Saturday, June 19, 2004
No link? Part II: Saddo-Ladenism strikes again
A reader, Dominic Olivastro, brought to my attention this little document from six years ago:
It was alright to say some things during a Democratic administration, but alas not during a Republican one. Go figure. And go check out the continuing coverage and commentary at Powerline Blog - there's tons of stuff there - just keep scrolling.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair has stuck to his guns, saying that British intelligence had evidence of the Saddo-Ladenistic links. Interestingly, Vladimir Putin has come out saying that "Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States" (but not "that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts", which contra to the mainstream media, the Bush Administration has never argued). Putin's admission is curious, considering that he "said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war."
The problem is that everytime somebody now starts saying "The intelligence services told us..." the left and their media cheerleaders are bound to burst out laughing - you know, with the non-WMDs, the Bush Administration's appalling security lapses pre-S11, and all that, who would ever trust intelligence agencies again?
The problem for the left is that intelligence agencies have a very long and distinguished history of providing unreliable intelligence, including the gross overestimation of the Soviet economic capacity in the late 1970s and early 80s, all the way to the chemical weapons installation/civilian drug factory (depending which story you believe) bombed by Clinton in Sudan. Presidents, both Republican and Democratic ones, have to and do rely on the intelligence services to provide them with timely and accurate information to help in making some very important decision. John Kerry, should he become president in November, or any other Democrat who will do so in the future, will also have to rely on the intelligence services for information. Sometimes the results will be good, sometimes they won't. That's why the left is digging a huge hole for their future favourites in power: to avoid being misinformed and mislead by their spies the future Democratic Administrations can of course not listen to them at all - but this is, of course, not a viable option. Failing that, they can try to make the best of out the intelligence provided to them - which will put them in exactly the same position and at the same risk as the Bush Administration. Good luck.
|
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."The quote comes from the 1998 indictment of bin Laden and al Qaeda for the bombings of American embassies in Africa.
It was alright to say some things during a Democratic administration, but alas not during a Republican one. Go figure. And go check out the continuing coverage and commentary at Powerline Blog - there's tons of stuff there - just keep scrolling.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair has stuck to his guns, saying that British intelligence had evidence of the Saddo-Ladenistic links. Interestingly, Vladimir Putin has come out saying that "Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States" (but not "that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts", which contra to the mainstream media, the Bush Administration has never argued). Putin's admission is curious, considering that he "said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war."
The problem is that everytime somebody now starts saying "The intelligence services told us..." the left and their media cheerleaders are bound to burst out laughing - you know, with the non-WMDs, the Bush Administration's appalling security lapses pre-S11, and all that, who would ever trust intelligence agencies again?
The problem for the left is that intelligence agencies have a very long and distinguished history of providing unreliable intelligence, including the gross overestimation of the Soviet economic capacity in the late 1970s and early 80s, all the way to the chemical weapons installation/civilian drug factory (depending which story you believe) bombed by Clinton in Sudan. Presidents, both Republican and Democratic ones, have to and do rely on the intelligence services to provide them with timely and accurate information to help in making some very important decision. John Kerry, should he become president in November, or any other Democrat who will do so in the future, will also have to rely on the intelligence services for information. Sometimes the results will be good, sometimes they won't. That's why the left is digging a huge hole for their future favourites in power: to avoid being misinformed and mislead by their spies the future Democratic Administrations can of course not listen to them at all - but this is, of course, not a viable option. Failing that, they can try to make the best of out the intelligence provided to them - which will put them in exactly the same position and at the same risk as the Bush Administration. Good luck.
|
