Bailey83221 (bailey83221) wrote in politicalbridge,

The 9/11-Iraq connection debate


Hmm Mondo...So how are we to determine if there truly was a 9/11 terrorist connection?

I read your article (Found here:,2933,123124,00.html)

"9/11 Commission Fails to Connect Terror Dots” By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

It concedes in the first sentence: “The 9/11 Commission's conclusion that: We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States - does not augur well for the rest of the panel's inquiry.”

I must admit, if the 9/11 commission decided there WAS a connection, I don’t know whether or not I would believe it. I would like to think that I would. I would buttress my belief in the same way the author “Frank J. Gaffney, Jr” buttresses his own, but I hope that I would not do it in such an illogical way.


I think the place to start is to read the 9/11 commission report. Would you agree?

Or maybe we can start by reading my posting: Web pages: Logical fallacies & Top Ten Dodge List. Which was cut and pasted from the net. On this page is the very effective tools I have used again and again to debate. I am surprised that none of you have not memorized this list and used it against me.

If we both know this list, we can call each other on our own fallacies of logic.

But once we read this article, where do we start deciding what is reality?

The bipartisan 9/11 commission report? Or somewhere else?


Argumentum Ad Hominem (Abusive):
(To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Communists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy.)

Example in the article: “The assertions are false because they originate from critics of Bush”

Argumentum Ad Hominem attacks:

“The commission has allowed itself to be used as a political instrument by critics of President Bush and his liberation of Iraq.”

The Soviet argument is completely irrelevant to the question: what was the 9/11connection?
“This sort of proof-by-assertion is all too familiar to those who used to confront the unwillingness of some in the U.S. intelligence community to recognize that the Soviet Union was a state sponsor of terror and a serial violator of arms control agreements. Perhaps, as the communists used to say, the similarity is "no accident".

As it happens, the staff member who reported to 9/11 Commission members yesterday that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda was none other than Douglas MacEachin (search) - a man who once held senior positions at the CIA, including posts with the Office of Soviet Analysis from 1984-1989, the Arms Control Intelligence Staff for the next few years, and the job of Deputy Director for Intelligence from 1992 until 1995."
"In these capacities, MacEachin appeared to colleagues to get things wrong with some regularity. For example, he was reflexively averse to conclusions that the Soviets were responsible for supporting terrorism. He reportedly rejected as "absurd" analyses that suggested Moscow was illegally developing bioweapons. And, as DDI, he forced CIA analysts to tailor their assessments to please Clinton administration policy-makers.

In short, in the old days, MacEachin refused to believe the Soviets were a threat. Now, he offers support to those who insist that Iraq was no threat. There may be a role for a "see-no-evil" sort of guy, but it should not be at the Central Intelligence Agency - and certainly not at a commission whose charter is to connect the dots, no matter where they lead.

Questions from the article:
The staff's statement concerning Iraq and Al Qaeda is internally inconsistent.
None is listed?

It ignores key facts?
What facts?

“Particularly egregious is the supposedly conclusive finding that Mohammed Atta could not have been in Prague for his final meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer simply because calls were made in Florida on Atta's cell phone during the time period the meeting was to have occurred. Czech intelligence contends Atta was in Prague and attended the meeting, and Mr. McCarthy observes that it would be entirely possible (to say nothing of prudent tradecraft) to have someone - perhaps his co-conspiring roommate - use the phone at a time when Atta could not, because he was overseas where the phone would not work.”

What is Mr. McCarthy proof of this assertion? Is it mere speculation? I think it is mere speculation: wishful thinking on the part of Mr. McCarthy, without more proof, this assertion of the 9/11 commission stands. Would you agree?

It selectively addresses other facts.
What facts? None are listed.

Condemns as incredible the considerable amount of evidence that suggests Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden did indeed have a collaborative relationship?
What evidence? None are listed.

Information provided after the 9/11 commission:
“According to Putin, his intelligence agencies shared sensitive information with the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks and before the United States went to war with Iraq in March of 2003. According to Putin's intelligence, Saddam Hussein's regime was crafting plans to execute terror attacks against America, both inside and outside of this country. Thus far, Putin has not elaborated on whether Al Qaeda was also involved with these particular plans. At the very least, however, this information confirms the Bush team's contention that Saddam dealt deeply in terror and its judgment that to leave Saddam in power would be to invite murderous attacks in the future.”

This information may be relevant to the larger question: was there a 9/11 –Iraq connection, which we can investigate further LATER, but it is irrelevant to the findings of the 9/11 commission, because it came out AFTER the 9/11 investigation was complete.

One wonders whether the 9/11 Commission was exposed to the Putin intelligence before it effectively dismissed the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 2001 attacks.
This is pointless speculation, with no basis in fact in this article.

Other information:
Dr. Laurie Mylroie's The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks - A Study of Revenge, which concerns the first effort to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993; Jayna Davis' The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, which concerns the 1995 destruction of the Murrah Building; and Stephen Haye' The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, all persuasively support a very different conclusion than that advanced yesterday by Douglas MacEachin.

Are we going to have to read all three of these books? This is the problem that continues to come up in these political debates: you can never read enough nor know enough to get a complete picture. Actually, there is a book that I am struggling to read, from the father of the science of “public opinion”, Walter Lippman I am paraphrasing, but he talks about how in our society, there are so many competing voices, on so many very complex issues, that we can never truly “know” the reality of a situation. That is the conundrum (problem) that we face here, how can we really know if there are so many competing voices? When do we trust experts, who have the time to shift through all of the information on a narrow topic, decide for us the reality of a situation?

If you won’t believe the findings of the 9/11 commission, what expert will you believe who contradicts your own beliefs that their was a 9/11 Iraq connection?

Without answering this question, I don’t think we will ever get to the reality of the 9/11 Iraq connection.

That is the BIG problem that I see facing us.

The article you sent me was lightweight and in my opinion did nothing to ruin the findings of the 9/11 commission…If you disagree, please let me know why, but confine your criticisms to the article.

So Mondo were do we go from here?

That is why I think it is pointless to argue any aspects of the Iraq war, for the above reasons mentioned, and others I have mentioned before. I think we can read dozens of books and end up at the same place we started: agreeing to disagree.

I don’t know what do you think?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic