of any sort between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda." read part 3 where khalil (the al qaeda terrorist and signatory of the 1998 bin laden fatwa against the US) meets with the IIS director and pledges the support of 120 million people to Saddam. that kind of sounds like Saddam and a major al-qaeda terrorist leader working together, doesn't it? " The Iraq agreements you mention were proposed with the Taliban. - The Taliban does not equal Al Qaeda" jim, the taliban was not the same thing as al-qaeda, nobody said it was, it only hosted, protected, recruited for, provided operation support for 9/11 and fought a war against the US to protect al qaeda. that means that anybody supporting the taliban, was also supporting al-qaeda. and if that is not enough, there are 2 al-qaeda leaders meeting with and making agreements with the IIS. "The Taliban was/is a government, or at least a group of warlords, in a specific geographical area. NOT an international terror group, and most specifically not Al Qaeda, which was run by the Saudi UBL and was almost entirely Saudi funded." oh good lord what is wrong with you? if your neighbor has a guy living with him and that guy tells you neighbor he is going to steal your stuff and he needs a place to hide and your neighbor then provides him with the tools to break into your house and then hides him, isnt your neighbor just as guilty? did he not also steal from you? why is this so hard for you to understand. the taliban provided direct support to al qaeda in the form of training, funds, and safehaven so that al-qaeda could attack us on 9/11. To not accept this is to state that the war agianst the taliban was wrong. Are you willing to state that publicly? there is no way around this jim, either the taliban was helping al-qaeda or not. either we were right to destroy them in afghanistan or not. and if it was right, then they were our enemy and Saddam was supporting them. "In the info you cite, there is STILL no operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Got some other actual connections to cite, that don't offer this false conflation of the Taliban with Al Qaeda?" yes, again in part three, Hekmatyar, also meet with saddam and asked for support with terror training camps. hematyar just recently identified himself as an al-qaeda member. so know we have 2 al-qaeda leaders and a taliban leader (remember jim, we fought them in afghanistan and they supported al-qaeda in the 9/11 attacks) all meeting with saddam and making diplomatic, intelligence, and security agreements. I cant explain it any simpler than that. your refusal to understand the obvious from this point on is your problem and anybody who reads this will now know you are just denying an inconvenient truth.

37 jim, this post which Bob has created on his web site is about the source article, the one quoted here, the quote that you argued with me about. you may have realized if you went to the link "getting stronger". Trying to say I had not sourced my statement is completely stupid. Whatever. The information you based your argument on, was not on this page. It is not my responsibility to argue about anything except what is on this page. Once it's brought here, I'm happy to discuss it. But I am not going to go reading things not directly in this article, to argue against this article. Sorry if that inconveniences you. I could now insult you back for not being clearer about this in the first place, and we can push this around all day. I won't. "Intelligence-based, with the Taliban. Which, while being a vile government, was not itself in any way an international terror organization. The US itself maintained relations with the Taliban up until just after 9/11." rrrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttttttt, I guess that is why we went into afghanistan to destroy the taliban. Hey Mr. Reading Comprehension - note the date I mentioned. "Just after 9/11". I think you realize that we invaded Afghanistan *after* 9/11, right? The US met with the Taliban many times between 1997 and 2001 - http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/ "From 1997 to as late as August 2001, the U.S. government continued to negotiate with the Taliban, trying to find a stabilizing factor that would allow American oil ventures to proceed with this project without interference." therfore, they were harboring bin laden. therefor they were working with al-qaeda. it's all very technical you see. Uh-huh. So 3 degrees of separation means that Iraq helped Al Qaeda pay for and plot 9/11. Only 1 degree further and I'm sure Kevin Bacon was involved. read part 3 where khalil (the al qaeda terrorist and signatory of the 1998 bin laden fatwa against the US) meets with the IIS director and pledges the support of 120 million people to Saddam. that kind of sounds like Saddam and a major al-qaeda terrorist leader working together, doesn't