The lack of a link continues
Al Qaeda videos found in Iraqi weapons raid. But there’s no link here. Keep it moving.
7 Responses to “The lack of a link continues”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 5th, 2004 at 10:31 am
Isn’t there some sort of statute of limitations on post-hoc justification for Saddam’s links to terrorism? I mean, the guy hasn’t been in power for 10 months. Honestly.
January 5th, 2004 at 10:31 am
er, plus/minus however many months it’s been now. Math is hard.
January 5th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
So let me get this straight: If we ever, at any time, find any al Qaeda operatives anywhere in Iraq, that means that the Iraqi government was officially responsible for September 11th? Or that the Iraqi government officially supported al Qaeda?
I’d bet you dollars to dimes that we’d find similar stuff right here in the good ole U-S-of-A. Does that mean the USA is “linked” to al Qaeda, and we should invade ourselves?
January 5th, 2004 at 12:24 pm
Nevermind the fact that the cache was a saddam (i.e., government) bunker:
The military did not say how it found out about the weapons, but a member of the Iraq Governing Council has said in recent days that Saddam has begun giving interrogators information about weapons arsenals used by insurgents to attack coalition forces.
January 5th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Did you read your excerpt? It draws a conclusion that isn’t apparent. If the military found these al-Qaeda tapes in a place where Saddam himself told them to look, don’t you think that they would be trumpeting that fact, rather than “not saying” how they found out about the weapons?
January 5th, 2004 at 12:51 pm
The implication is there that he did (by an iraqi council member apparenlty).
January 5th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
See, but that’s my beef: Who’s making the implication? The reporter is making that implication, by tying two separate (and quite possibly unrelated) pieces of information together. But we aren’t given any information to justify that connection; that’s my complaint. The press should not be leading us toward that conclusion unless they’ve got good evidence to support it.
Further, even if Saddam did give the information, that doesn’t necessarily mean that those people were allies. All it tells us is that Saddam knew about it. Rather like the US Government tracking known terrorists without arresting them — does that, by implication, mean that the US Government is supporting terror?