Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (1 Viewer)

[DadsDream]

Ummm, how is that term in a strict Pentagon sense applicable to Al Queda, since they do not have overt standing organizations, especially in the course of clandestine operations spanning multiple countries?

"operational links" in the case of Al Queda means knowledge of and direct material support of plans to launch an attack against the United States.

Nothing in the documents captured from Saddam showed any such thing.

That is the key point here, not the debate on semantics.

That is the key point which you wish to make, true.

It is not the key point of the report.

The news story proceeds from a misinterpretation of the report.

 

[blackadder]

Yes, it is silly that a news reporter and a headline writer took a Pentagon report, written in Pentagon language and interpreted it for the public using the standard English meaning of a key word, rather than the Pentagon meaning of the word.

How is the Pentagon meaning of the word relevant to Al Queda when Al Queda does not operate in one country in division sized units?

What is the relevance of the Pentagon's conventional military terminology to Al Queda?

 

[DadsDream]

How is the Pentagon meaning of the word relevant to Al Queda when Al Queda does not operate in one country in division sized units?

What is the relevance of the Pentagon's conventional military terminology to Al Queda?

It's relevant because it's the entire premise of the news story and is contained in the two opening paragraphs which tends to contradict what the headline says.

That's misleading, in my opinion.

 

[BullDawg]

Pardon me for interrupting the ping-pong match.

Just in case y'all missed my "CYA" point...

If, by chance, some evidence does come about that there was indeed some level of coorperation between Sadaam and AQ, the Pentagon will simply point out the "operational" level clause. On the other hand, if the more likely occurs and there is never any evidence of a connection made, the Pentagon will simply point out where they said the report said there was no connection conveniently leaving out any mention of the "operational" clause.

 

[RebSaint]

I'm an editor.

What is being an editor have anything to do with focusing on some obscure, almost irrelevent minutia which arguably doesn't have anything to do with anything relevant to anybody who's not in the Pentagon?

 

[LSSpam]

This thread was so predictable it's practically a cliche at this point.

PS Dads. The military uses the word "operation" in more then one fashion doesn't it?

Yep

 

[DadsDream]

What is being an editor have anything to do with focusing on some obscure, almost irrelevent minutia which arguably doesn't have anything to do with anything relevant to anybody who's not in the Pentagon?

I was slammed for "parsing words."

 

[RebSaint]

You're assigning intent where there is none.

*Whiff* I had to break out this oldie, but goody.

 

[TPS]

 

[DadsDream]

This thread was so predictable it's practically a cliche at this point.

PS Dads. The military uses the word "operation" in more then one fashion doesn't it?

Yep

Not in this case:

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

Back to what Bulldawg said.

 

[LSSpam]

Not in this case:

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

Back to what Bulldawg said.

You know about a gazillion times more about the military then I do but i'm pretty sure I've got the common sense in this thread wrapped up.

There is 0% chance the Institute for Defense Analyses wrote a report to tell us Al Qaeda had no divisional formations in Iraq. None. 0%. No chance. Nada.

 

[blackadder]

Not in this case:

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

Back to what Bulldawg said.

In the straightjacketed world of Pentagon terminology you describe, where "operational" implies "division sized units in one country or region" why would the Pentagon spend good money to contract with a think tank to pore over 600,000 documents when they already know that Al Queda has no division sized units to begin with????

What's the point?

How can you find evidence of an "operation" with Al Queda when Al Queda is, by the definition of the word, incapable of mounting an "operation."

Limited to your defintions, the only thing you could find eveidence of is Saddam turning one of his divisions over to Al Queda command.

I would have to believe that the millions in taxpayer money were spent for a better reason. But this being the government I guess I'm asking too much...

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

It's relevant because it's the entire premise of the news story and is contained in the two opening paragraphs which tends to contradict what the headline says.

That's misleading, in my opinion.

Dads-
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your assessment of the story is correct.(Quite a stretch) But even so, the concept I think everyone else seems to have a legitimate problem with is it being used as a reasonable basis for invading Iraq. A true leader who loves his country doesn't send our young men and women off to die over such minimal evidence. That is the greatest disrespect for our troops I can imagine.If we used that criteria to invade other countries we'd have to invade dozens of them, and Iraq would be at the bottom of the list not the top.

But then there's the oil.............!!!!

Your posts have all the earmarks of a line of reasoning based on dissecting the language in an effort to support your position, while missing the main point. Not of the article, but of the Pentagon report. I don't think even the Pentagon sees this report as solid justification for the invasion, unless they're wearing blinders.

We should ask why a credible, experienced, conscientious leader like Colin Powell would change his position on the war. And why he was railroaded out as a result.

 

[champ76]

DD is pointing out a valid point from a particular perspective many don't have. Why some people are resentful of his attempts to give insight to issues is beyond me. As to the subject at hand, when I first saw the thread, I was surprised because the military has found links between Saddam and AQ before, though not operational links. The links were published by the Army's counterterrorism center at WP, and when I have the chance, I'll find them for everyone. The continued exhaustive review of captured documents was an attempt to find operational links, which would be more damning against Saddam. None were found. So it's a story, just not the whole story, as DD pointed out.

 

[DadsDream]

LSSpam, BA, y'all severely underestimate the Pentagon's penchant for categorization.