| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 11:50:28 PM |
| Object: |
Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC News."
"So the first document that the excerpt they have titled "Osama Bin
Laden and the Taliban," and it's dated September 15th, 2001. For those
of you in Rio Linda that's four days after the 9/11 attacks. "An Iraqi
intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's
only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed
Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: That OBL and the
Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin
Laden group members visited Iraq. That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi
government and 'bin Laden's group' agreed to cooperate to attack targets
inside America. That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out
to be involved in 'these destructive operations,' the U.S. may strike
Iraq and Afghanistan. That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of
Iraq's relationship with 'bin Laden's group' while he was in Iran."
That's in the document dated September 15th, 2001.
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
"Okay, so forget it. We're going to publish what the note says; we're
going to publish the excerpt, but the hell with it! The hell with what's
in it because we can't corroborate it. These people have not exactly --
I'm talking about the mainstream press themselves -- have not
distinguished themselves with sourcing in recent years. So now they
question everything that's in this thing. If this is true, and if these
things can be substantiated, this is going to be a death of a thousand
cuts to the Democratic Party. It is."
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
.
|
|
| User: "Aeroplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 03:26:31 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcNSf.3679$w86.1340@tornado.socal.rr.com...
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC
News."
"So the first document that the excerpt they have titled "Osama Bin
Laden and the Taliban," and it's dated September 15th, 2001. For those
of you in Rio Linda that's four days after the 9/11 attacks. "An Iraqi
intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's
only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed
Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: That OBL and the
Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin
Laden group members visited Iraq. That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi
government and 'bin Laden's group' agreed to cooperate to attack targets
inside America. That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out
to be involved in 'these destructive operations,' the U.S. may strike
Iraq and Afghanistan. That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of
Iraq's relationship with 'bin Laden's group' while he was in Iran."
That's in the document dated September 15th, 2001.
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
"Okay, so forget it. We're going to publish what the note says; we're
going to publish the excerpt, but the hell with it! The hell with what's
in it because we can't corroborate it. These people have not exactly --
I'm talking about the mainstream press themselves -- have not
distinguished themselves with sourcing in recent years. So now they
question everything that's in this thing. If this is true, and if these
things can be substantiated, this is going to be a death of a thousand
cuts to the Democratic Party. It is."
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Nice timing, put this ***** out right after the new 'offensive' in Iraq.
It's just about as convincing as those Bin Laden 'videos' they release
everytime Bush approval ratings drop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 04:02:29 PM |
|
|
Aeroplan wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcNSf.3679$w86.1340@tornado.socal.rr.com...
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC
News."
"So the first document that the excerpt they have titled "Osama Bin
Laden and the Taliban," and it's dated September 15th, 2001. For those
of you in Rio Linda that's four days after the 9/11 attacks. "An Iraqi
intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's
only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed
Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: That OBL and the
Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin
Laden group members visited Iraq. That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi
government and 'bin Laden's group' agreed to cooperate to attack targets
inside America. That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out
to be involved in 'these destructive operations,' the U.S. may strike
Iraq and Afghanistan. That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of
Iraq's relationship with 'bin Laden's group' while he was in Iran."
That's in the document dated September 15th, 2001.
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
"Okay, so forget it. We're going to publish what the note says; we're
going to publish the excerpt, but the hell with it! The hell with what's
in it because we can't corroborate it. These people have not exactly --
I'm talking about the mainstream press themselves -- have not
distinguished themselves with sourcing in recent years. So now they
question everything that's in this thing. If this is true, and if these
things can be substantiated, this is going to be a death of a thousand
cuts to the Democratic Party. It is."
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Nice timing, put this ***** out right after the new 'offensive' in Iraq.
It's just about as convincing as those Bin Laden 'videos' they release
everytime Bush approval ratings drop.
I know is like wagging the dog, after your blow-job. I thought a
cigarette was sufficient? Not an attack on a pill factory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aeroplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 05:50:23 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Vr%Sf.4889$w86.1539@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Aeroplan wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcNSf.3679$w86.1340@tornado.socal.rr.com...
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC
News."
"So the first document that the excerpt they have titled "Osama Bin
Laden and the Taliban," and it's dated September 15th, 2001. For those
of you in Rio Linda that's four days after the 9/11 attacks. "An Iraqi
intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's
only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed
Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: That OBL and the
Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin
Laden group members visited Iraq. That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi
government and 'bin Laden's group' agreed to cooperate to attack targets
inside America. That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out
to be involved in 'these destructive operations,' the U.S. may strike
Iraq and Afghanistan. That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of
Iraq's relationship with 'bin Laden's group' while he was in Iran."
