Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (12027)	2/15/2006 3:32:54 AM
From: 8bits	Respond to of 540785

Well he apparently entered (as far as can be determined) Iraq after 9/11. The area you refer to in Northern Iraq was part of the No Fly zone. The Iraqi government is reported to have had little control over the area. (Apparently there were more contacts with Iran..) These guys slip through many countries with false passports and the like. Al - Qaeda likely had operatives in every country in the Middle East. They have the funding and the ability to move around. "In Colin Powell's famed February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[8][9] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[10] In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian, but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the White House because Zarqawi's removal would undercut the case that war on Iraq was part of the War on Terrorism. en.wikipedia.org

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (12027)	2/15/2006 9:40:42 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 540785

I suspect what SC meant was the same as the 9-11 commission's statement. They, as you know, argued there was no evidence of operational connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam. If you have such evidence, please offer it. By the way, the "you are flat out wrong" statement strikes me as counter to the tone Dale wants on the thread and several of us have struggled to maintain, with uneven success. I think the metaphor of a debating society is not appropriate here. It's rather a conversational hang out place.