What 'al-Qaeda training camps'
Salman Pax? Try again, wrong answer

The story: "Al-Qaeda said to be planning attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq"
was datelined back at the start of march- an as-yet unsubstantiated story from BEFORE the way- you know- where all the lies were told? Frankly, its about as current as a 1999 NASDAQ index fund quarterly statement.

Check your dateline before you source it as a fact.

But since you bring it up:

Notice the line, first paragraph:
"according to information acquired by American intelligence agencies, counterterrorism officials said Saturday. "

Please do note: the contention is that NONE of the pre-war 'intelligence' offered via the administration has panned out. As far as I know, this has not either.

Please also notice that even the allegation admits:
"The intelligence does not suggest any kind of coordination between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda operatives;"

http://www.iraqwatch.org/updatearchive/polit-10-22-02.htm
does not load.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/biological.html
nor does this

Laughable stuff, Dan. I love to see you post against Don when all you got is crud like this.

"Is the statement in itself incorrect? I have to agree with it."
I don't. the biggest danger to the United states is rampaging about the globe alienating our allies and starting wars based on fake(d) intelligence.

"Oh, that's right. Iraq's use of chemical/biological weapons were just an illusion."

Their use of Chem-Bio 20 years ago is not contested, but this conflict can not and is not about that use- its about the false claim that they possessed Chem/Nuke/Bio and intended to pass it on through their terrorist ties to attack the united states. It can n ot be made to be about that because of the statements of our leaders, in black and white and in videotape, do not contain that proposed justification.

This is classic and childish misdirection. Their historical use of ChemBio is not what this conflict was predicated on.

"Sorry, D, but all the evidence that really matters remains piled high and steep around Hussein & Co."

All I see is anomolism and dung. We have no evidence to back this war on the grounds we gave.

"Poor Bookkeeping", where the weapons were properly destroyed by the Iraqi Army, but not duly logged -- but such is the fate of sloppy "world leaders" everywhere."

Oh great, I feel much better about my tax dollars KILLING IRAQI MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN! Poor bookkeeping! Great line.

as to this partial transcript:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-briefing-021403.html

you should actually read it, not just the stuff spoon fed you that sounds quasi-favorable to the bush admins case. This line is a classic when good ol NPR broadcast it LIVE IN ITS ENTIRETY, I remember it:

Blix:
"The presentation of intelligence information by the US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection"

So in the end, Dan, what do you intend to do: recycle outdated pre-war 'intelligence' reports and leaks that NEVER amounted to anything, keep chanting Ansar Al Islam and Salman Pax and MKO- LONG after those reports are shown to be false OR

are you going to bury this next to the Yeti.

Anomolist thinking or the truth, basically.

Davin L.