That's in the document dated September 15th, 2001.
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
"Okay, so forget it. We're going to publish what the note says; we're
going to publish the excerpt, but the hell with it! The hell with what's
in it because we can't corroborate it. These people have not exactly --
I'm talking about the mainstream press themselves -- have not
distinguished themselves with sourcing in recent years. So now they
question everything that's in this thing. If this is true, and if these
things can be substantiated, this is going to be a death of a thousand
cuts to the Democratic Party. It is."
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Nice timing, put this ***** out right after the new 'offensive' in
Iraq. It's just about as convincing as those Bin Laden 'videos' they
release everytime Bush approval ratings drop.
I know is like wagging the dog, after your blow-job. I thought a cigarette
was sufficient? Not an attack on a pill factory.
Only a fucking moron would compare the disaster Bush has created to getting
a *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 06:09:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:50:28 GMT, YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate.
That debate was over two years ago. Even Bush gave up the
argument on that one.
While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
iow it's more trumped or just phony BS.
Good reason for the disclaimer since misinformation and
propaganda is known to have been disseminated by CIA
subcontractors such as the "Rendon Group"
www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOP is HISTORY" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 07:32:18 AM |
|
|
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:1btn12h2b74riimstu7bvlo4uvcdqkk8j4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:50:28 GMT, YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate.
That debate was over two years ago. Even Bush gave up the
argument on that one.
While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
iow it's more trumped or just phony BS.
Good reason for the disclaimer since misinformation and
propaganda is known to have been disseminated by CIA
subcontractors such as the "Rendon Group"
Wankerfan is grasping at anything he can find to give himself some
credibility. Soon he'll be quoting the National Enquirer and the Sun as
legitimate sources. It's fun to watch the rightwingnuts grow more desperate
as Chimp's poll numbers spiral downward.
.
|
|
|
| User: "E A R T H L I N G" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 10:21:13 AM |
|
|
"GOP is HISTORY" <braindeadbush@aol.com> wrote in message
news:CZTSf.39977$_S7.23967@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:1btn12h2b74riimstu7bvlo4uvcdqkk8j4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:50:28 GMT, YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this:
"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with
Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate.
That debate was over two years ago. Even Bush gave up the
argument on that one.
While the
assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the
sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting
on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document
-- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further
corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
iow it's more trumped or just phony BS.
Good reason for the disclaimer since misinformation and
propaganda is known to have been disseminated by CIA
subcontractors such as the "Rendon Group"
Wankerfan is grasping at anything he can find to give himself some
credibility. Soon he'll be quoting the National Enquirer and the Sun as
legitimate sources. It's fun to watch the rightwingnuts grow more
desperate as Chimp's poll numbers spiral downward.
They are Taitors.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 12:34:49 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post? And the left will
swear in their death bed (In November), that this is not about politics
in trying to get the power back that they lost or what was done to
Clinton.
It only shows the hypocrisy of these lunatics. I wonder what they are
going to do or say when the Iran problem, come to our doorstep and we're
going to have to deal with it head on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 02:25:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:34:49 GMT, YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post? And the left will
swear in their death bed (In November), that this is not about politics
in trying to get the power back that they lost or what was done to
Clinton.
Pee on Clinton who was only prevented from carrying out the
same regime change by the left of his party......Thank the Gods
for whatever remains of the U.S. left.
It only shows the hypocrisy of these lunatics. I wonder what they are
going to do or say when the Iran problem, come to our doorstep and we're
going to have to deal with it head on.
You guys have become a bunch of phony liars on behalf of Israel
and sound like a bunch of silly scared old women with your
scary-tales.
I'm just glad that I quit the party in '96 so as NOT to be associated
with your treasonous lies to the people who fight wars for the U.S.
You should be ashamed !
--
another choice:
www.lp.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 03:24:49 PM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
I'm just glad that I quit the party in '96 so as NOT to be associated
with your treasonous lies to the people who fight wars for the U.S.
And we are suppose to share a tear for your decision?
You should be ashamed !
