help, I don't understand why this isn't explosive

[shockingelk]

What if the Cheney claimed that before the invasion of Iraq, the US facilitated contact between Saddam Hussein and al-Zarqawi - the dreaded Saddam's WMD getting into the hands of international terrorists the administration harped about?

This is exactly what he said a couple days ago:

"Saddam Hussein knew <al Zarqawi> was in Baghdad because we arranged to have that information passed to — to a third country intelligence service."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123794,00.html

WorldNetDaily reports that Cheney said something similar a few weeks ago:

We arranged for information to be passed on <al-Zarqawi's> presence in Baghdad to the Iraqis through a third-party intelligence service. They did that twice.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

Dunno, maybe I'm just not reading the statement correctly and it means something other than "We attempted to facilitate contact between Saddam Hussein and al-Zarqawi."

If someone could explain alternate meanings or why this statement can only be found in one FOX transcript and one WND article, and no commentary on it anywhere, I'd appreciate it!

(edit: changed square brackets to < >)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Wow.

Just like they knew Saddam had WMD (they had the reciepts), they knew Saddam and al-Qaeda was talking to each other, because they were introducing the two to each other!

This gang must hang.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

2. <kick>

Good catch! I think you're really on to something here...

[shockingelk]

8. Good, maybe I'm not crazy. More:

PNACS transcript replaces the key part in the Borger interview with an elipsis: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040618.htm

Probably not important as Cheney repeated it a week later on FOX, but that little bit is the only part that was removed from an otherwise contiguous excerpt of the full transcript. Full transcript can be found here: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/06/18/20040618_022404_flash3.htm

[TacticalPeek]

9. Have we found our drunken intelligence babbler?

:evilgrin:

[andino]

3. Nice Catch

bump

[TacticalPeek]

4. Third country - third party.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder about Chalabi's gang, or OSP for some reason.

:shrug:

[Toucano]

5. Good work!

This should really be looked into. Keeping it kicked.

[Robbien]

6. Cheney will say anything

Now he is trying to prove a Saddam/al Zarqawi link by saying it is true because we brought them together.

Cheney then puts out those statements to the RW rags who print it because they are also desperate to show a link exists.

The other media didn't pick up on it because they know it cannot be proved and they probably doubt it because they also know Cheney will say anything.

There is only Cheney's word for this and he will never release any proof.

[salib]

7. Just to be Devil's Advocate here

Could Cheney simply be saying that the U.S. informed Iraqis hoping that they would expel the guy and they did not? Thus, the Iraqi leadership knew that this terrorist was operating in their country and did nothing about it, i.e., they were knowingly harboring a terrorist, or at least turning a blind eye.

[notbush]

10. That would be my bet

Is this takin' out of context????

[shockingelk]

13. Full transcripts:

6/17 CNBC interview: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/06/18/20040618_022404_flash3.htm
6/28 FOXNews interview: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123794,00.html

[shockingelk]

11. if that's the case ...

You still have the fact that perhaps the most important reason given for the invasion was fear that Hussein would arm terrorists with WMD. It follows that if the US didn't know if Hussein was aware of Zarqawi's alleged presence, they would do all they could to keep the two apart, not get them together.

[ronabop]

12. Uh, this was Saddam.

I think that "expel" might be a little tame for what the US wanted to accomplish, unless you mean "expeled via worms, after being tortued to death, and then buried and digested by said worms".

The US has a long history for farming out "dirty work" to those who will do it, and aren't bound by our pesky standards of decency and morality.

Aside from that, it reminds me of how we "knew" about WMD's... we had supplied him with them. So, maybe it's just a typical frame-up strategy... pick a nation, befriend them, give them weapons, declare that nation a dangerous enemy, then take the weapons away.

-Bop

[TacticalPeek]

14. But then, why would Saddam be killing one of his al Qaida buddies?

Dead terrorists cannot attack us with sarin and rose gardens and stuff.

[BigDaddyLove]

19. That's exactly what it says.........

.

[sangh0]

22. Yep, everyone else is misunderstanding it

even though to me, it seems pretty clear

[shockingelk]

23. Why would they take that risk? Or even think that?

Assuming they really were afraid of a Iraq/international terrorist nexus, why would they want to ensure Hussein and Zarqawi were in contact? Were they trying to get solid evidence on tape, do you figure?

[TacticalPeek]

15. Kick.

Has this already been analyzed and dismissed, and I missed it?

:shrug:

[shockingelk]

16. Dunno

Maybe the folks that are awake during the day will have some things to say.

[Toucano]

17. One thing for sure.

Cheney argues that "Saddam knew" because we arranged for Saddam to be told. However, there would need to be evidence that the "third country" actually told Saddam. An subordinate could have decided that it wasn't important and never told Saddam.

It's very difficult to prove what someone knew. I'd say if it were a trial, there would have to be more evidence than, "We told a guy to tell him."

[shockingelk]

18. That's explosive enough, I would think

That the administration is claiming is wanted Hussein to know Zarqawi was in Iraq.

[shockingelk]

21. kick for late afternoon crowd

Any new thoughts?

[TacticalPeek]

20. I see the glass half-full.

I think that this reveals that bushco was betting that Saddam would whack Zarqawi (expel, whatever). They knew good and well that Saddam was highly unlikely to buddy up with jihadists. They are natural enemies. So later, in the deception to war, when they preached fear of Saddam giving WMD to terrorists, they did so knowing it was a lie. In fact, that was the conclusion of the pre-war NIE, which Bob Graham squoze out of the CIA. To wit, the consensus of US intel was that Saddam was likely to not use any WMD unless attacked, and not likely to transfer WMD to terrorists unless his regime's demise was imminent. So, Cheney's remarks undercut his position. (surprise)

Further, I believe that this is yet another case of Cheney violating the secrecy of classified intel info and jeopardizing our national security for petty partisan reasons. Just like the Plame leak, just like the classified doc leaked to the Weekly Standard that Cheney then referenced publicly, and just like the drunken blabbing to Chalabi about the family jewels re: Iran.

He should be convicted on multiple counts and his ass hied to Gitmo!

:evilgrin:

[robertpaulsen]

24. Kicked and bookmarked!

Wouldn't be the first time Cheney accidentally let the truth out. Everything at the PNAC's website is a blueprint for everything this misadministration has carried out.