| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kevin Anthoney" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2003 01:22:51 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 04:51:36 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
Actually, its old news, known months ago.
But since somebody in England, for political purposes raked up teh old
canard again, the real poop has to be printed again.
Bush and Blair have been lying about this for months now.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 02:34:07 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "August Pamplona" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
20 Dec 2003 11:36:33 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly
have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching
him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
IIRC, it's not the first such forgery form Iraq the Telegraph has
put forth.
August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making
the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 05:32:06 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and
his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to
air these things and see what happens," he said.'
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 05:49:07 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and
his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to
air these things and see what happens," he said.'
Oh, OK. I guess I missed that.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 06:56:20 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu73isfvqg99a0@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly
have been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were
watching him the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight
details, ATM withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he
and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as
journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.'
Oh, OK. I guess I missed that.
Not a problem. If it does turn out that Iraq was building massive
quantities of WMDs or actively training terrorists to fly airplanes into
buildings, I'll be the first one to stand up and say that we did the right
thing by putting a stop to it. The problem, as I see it, is that we went to
war first and only now are we attempting to justify it. War on a sovereign
state, no matter the crimes of its rulers, is never something to be done on
a whim or a guess. We should have had firm evidence *before* commencing
hostilities; instead, it seems to me that now that the war's over and the
dust has settled, the administration keeps pulling out discoveries along
the lines of, "See! We were right all along!" - and most if not all of
those end up being discredited anyway.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 07:11:39 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu73isfvqg99a0@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly
have been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were
watching him the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight
details, ATM withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he
and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as
journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.'
Oh, OK. I guess I missed that.
Not a problem. If it does turn out that Iraq was building massive
quantities of WMDs or actively training terrorists to fly airplanes into
buildings, I'll be the first one to stand up and say that we did the right
thing by putting a stop to it. The problem, as I see it, is that we went to
war first and only now are we attempting to justify it. War on a sovereign
state, no matter the crimes of its rulers, is never something to be done on
a whim or a guess. We should have had firm evidence *before* commencing
hostilities; instead, it seems to me that now that the war's over and the
dust has settled, the administration keeps pulling out discoveries along
the lines of, "See! We were right all along!" - and most if not all of
those end up being discredited anyway.
Well, let's face it, anything they find at this late date is going to
look that way. I admit, I put more confidence in it than I should.
And all the second-guessing and hindsight in the world doesn't change
the fact that the UN considered Saddam enough of a threat to pass 1441,
and the Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Harping on how great your hindsight is doesn't prove that you'd do any
better at *foresight*.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
20 Dec 2003 06:44:07 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu73isfvqg99a0@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly
have been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were
watching him the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight
details, ATM withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he
and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as
journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.'
Oh, OK. I guess I missed that.
Not a problem. If it does turn out that Iraq was building massive
quantities of WMDs or actively training terrorists to fly airplanes into
buildings, I'll be the first one to stand up and say that we did the
right thing by putting a stop to it. The problem, as I see it, is that we
went to war first and only now are we attempting to justify it. War on a
sovereign state, no matter the crimes of its rulers, is never something
to be done on a whim or a guess. We should have had firm evidence
*before* commencing hostilities; instead, it seems to me that now that
the war's over and the dust has settled, the administration keeps pulling
out discoveries along the lines of, "See! We were right all along!" - and
most if not all of those end up being discredited anyway.
Well, let's face it, anything they find at this late date is going to
look that way. I admit, I put more confidence in it than I should.
And all the second-guessing and hindsight in the world doesn't change
the fact that the UN considered Saddam enough of a threat to pass 1441,
and the Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Harping on how great your hindsight is doesn't prove that you'd do any
better at *foresight*.
I guess you must have forgotten these:
http://people.cornellcollege.edu/a-free/feb15.htm
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 07:37:06 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:56:20 +0000 didst Adam Marczyk speak
thusly:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu73isfvqg99a0@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly
have been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were
watching him the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight
details, ATM withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he
and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as
journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.'
Oh, OK. I guess I missed that.
