the only thing i'm wondering, is why on earth bush didn't even hint they had actual HARD EVIDENCE of husseing helping al-qaeda. It surely would have made many of us anti-war people stop and think a bit more.
Lots was said, but i'm almost certain it was never mentioned there was actual evidence of this.

Al, repeating lies and dis-information doesn't make them any more true. You can say the chocolate ration has increased, but that doesn't mean it has, especially when it comes to "flaky ideologues and charlatans".

From that left-wing rag Newsweek:

Cheney has long been regarded as a Washington wise man. He has a dry, deliberate manner; a penetrating, if somewhat wintry, wit, and a historian's long-view sensibility. He is far to the right politically, but in no way wild-eyed; in private conversation he seems moderate, thoughtful, cautious. Yet when it comes to terrorist plots, he seems to have given credence to the views of some fairly flaky ideologues and charlatans. Writing recently in The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh alleged that Cheney had, in effect, become the dupe of a cabal of neoconservative full-mooners, the Pentagon's mysteriously named Office of Special Plans and the patsy of an alleged bank swindler and would-be ruler of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi.

Most of that "new info" has been debunked before. How convenient for Drudge and Fox to link this story before King Bush's visit to the UK.

Reflexively disregarding information contrary to left preconception, though, is perfectly valid.

This administration seems to have a talent for inspiring reflexive disregard. That's unfortunate, because often they're right.

Jadester, much of this evidence seems to have come to light only after the invasion, some of it from documents in the offices of the intelligence services.

Jim, I'm sure you're right. All the US intelligence agencies are just making this stuff up. All the witnesses are lying. All the documents are forged.

As to the photo you referenced: It is bad that some kids got took out of their house and had to sit outside under a blanket while their house was searched. Rather than doing such horrible wicked things, we should just accept the Hussein regime's right to murder and rape at will, and help al Qaeda kill US. Those kids would be SO much better off without US around.

The more this whole mess goes on, the more I'm reminded of Bill Hicks' routine about Gulf War I using the scene in Shane where Jack Palance throws a gun at the feet of a rancher so he has an excuse to gun him down.

The whole scenario of the search for "evidence" is the same thing bent, crooked cops do to cover up their crimes. "He resisted arrest", "It looked like he had a gun, so we had to shoot him 43 times", etc.

Maybe I've been reading too much James Ellroy, but the constant attempts to conflate any evidence, no matter how flimsy, has a stink about it.

So, the whole war has been caused by a lone gunman with a magic bullet, you say?

And it was Newsweek which called bullshit on "intelligence", not me.

Yeah, Jim, that Shane analogy is RIGHT ON. Saddam was just a poor, innocent farmer minding his own business until we tossed a gun in there so we'd have an excuse to shoot him.

thanks Al, I hadn't seen this, been writign about Britney Spears and Madonna all day.

Given that enemies of enemies often work together even if their specific agendas differ - and they certainly come together on the moral imperative of Islamic-culture world dominance - I have no problem believing this, not that I've gathered all the facts yet.

Uh, Saddam Hussein had no interest in Islamic-culture Iraqi dominance, let alone world dominance.

But he did share an enemy with bin Laden.

Or were you talking about Britney and Madonna? 'Cause maybe they come together on... well, never mind.

It's reassuring to know Al agrees with my main point, that the war is being fought for bogus reasons, but the real priority is to find an excuse for producing another Lebanon. Give the US junta enough time, they will find an excuse which sticks.

Since Bush Sr. has deep connections with the bin Ladens, when can we expect to see him shipped off to Gitmo?

And if the war is being fought because Hussain is a murderous dictator, what took you so long? And why haven't you "liberated" the Congo, Burma, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan and so on?

And most importantly: how many degrees of separation are there between Osama bin Laden and Kevin Bacon?

JR, he did as far as it suited him - read his exhortations just prior to the US invasion, read what he just said about jihad-time in the old town tonight. And he would dominate anything he could, including Britney and Madonna.

But Saddam clearly didn't BELIEVE what he said about jihad. He came together with bin Laden over fighting the U.S., not the moral imperative of Islamic world dominance. Had they succeeded in maintaining their respective spheres of influence bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would have found their agendas irreconciliable, as witnessed by the fact that Saddam liked to litter the landscape with statues of himself, whereas the Taliban went around destroying all "graven images".

I notice that the CIA isn't exactly standing behind this memo. From today's Washington Post: "...the Pentagon took the unusual step of saying, 'News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq ...are inaccurate'" And: "Another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather 'data points ...among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true.'"

Al, I think you've just been punk'd.

had we done nothing and then seen saddam aid a major attack on the west, people like jr would be the first ones to criticize bush for failing to do anything because bush didnt want to interfere with his friends' oil profits.

It's called a disclaimer JR. Many many bits of intelligence are unverified because in order to get different ideas about things you have to count on eye witnesses and opinions of people who you either begin to trust or distrust over time. It's not like these things can be backed up with statistics. That is part of the reason that details like this from the intelligence community aren't paraded around.

Idiots would go looking for absolute fact in them and provide them as absolute proof of their ideas, when they are just filtered versions of other people's eye witness accounts and opinions. You need a collection of a bunch of things to make an opinion on whether something is reliable, which is what we have here. It would be very easy for you to debunk all these pieces of evidence one by one, but that would serve no purpose. On an individual basis, many of these things have no credibility, but altogether from different time periods and different sources, how can someone honestly think they mean nothing?

"had we done nothing and then seen saddam aid a major attack on the west, people like jr would be the first ones to criticize bush for failing to do anything because bush didnt want to interfere with his friends' oil profits."

Hmm, perhaps. But since I never opposed the war in Iraq, I see no inconsistancy there.

Craig, I think that is better known as a conspiracy theory. Craig, meet David Icke, David, Craig.

On an individual basis, many of these things have no credibility, but altogether from different time periods and different sources, how can someone honestly think they mean nothing?

W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"
Another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather "data points . . . among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true."

Did you even read what I said? I know you cut and pasted it, but did you read it?

Craig: "On an individual basis, many of these things have no credibility, but altogether from different time periods and different sources, how can someone honestly think they mean nothing?"

Well, if ALL of the items have no credibility, then they certainly don't magically become meaningful just because there are a lot of them. However, if they can't all be refuted, then we should certainly entertain the possibility that where there's smoke there's fire, which I think is what you meant to say.

And I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just pointing out that this "report" is an internal memo that looks more like a fishing expedition for possible intelligence leads. It doesn't seem to be the conclusive proof the Weekly Standard wants us to think it is.

As I said, enemies of emenies often cooperate - that's motivation enough.

Some sources are more reliable than others. Some of these data points will no doubt turn out to be nothing. Some prisoners will tell you what you want to hear, etc.

But there appear to be hundreds, maybe thousands of them. Are they ALL bogus? I find that highly unlikely. If even 10% of these things pan out (I'd guess more like 80% will), that would indicate major co-operation between al Qaeda and Hussein, more than enough to justify the urgent need of taking out this ugly regime- above and beyond all the other good reasons.

In response to criticism that I invented the entire details of my glorious NFL career--that, in fact, I never had such a career--I hereby offer a rebuttal written by mike larkin, a completely objective source.

Try to refute that, you liberals!