Iraq and Afghanistan .

Discussion in 'World Events' started by mike47, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If you read the report you linked, you will discover that it is an evaluation of "evidence" and "co-conspirators" identified as such and supplied to the US investigators by the Kuwaiti government intelligence services.

    There is no "evidence" presented from any other source, nor has there ever been any found - even from places where it was expected.
    That site is pretty informative, yes. Good links, in particular.

    I'm going to hold off on the mockery until you confirm the comical misreading you appear to have committed, btw. A courtesy, which you certainly haven't earned by extending it to others.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. countezero Registered Senior Member

    I am well aware of what the report is.

    I am also aware, because I can read, that at its very top, it concludes: "that Iraq was behind the attempted car bombing." And in your oh-so-celebrated-link, Paul Pillar says pretty much the same thing. I'll go with the report and the man who was the head of CTC.

    Again, can you read? The report speaks of investigators on the scene, forensic examinations and intelligence collection. That's evidence. And furthermore, it's US evidence and not feed from the Kuwaitis. Do you really think the US government would not thoroughly investigate an alleged attack on a former US president?

    I won't even continue this line of inane thinking by asking why you think the Kuwaitis fed it to us, why you think Clinton was so eager to hit the Iraqis with a meaningless strike and why you think Bush still talks about the assassination attempt (he believes it happened), because I am sure you have some cockeyed, Cheney-backed, pipeline, "righty" and "authoritarian" theory that explains it all -- a theory backed up, no doubt, by nothing more than speculation, innuendo, bias, mania and Left-wing blogs...

    It's a joke. Like your arguments.

    I admit, I misread it. Doesn't change the fact you claimed there was "no" evidence of a plot. I've shown there was at least "some" evidence of a plot that was obtained by the FBI and other US officials. So yeah. It's over. You lost. Move on...

    But if you want more, then see:

    In that, we find:

    "Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

    After two months of investigation and mounting evidence, Clinton became convinced during two "exhaustive and exhausting" meetings last week that Iraq was indeed behind a foiled car-bomb plot to kill Bush during his visit to Kuwait April 14-16, a senior administration official said.

    Clinton was persuaded to act by three kinds of evidence, a senior intelligence official said last night. First, key suspects in the plot confessed to FBI agents in Kuwait. Second, FBI bomb experts painstakingly linked the captured car bomb to previous explosives made in Iraq. Third, unspecified intelligence assessments concluded that Saddam meant seriously the threats he has made against Bush. Other classified intelligence sources supported this analysis, the official said.

    The combination made the CIA "highly confident that the Iraqi government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence service to assassinate former president Bush," said the intelligence official."

    But you're right. There's "no" evidence there was a plot right?

    You're right. I should take pity on you and attribute your factual errors in recent months to misreadings. As I have just shown, we can all make mistakes.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, it doesn't. It speaks of questioning of suspects supplied by Kuwaiti intelligence, forensic evaluation of "evidence" supplied by Kuwaiti intelligence, and conclusions drawn therefrom, all of this several weeks after the alleged foiling of the crime and capture of the "evidence".

    There were no US intelligence or forensic specialists at the scene of the crime. The evidence evaluated was entirely secondhand, supplied weeks after it was allegedly obtained at the scene.
    Not obtained - evaluated, under the assumption that it had been obtained from the scene of an attempted assassination. Nothing backs that assumption. Much circumstance, then and later, casts doubt on it.
    Everything there rests on the assumption that the Kuwaitis were supplying what they said they were supplying - stuff from a car bomb, conspirators caught attempting assassination, etc.

    If, as others suggested at the time and a growing body of evidence supports, the Kuwaitis were lying once again* in order to bring the US to violence against Iraq (or in the service of some yet more devious plot hatched by factions in the US itself), if (for example) the "assassins" were coerced whiskey smugglers with rehearsed stories and the "car bomb" cobbled together from Iraqi stuff picked up by Kuwaiti intelligence (they botched the explosives, but that would have been the hardest stuff to find or match), then the entire report there and all of Clinton's "intelligence" is so much garbage.

    And that second possibility, unlike the first, matches everything that we have from every independent source of evidence.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. countezero Registered Senior Member

    If your ego is really so fragile that you want the last word then take it. But you lost. Again. Move on.

Share This Page