This is a subject of much debate; was their a connection pre-war? Many say there was not so why do so many still say there was a connection?

This popped into my thoughts yesterday as I watched the confrontation between Phil Donahue and Bill O'Reilly where Billy claimed that the connection between Iraq/Saddam and al Qaeda existed. He then went on to claim the Phil didn't know anything about geopolitics. Well this of course is not true, not that Phil knows little about geopolitics he probably doesn't and I've seen nothing to indicate Billy knows much either besides AEI/PNAC BS that Fox News slimes the public with each day. But what I really wondered is what is the rebuttal to these seemingly false statements? I don't think I've heard anyone on the left side of the spectrum put fourth a good counter argument to this. I suspect that it is an illusion of saliency where most have heard the truth and just live with the lies on the right or ignore them on the left. I questioned Col. Pat Lang on this at his blog and his reply was similar; "Saddam's government and AQ can not be defeated because it is both ignorant and deceptive." I agree, but there are some who believe this fallacy and that is a shame.

Here is his reply (truncated)

Their argument about Saddam's government and AQ can not be defeated because it is both ignorant and deceptive.

They (Jacobins) gave up the possibility of showing evidence of Iraqi participation in 9/11 years ago.

Their remaining argument is based on the evidence that there were contacts between the Iraqi intelligence services and governments and various Jihadi groups including AQ and the then independent Zarqawi group.
This is an argument based on the idea of "guilt by association," a favorite method for the Jacobins. An example of this is their claim that Zarqawi's presence in Afghanistan at one point "proves" that he was always AQ's man.

Two things:

- The "evidence" as compiled by by OSP and Hayes consists of a number of unconfirmed Intelligence Information Reports (IIR) received from the intelligence community. These are not analytic documents. They are "raw" reports of observations or rumors collected by the intelligence collectors in the field and sent to Headquarters where they are normally considered in the light of a mass of other information AND THE ANALYSTS' SKILLS so that a judgment is reached as to their veracity and accuracy. These disconnected IIR that the Jacobins cite were judged by the Community as being unreliable and meaningless. Nevertheless, the Jacobins believe that they are better at judging the validity of information collected by the Community than is the Community. They believe this is true because they, the Jacobins, have the "correct" attitude towards history in that they generally see the world through the lens of "resistance to the tyrants." (Churchill, etc.)

2- They do not seem to know, or they pretend not to know that Arab governments operate everywhere on the basis of either imprisoning their present and possible opponents or remaining in sufficient "touch" with them to ensure a knowledge of "what they are up to." To that end, it is a commonplace of Arab statecraft to meet with opponents (often this is carried out by the security services)often enough to assess the situation and the threat. It is a fairly common thing for Arab governments to give medical treatment to dangerous 3rd party actors or even offer asylum to unstable elements in the political world. The asylum thing particularly appeals to them since they then "have the body." A number of people under asylum have learned that to their sorrow, or at least the sorrow of those who survived.

So, the Jacobin method method is to string unconfirmed reports together to say that "where there is smoke there must be fire," or to claim that contact or custodial assistance equals alliance.

This has been exploded a number of times, but THEY have mastered the Goebbals propaganda technique which is basically to keep shoveling falsehoods and half-truths at the barn door until it sticks.

My POV is if you are coeharent enough to think things through (as Lang has) then you come to the correct conclusion, or some version of it. If you are lazy, a hack, or a lazy hack then you are just fine with what one man or group says despite lack of conclusive evidence.

Posted by Geoff