Not a problem. If it does turn out that Iraq was building massive
quantities of WMDs or actively training terrorists to fly airplanes into
buildings, I'll be the first one to stand up and say that we did the right
thing by putting a stop to it. The problem, as I see it, is that we went to
war first and only now are we attempting to justify it. War on a sovereign
state, no matter the crimes of its rulers, is never something to be done on
a whim or a guess. We should have had firm evidence *before* commencing
hostilities; instead, it seems to me that now that the war's over and the
dust has settled, the administration keeps pulling out discoveries along
the lines of, "See! We were right all along!" - and most if not all of
those end up being discredited anyway.
Well, the WMDs were irrelevant to begin with. They were just one of many
reasons the admin has thrown at the wall to see what sticks in
justification of something that was planned *years ago.
I mean, the WMDs are a "nonissue" now to Bush. The public let him get away
with it, why should he care now?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 10:18:25 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.20.01.37.05.484864@sig.below...
And so upon Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:56:20 +0000 didst Adam Marczyk speak
thusly:
[...]
Not a problem. If it does turn out that Iraq was building massive
quantities of WMDs or actively training terrorists to fly airplanes into
buildings, I'll be the first one to stand up and say that we did the
right thing by putting a stop to it. The problem, as I see it, is that
we went to war first and only now are we attempting to justify it. War
on a sovereign state, no matter the crimes of its rulers, is never
something to be done on a whim or a guess. We should have had firm
evidence *before* commencing hostilities; instead, it seems to me that
now that the war's over and the dust has settled, the administration
keeps pulling out discoveries along the lines of, "See! We were right
all along!" - and most if not all of those end up being discredited
anyway.
Well, the WMDs were irrelevant to begin with. They were just one of many
reasons the admin has thrown at the wall to see what sticks in
justification of something that was planned *years ago.
I mean, the WMDs are a "nonissue" now to Bush. The public let him get
away with it, why should he care now?
I fear you're right about that. And the capture of Saddam was trumpeted as
if it represented some great achievement, as if it was what we had gone
there for in the first place. I mean, face it: once Iraq falls, the guy is
irrelevant anyway. Putting him on trial and executing him won't do any
additional good, and certainly won't undo any of his crimes. Before the
war, we were told that this preemptive invasion was an urgent measure
necessary to stop Iraq's WMD program which was rapidly coming to fruition;
now that evidence of said WMDs has completely failed to turn up, now that
it looks like the UN weapons inspections might actually have been working
all along, the Bush administration seems to have just swept that whole
thing under the rug, and now completely different justifications for the
invasion are turning up on an almost daily basis and being discredited one
after another just as swiftly.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
20 Dec 2003 09:57:08 AM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:18:25 +0000 didst Adam Marczyk speak
thusly:
Mark K. Bilbo <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.20.01.37.05.484864@sig.below...
And so upon Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:56:20 +0000 didst Adam Marczyk speak
thusly:
[...]
Not a problem. If it does turn out that Iraq was building massive
quantities of WMDs or actively training terrorists to fly airplanes into
buildings, I'll be the first one to stand up and say that we did the
right thing by putting a stop to it. The problem, as I see it, is that
we went to war first and only now are we attempting to justify it. War
on a sovereign state, no matter the crimes of its rulers, is never
something to be done on a whim or a guess. We should have had firm
evidence *before* commencing hostilities; instead, it seems to me that
now that the war's over and the dust has settled, the administration
keeps pulling out discoveries along the lines of, "See! We were right
all along!" - and most if not all of those end up being discredited
anyway.
Well, the WMDs were irrelevant to begin with. They were just one of many
reasons the admin has thrown at the wall to see what sticks in
justification of something that was planned *years ago.
I mean, the WMDs are a "nonissue" now to Bush. The public let him get
away with it, why should he care now?
I fear you're right about that. And the capture of Saddam was trumpeted as
if it represented some great achievement, as if it was what we had gone
there for in the first place. I mean, face it: once Iraq falls, the guy is
irrelevant anyway.
Which is why I had quite the "yeah, so what?" moment when they started
crowing about finding the idiot. Oh, he is scum, he should have his evil
little head blow to bits, but I thought that back when Reagan, Bush Sr.,
Cheney, and Rummy were ARMING HIM WHILE HE WAS GASSING KURDS.
