Richard Armitage: al Qaeda in Baghdad

Are you surprised by the rather dove-ish member of the admin. saying this, or by the fact that Al-Quaeda is in Baghdad?

I'm surprised the president didn't bother mentioning it in his speech.

Interestingly, I heard there was evidence of Al Qaeda in Jersey on 9/11. We should bomb the fuck out of Trenton.

"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

Again, I pose the same question:

Since all of this information comes from "inside sources" like the militant kurd factions who war with Hussein and have a lot to gain by him being taken out, and because some of these SAME factions ALSO aid Al-Queda in the parts of Iraq that they control, how reliable is this information?

Yes, Al-Queda is IN Iraq. Are they being assisted and sanctioned by Hussein? Unlikely given the following facts:

- We're still offering him taxpayer-provided exile/haven for him and his family. An offer that hasn't been extended to not ONE other Al-Queda-associated individual on the PLANET EARTH.

- He and Bin Laden are ideaologically opposed and have clashed in the past.

</strong>

It's a non-existent case. Virtually everyone in that region wants to see that guy go, and they have every bit of motive to make something up.

The wonderful things about rumors is that when they're being repeated enough, people just start accepting them as fact. It's not. I have "sources" that tell me this allegation is a crock of poop. There. Now, I'm just as credible with just as reliable a foundation.

</strong>

Huh? What pressure? From who? He's hated as Bin Laden is, and not loved nearly as much. If we have anything near reliable proof, shouldn't THAT be the focus of our invasion NOW without UN approval just as it was for us invading Afghanistan to engage The Taliban?

It's not because we don't have any such link. If the proof was even close to being real, we'd have stormed in already.

And we CERTAINLY would not be dangling "exile" in front of him.

Why does them being ideologically opposed matter? I dunno. Maybe because you'd consider that person AN ENEMY, and therefore not aid their cause?

There's a bazillion and one terror networks who have problems with the US. Why would he choose the most infamous and scrutinized - that also happens to be headed by a rival - to support?

Face it: Almost every known circumstance of our stance toward Iraq, Hussein and Bin Laden's relationship, and simple political relaity suggests that Saddam being an Al-Queda patron is a crock of crap. No one is saying they don't have operations in Iraq, but sponsored by him? Very unlikely.