Powell admits: No proof of link between Al Quaeda and Iraq

Remove all ads!

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, so sais Powell ... 'nuff sad.

Another official rationale for war down the drain.

 

Soon there will be very few excuses left. Anyone remember Operation Fly-Paper?

Well, there was once upon a time that such a discovery, the council, or at least, the one who is ultimately the leader, would resign, so to keep their honour intact. Maybe that's just my imagination.

As there is no question of honour in this case -I don't think that even anyone who saw WMD could see the existence of that- then I hope at least that the public goverened by Mad King George (to coin a phrase so aptly designated by Chandros the Red) calls for the succint withrawl of authority from both himself, and all associated with this fiasco. To me they are even more to blame. I'm sorry, but I cannot see shrub as a mastermind. Unless he is perhaps the greatest evil genius to walk the face of the Earth.

But I do not even see this on the far horizon. I, in my uttmost indulgement of vanity, ask for a simple apology, to the world, that is all. Is the admittence of one's mistakes such a terrible thing to ask for?

Edit: It will undermine further efforts; This is what I am expecting to hear. If any of them were a messiah, I might agree with you that the cause takes precedence. But then again, no messiah would have done such a thing in the first place.
If we have no such messiah, then why is this false cause so worthy at all?

Well, perhaps some look to gobal dissolution. I am one of them. It does not mean I would think the time has come.
It does not mean I would enjoy having it happen. It does not mean that I would welcome it at the cost of all our lives.

[ January 09, 2004, 14:18: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

And it seems as if good old secular bastard Saddam had problems trusting foreign islamist volunteers in Iraq. In fact he advised his resistance leaders to beware of them.

Why the hardliners at the Pentagon believed Saddam had to cooperate with Al Quaeda is described aptly below

Because Saddam hated the US he would cooperate with everyone who hated the US too ... That means he would do anything to hurt the US. And because of that he must be attacked before he strikes first.
And because he lies anyway (mind he's evil) you can't believe whatever he sais - so why negotiate at all?

That is perhaps mirror imaging: Just as the neocons would do everything to get rid of Saddam, they probably concluded Saddam in return would do everything to return the favour - thats's perhaps what they would do if they were him ...

With such a mindset it isn't surprising that the neocons favour war over negotiations, they can hardly be negotiated or reasoned with. Their ideological foundation is inpenetrable to doubt.

CIA analysts who told Cheney there was no evidence for a nuke program in Iraq and reportedly went desperate when Cheney told them in return that they didn't know in Gulf War I - so why should he believe them today? Just imagine to discuss with someone like that: Whatever you say, they know better and don't believe you because you're one of those puny biased and defaitist appeasers from CIA/ DIA/ State Department ... and that explains why there had to be an Office of Special Plans.

After all the Al Quaeda link was either just a poor excuse or the paranoid dream of neocons. But who knows, maybe both. I can't really decide what would be worse, paronia or a straight lie ...

The neocons become less weird, when you look back at their careers: Take Perle, dubbed Prince of Darkness for his love affair with nukes, and his persistent resistance to disarmament. It was Perle who at the end of the cold war insisted that the Russians, namely Gorbachev - because they were evil - could not be trusted, and would not dismantle but hide their missiles (sounds familiar?) and betray the US to conduct a first strike on the defenseless US ... I hope he wasn't disappointed to be wrong.

Richard Perle wrote a fiction novel about it, in which his counterfeit convinces the president, against obstuction of the ... deluded ... realists ... ... in State Department, of the evil intents of Mad Ivan's "Operation Deep Sleep", the hiding of their missiles to nuke the naive credulous, disarmed US. Perle's book was titled ... how else ... "Hard Line" More on that in an article in the Boston Globe.

Just as they feared the commies in the cold war, they today project the sum of their fears on militant Islam and blow it up to an almighty godzilla coming for YOU. That has to be countered by transforming the middle east in a series of unavoidable wars ... because when we wait any longer, they come for US.

Mind Uri Avneri's Catch 24:

• Catch 24: If the Arabs say they want war, you have to believe them. But if the Arabs say they want peace, they are clearly lying. And how can you make peace with liars?

Clearly, more war is the only choice. And I bet, that document, even though not forged, was made misleading ON PURPOSE, to lure us in the belief that Saddam did not have any contacts with Al Quaeda ... how cunning, but they can't fool me, I know he had, oh yes ... hihihi ... No, not the straightjacket again!

 

The basic train of thought as reconstructed by me:

And because he's evil, what other reasons do we need? Whatever we say he did, he's guilty of something anyway, and evil.

If he lies, and he lies because he's evil, why can't we lie too? But we're not evil, of course. Saddam is.

 

Anyone played Max Payne 2?

Now why is it that this makes me think of John Mirror.