it? No, it does not. Once again, Mr. Reading Comprehension, that sounds like them DISCUSSING it. Because that's what they're doing - talking. Once again, if I go on a job interview, does that mean I definitely work for the company? No. jim, the taliban was not the same thing as al-qaeda, nobody said it was. OK then! So stop using indications of agreement between Saddam and the Taliban, as *certain eveidence* of agreements between Saddam and Al Qaeda. it only hosted, protected, recruited for, provided operation support for 9/11 and fought a war against the US to protect al qaeda. Saudi Arabia also hosted, protected, recruited for, provided operation support for 9/11, and additionally FUNDED Al Qaeda. Saudi Arbia only didn't go to war because they didn't have to - we didn't so much as put an ounce of pressure on them. Ditto Jordan (Zarqawi's home), Syria (sponsors Hamas, among other groups), and Pakistan (where most think UBL is now). that means that anybody supporting the taliban, was also supporting al-qaeda. OK. But, Saudia Arabia supported the Taliban, AND Al Qaeda. And Bin Laden is a member of the Saudi royal family. And 3/4 of the hijackers were Saudi. Therefore we invaded...Iraq. and if that is not enough, there are 2 al-qaeda leaders meeting with and making agreements with the IIS. They're not making agreements. They're at most DISCUSSING making agreements. I'm not going to fight my way through your document. I'm taking you at your word with your translation - but you have to provide a higher level of proof than "they talked about possibly working together in the future". if your neighbor has a guy living with him and that guy tells you neighbor he is going to steal your stuff and he needs a place to hide and your neighbor then provides him with the tools to break into your house and then hides him, isnt your neighbor just as guilty? did he not also steal from you? I supported the invasion of Aghanistan. They harbored UBL - not Iraq. They are the harboring neighbor, in your metaphor. So, let's say that after I take care of the neighbor who harbored the thief, I had a choice of two other neighbors to go after. One shared info with the neighbor who harbored the thief(Iraq). The other shared info, money, resources with the neighbor who harbored - and ALSO did this directly for the thief AND CONTINUED to do so for the thief's whole crew (Saudi Arabia), up to the present day. By your own metaphor, which one should I go after? To not accept this is to state that the war agianst the taliban was wrong. Are you willing to state that publicly? Hello - I support the invasion of Afghanistan. We are talking about the justification for invading and occupying IRAQ. And I repeat: Saudi Arabia provided more support for the Taliban, AND provided direct support for UBL and Al Qaeda, AND this is more heavily documented. ...they were our enemy and Saddam was supporting them. And, once again I repeat: Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Dubai all supporting the Taliban MORE, and most also supported Al Qaeda DIRECTLY. And this trail is more established and documented, as well. yes, again in part three, Hekmatyar, also meet with saddam and asked for support with terror training camps. hematyar just recently identified himself as an al-qaeda member. ...all meeting with saddam and making diplomatic, intelligence, and security agreements. No, sigh, once again, discussing something does not prove agreement. Any more than going on a job interview means you got the job. Let me sum up: 1. I support the invasion of Afghanistan. We are discussing if the invasion of Iraq was justified. 2. You are stating that: a) Iraq agreed to share intelligence and some operations with the Taliban. b) there was some meetings, which produced some discussion about possibly working together in the future, between members of Iraq's gov't and members of Al Qaeda c) this justifies the invasion of Iraq 3. I am pointing out that: a) Iraq working with the Taliban does not prove that Iraq helped Al Qaeda plan terrorist attacks b) even if it did prove that, there are several other Middle Eastern nations which provided far more financial and political support for the Taliban, including Saudi Arabia foremost - and thus would be by this standardmore guilty b) taken at their worst, Iraq's possible connections to Al Qaeda are dwarfed by Saudi Arabia, which DIRECTLY financed and supported UBL and Al Qaeda, and provided him with personnel, resources and cover - which according to the evidence Iraq did NOT. OK? And to just say it again - evidence of hypothetical discussion is NOT evidence of action. I don't know how to be any clearer. In this light, your final statement is as clear a case of projection as I expect to ever see: your refusal to understand the obvious from this point on is your problem and anybody who reads this will now know you are just denying an inconvenient truth.