[quote=Ray;373561]
Quote:
|
I have doubt that the Iraqis had any collaborative contact with AQ.
|
Ray, so far so good.
Quote:
My reasons are:
Had they had any serious collaborative contact, the US would not let go of the opportunity to highlight the same so that there was an open and shut case against Saddam.
|
Here we diverge. You're correct to the extent that had the US possesed any documentary evidence of collaboration or contact with Al Quida, they would have played it for all it's worth. But that does not mean there were no contacts.
To reiterate, any intel organization worth its salt would have sought contact with AQ if only to gather information. Playing up normal ops might be disingenuous. Intel people wouldn't have found it conspiratorial, but the public might.
As an "open and shut" case against Saddam, the standards of jurisprudence don't apply in making a case for war. The court of public opinion operates on moral and strategic grounds. A dispassionate view of the threat posed by terrorism on the US and its vital interests formed a solid basis for taking out Saddam. In war, as you well know, General, a country which poses a latent threat combined with continuing hostility is subject to preemptive attack by its enemies.
Despite that principle, it is often better to let the evidence mount before attacking. In that sense, the US may have gone to war too quickly. History will settle that question, and it may well settle it on the side of the US, but that is a long way off.
Quote:
|
Such a information blitz was required since there was, even before the war, a lot of scepticism about Iraq really having WMD. A proven nexus with ObL and AQ would have convinced many sceptics that at least there was good reasons to neutralise Iraq even if one was doubtful about the WMD conenction.
|
You may recall that I consider the WMD pretext a sideshow to the real reason for attacking Saddam's Iraq. WMD was the only one the USG believed had legs. When it came up a dry hole, public opinion went south. The real reason was far too complex for the average citizen to understand, and what the public doesn't understand, it does not support.
[
Quote:
During the Congressional Hearing, such a fact with documentary proof would have surely been produced and emphasised with all power at the Administration's command, to indicate a collabortive nexus with ObL and AQ.
Even now, if such a collaborative nexus between Saddam and AQ can be established without doubt and beyond being speculative, it would calm the turbulent waters in the Congress and the world; especially so when the Administration is losing its unquestioned grip over dictating the terms of how to conduct the Iraq War and losing its hold over the US public and which is a serious problem for the Republicans in view of the looming Presidential elections.
|
I agree, with the stipulation that while traces of evidence do not constitute hard evidence, they may indicate there is evidence yet to be found.
Quote:
If the so called neocons could be speculative then, any cognisable proof would make them jubilate as a Fourth of July parade and fireworks display.
In the field of disinformation the 'conjecture' factor is a very important one. The 'Maybe/ could be/ should be' plants a seed of doubt and that works and planted with seeds of doubt that are in the popular imagination, a lie gets the foundation of 'truth'. Saddam having been demonised, a 9/11 connection would not surprise anyone. Hence, a 'could be' statement would surely be converted to 'must be' in the popular imagination!
|
Time to bury that neocon term--they're mostly gone--, but, yes, if documents or unimpeachable testimony surfaces to establish that Saddam's people were consorting with AQ or other terrorists organizations, there will be a media "parade" in the US.