Iraq and Afghanistan .

counte said:
I've shown there was at least "some" evidence of a plot that was obtained by the FBI and other US officials.
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.
counte said:
Your link, by the way, is a fucking joke. Though it does offering telling insight into how you build your bullshit. Remote-controlled CIA planes? Really, Ice, is this what you spend your time reading?
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:
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.

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.

There is no "evidence" presented from any other source, nor has there ever been any found - even from places where it was expected.

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...

That site is pretty informative, yes. Good links, in particular.

It's a joke. Like your arguments.

I'm going to hold off on the mockery until you confirm the comical misreading you appear to have committed, btw.

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:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

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?

A courtesy, which you certainly haven't earned by extending it to others.

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:
count said:
The report speaks of investigators on the scene, forensic examinations and intelligence collection.
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.
count said:
I've shown there was at least "some" evidence of a plot that was obtained by the FBI and other US officials.
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.
wapo 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.
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.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah
also:
seymour hersh 1993 said:
Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was {false, editor interpolation, see above}. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.
- - -
Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, - - Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment.
 
Back
Top