Now it just strikes me as very Soviet. I expect a big, big show trial.
But one in which Hussein will not be allowed at all to talk about his
buddy-buddy relationship with Jr.'s daddy.
Ultimately, though, I don't see how it's relevant to much of anything.
The man was pretty much made irrelevant by US/UK/UN actions after the
first war. Iraq was crippled, almost totally disarmed (by us no less),
destroyed economically, and rendered pretty much irrelevant.
That's one reason I think the neo-cons went for the war. Easy target. Iraq
had been "softened up" for over a decade. There just wasn't much "there"
there.
The idea that he was pulling the levers and turning the dials of the
insurgency always seemed stupid to me (and, where did we find him, in a
two bit hole in the ground, cowering and wetting his pants). It totally
ignores that maybe those people just don't want to be occupied by *anybody.*
Who would?
Actually, I would suspect the way Hussein gave up and fled during the
invasion left him with no real reputation anywhere in Iraq. The collapse
of the resistance to the invasion would have just wrecked his reputation.
Especially his stupid chest pounding, bigger-balls-than-anybody claims.
Putting him on trial and executing him won't do any
additional good, and certainly won't undo any of his crimes. Before the
war, we were told that this preemptive invasion was an urgent measure
necessary to stop Iraq's WMD program which was rapidly coming to fruition;
now that evidence of said WMDs has completely failed to turn up, now that
it looks like the UN weapons inspections might actually have been working
all along, the Bush administration seems to have just swept that whole
thing under the rug, and now completely different justifications for the
invasion are turning up on an almost daily basis and being discredited one
after another just as swiftly.
Hell, these days, they don't even have to "sweep things under the rug."
The public is *buying it.
Polls show that nobody really gives a ***** that we were misled. The
general reaction to having been told we had to do this because of the
looming danger of WMDs only to find out that it was ***** has been...
"Anybody seen the TV remote?"
The most frightening thing about this entire episode is that the public
has gone right along with all the changing "reasons." The polls have shown
they've gone along with the justification du jour.
Clinton was almost removed from office for lying about his ***** being
sucked. Bush lied and led us into a war but the polls show most of the
public believes he's a man of integrity.
Go figure.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob N. Enweiven" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Latest Saddam - Al Qaeda link debunked |
19 Dec 2003 05:54:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:49:07 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6o5aq62o0t22@news.supernews.com...
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
Well, whad'ya know? It turns out that Mohammed Atta can't possibly have
been to Iraq during the summer of 2001 because the FBI were watching him
the whole time, and they've got hotel receipts, flight details, ATM
withdrawals, etc, etc to prove it.
Colour me surprised.
It doesn't say they were watching him the whole time. They pieced
together his whereabouts from "a mountain of documentary evidence"
including those hotel receipts etcetera. Simple matter to give his
credit cards and cellphone to an associate to confuse the paper trail.
A forgery? Yeah, that's possible. Didn't Coughlin say he had it
autheticated? He must know there's a market for forgeries.
How exactly would you authenticate a document of this nature?
From the article above:
'Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged
that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that
while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior"
member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and
his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to
air these things and see what happens," he said.'
Oh, OK. I guess I missed that.
Did you happen to catch the three paragraphs above that?
"Mneimneh, the Iraqi document expert, says that there are other
reasons to discount the handwritten memo touted by the Telegraph. The
document includes another sensational second item: how Iraqi
intelligence, helped by a "small team from the Al Qaeda organization,"
arranged for a shipment from Niger to reach Iraq by way of Libya and
Syria. Although the shipment is unspecified, the reference to Niger
was immediately suggestive of Bush administration assertions earlier
this year that Iraq sought to import yellowcake uranium from that
African nation—claims that also have been widely discredited as being
based on other forged documents that apparently came from the Niger
Embassy in Rome.
Mneimneh says the wording of the document makes him highly suspicious:
Iraqi intelligence officials were notoriously conservative and
rarely—if ever—put incriminating information in writing. The reference
to the Iraqi intelligence working with a "small team from the Al Qaeda
organization" is "too explicit," he says.
Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which
has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime,
was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. "The memo is clearly
nonsense," an INC spokesman told NEWSWEEK."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
