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

[LSSpam]

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????

To be fair, the Pentagon isn't that straightjacketed. Dad is misrepresenting the issue. The word "operation" means more then just "divisional sized units" and it's absurd to say otherwise. It can be "a military mission with a clearly defined objective or objectives", in which case "operational" would be the adjective form "ready to operate" and "direct operational link" between Saddam and Al Qaeda would be essentially be a willingness to work together to conduct an "operation".

 

[DadsDream]

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.

Let's make it clear what we're talking about here.

We're talking about a news item, written by Associated Press, published by Yahoo, about a report, paid for by Pentagon, which won't be released until tomorrow.

"...as through a glass, darkly..."

 

[blackadder]

To be fair, the Pentagon isn't that straightjacketed. Dad is misrepresenting the issue. The word "operation" means more then just "divisional sized units" and it's absurd to say otherwise. It can be "a military mission with a clearly defined objective or objectives", in which case "operational" would be the adjective form "ready to operate" and "direct operational link" between Saddam and Al Qaeda would be essentially be a willingness to work together to conduct an "operation".

I would agree, but I'm just focusing on DD's inisistence on his strict interpretation of the word in this context.

 

[RebSaint]

Pretty harsh attack from an "Administrator."

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.

Wrong. First of all, there was no attack. Secondly, you're defending this untenous position for the same reason DD is: to rationalize somehow Bush's decision to invade.

Why am I resentful? Because I don't like my intelligence to be insulted. One. More. Time.

Again, this story underscores two FACTS:

1. The Bush administration either LIED or manipulated very poor evidence to link Hussein to Al-Queda.
2. There was no RATIONAL reason to invade Iraq based on at BEST the very, very tenous ties between Hussein and Al-Queda, if any at all existed.

But the partisan Republicans will continue to believe this pack of lies until the cows come home. Don't know why, but they will. Go back and read the speeches, press conferences, etc.

Bush, Cheney, etc. made DAILY connections between Hussein and Al-Queda to drum up support for the war. I personally think we were lied to and that's why I find it resentful and insulting to argue about some stupid Pentagon "meaning" of the word operation.

Terrible.

 

[DadsDream]

To be fair, the Pentagon isn't that straightjacketed. Dad is misrepresenting the issue.

No, I'm not. See what Bulldawg said.

The word "operation" means more then just "divisional sized units" and it's absurd to say otherwise. It can be "a military mission with a clearly defined objective or objectives", in which case "operational" would be the adjective form "ready to operate" and "direct operational link" between Saddam and Al Qaeda would be essentially be a willingness to work together to conduct an "operation".

The word that was used was "operational" not "operation."

"Operational" is a level of warfare, in DOD terminology.

The writer of the article took it to mean the English definition of the word, "working" or "viable."

I really don't think that's the case. I think report is a Pentagon threat assessment based on captured documents.

Threat assessments are categorized by level: Tactical, Operational, Strategic.

That's why I brought it up and it has absolutely nothing to do with my ego or anything else that's been thrown out here in this thread.

 

[LSSpam]

DD is pointing out a valid point from a particular perspective many don't have.

No, he's not. Which is why people are resenting his "perspective". It's a pretty transparent attempt the warp the issue into semantics.

You are right that this study isn't earth shattering, no, or shocking. I think mostly its purpose was to be "definitive". But the idea that the military only uses the word "operation" in the very narrow and specific manner Dad's is claiming is outright absurd.
http://dodsearch.afis.osd.mil/searc...F-8&proxystylesheet=armyDefault_frontend&x=50

They use it in a variety of ways.

 

[RebSaint]

That's why I brought it up and it has absolutely nothing to do with my ego or anything else that's been thrown out here in this thread.

But I think it has everything to do to rationalize the invasion. You know it, I know it, and everybody reading this threat knows it. No, I believe it isn't about your ego, it's about defending the Decider in Chief.

 

[LSSpam]

The word that was used was "operational" not "operation."

"Operational" is a level of warfare, in DOD terminology.

No. It's not. It's the adjective form of the word "operation". "I'm going to conduct an operation" "Is your unit operational to do so?" "Yes sir"

 

[champ76]

No. It's not. It's the adjective form of the word "operation". "I'm going to conduct an operation" "Is your unit operational to do so?" "Yes sir"

Hmmm, maybe we should, like, wait for the report.

 

[LSSpam]

Hmmm, maybe we should, like, wait for the report.

Do you think there is any chance whatsoever the report strictly refers to "divisional size units"? (It's rhetorical, we both know you don't. Neither does Dads secretly)

 

[Shawn]

Maybe the confusion came about because of a broken teletype machine.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Let's make it clear what we're talking about here.

We're talking about a news item, written by Associated Press, published by Yahoo, about a report, paid for by Pentagon, which won't be released until tomorrow.

"...as through a glass, darkly..."

Yes Dad's we get it. What is obvious to just about everyone else is the SIGNIFICANCE of the report. Dice and slice it any way you want, the fact that the report even contains those words, "no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network" should make any patriot's blood boil. Whether he gave tangential support to Al Quaida is irrellevent in terms of justifying a war.

 

[DadsDream]

No. It's not. It's the adjective form of the word "operation". "I'm going to conduct an operation" "Is your unit operational to do so?" "Yes sir"

I'd buy that except that they took a direct quote from a Pentagon report, which used the words "no direct operational link."

In this context, from a a Pentagon report, it's likely that they meant the DOD meaning of the term. What's illogical about that?

The case you cite is a unit-level example. Exactly correct...for unit level, not for an overall report on the captured documents of an entire nation.

 

[blackadder]

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.

Resentful??

It's just a little exasperation with the pattern of playing games with semantics.

Words are important indeed. But sometimes he stretches common sense.

The Pentagon has clandestine capabilities using small teams. What term do they use to describe a secret "operation." What's the official word for an operation if less than division is involved?

Here are examples of explicit used of the word "operation" by the Pentagon not involving a division of troops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20050925&articleId=1001

No one I know of is aware of any proven link between Saddam and an Al Queda "effort" against the United States. I would believe Saddam would have had his own attempts to get links with Al Queda and Islamists -- to infiltrate them and keep tabs on them.

 

[LSSpam]

I'd buy that except that they took a direct quote from a Pentagon report, which used the words "no direct operational link."

In this context, from a a Pentagon report, it's likely that they meant the DOD meaning of the term. What's illogical about that?

The case you cite is a unit-level example. Exactly correct...for unit level, not for an overall report on the captured documents of an entire nation.

*shrugs*

Champ76 is right, the report is coming out later this week. We'll revisit it then.