"You guys have become a bunch of phony liars on behalf of Israel"
Is it time for that cross burning yet? Hurry, you're going to miss the
festivities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
20 Mar 2006 06:26:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:24:49 GMT, YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
I'm just glad that I quit the party in '96 so as NOT to be associated
with your treasonous lies to the people who fight wars for the U.S.
And we are suppose to share a tear for your decision?
You should be ashamed !
"You guys have become a bunch of phony liars on behalf of Israel"
Is it time for that cross burning yet? Hurry, you're going to miss the
festivities.
Link me with whoever you will. Much of the religious right knows
both that Israel benefits from our Middle East policy at the expense
of U.S. interests and that our failure to refrain from taking sides in
Israel's disputes with it's Palestinians has resulted in placing our
country in unnecessary danger.
Act stupid if you want.......I already know better.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amy Likes Pot!" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 12:30:55 PM |
|
|
YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here
it is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.
pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-0000450
0-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post?
Because you know that the left is interested in facts and what happened and
not at grabbing straws that don't really support their case, anyway... like
you.
And the left will
swear in their death bed (In November), that this is not about politics
in trying to get the power back that they lost or what was done to
Clinton.
It only shows the hypocrisy of these lunatics. I wonder what they are
going to do or say when the Iran problem, come to our doorstep and we're
going to have to deal with it head on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 12:58:03 PM |
|
|
Amy Likes Pot! wrote:
YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here
it is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.
pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-0000450
0-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post?
Because you know that the left is interested in facts and what happened and
not at grabbing straws that don't really support their case, anyway... like
you.
The left interested in facts? They wont believe the facts even if it
came from one of your party members, media outlet or an official
government web site. Please don't make me laugh. The only interest the
left has is bringing down this president, facts or no facts. Keep
spinning that web, I'll guarantee that your party will not be able to
get out of it. Of course, the elephant is not in the room. But one thing
is for sure. That elephant will not be able to go unnoticed much longer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 01:20:55 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post?
Why am I not surprised that you refused to answer anything that I
brought up in my post while you think that blathering something anything
carries some weight. Did you expect people to say, hmmm, there must be
something in all this arabic that our trained professionals could not
find? Something anything that would give a glimmer of respectability to
the sham of the cart pushing the donkey.
What is that, you go find it! Are you that completely useless?
You've got nothing! Bush has got nothing, Cheney has got nothing!
Rumsfeldt has got nothing!
Frankly, you have been running from any actual analysis for some time.
And the left will
swear in their death bed (In November), that this is not about politics
in trying to get the power back that they lost or what was done to
Clinton.
Telles's Law again.
Bush is completely indefensible.
It only shows the hypocrisy of these lunatics. I wonder what they are
going to do or say when the Iran problem, come to our doorstep and we're
going to have to deal with it head on.
You still have presented nothing. And your side ignored actually doing
anything about Iran while calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". So,
make a bold statement and do the usual lack of follow up. And now, they
are send trifling amounts of money to support the opposition party. This
connection the US has created is causing great problems for them and no
benefit whatsoever. Read some of what they have to say, they think we
are insane for doing that!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
Yes,
You go there and read that and you will find that there is *only*
wishfull thinkinking.
Pretty much the same thinking that Paul Pillar, the CIA chief
intelligence analyst (2000- 2005 Middle East) talks about here:
The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it
to look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship -- calling
on analysts not only to turn over additional Iraqi rocks, but also to
turn over ones already examined and to scratch the dirt to see if there
might be something there after all. The result was an intelligence
output that -- because the question being investigated was never put in
context -- obscured rather than enhanced understanding of al Qaeda's
actual sources of strength and support.
This process represented a radical departure from the textbook model of
the relationship between intelligence and policy, in which an
intelligence service responds to policymaker interest in certain
subjects (such as "security threats from Iraq" or "al Qaeda's
supporters") and explores them in whatever direction the evidence leads.
The process did not involve intelligence work designed to find dangers
not yet discovered or to inform decisions not yet made. Instead, it
involved research to find evidence in support of a specific line of
argument -- that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda -- which in turn
was being used to justify a specific policy decision.
<URL:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p20/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC
News."
<snipped drivil>
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Don't you think that if there actually was something in there that Bush
or Cheney or Rumsfeldt would be screaming about the proof? Don't you?!
But no, what they expect is for some blogger to uncover some hidden
meaning in these documents, which incidently are still in Arabic!
It's just more smokescreen. You go there Yankoff and you show us the
proof in those documents now!
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 03:16:38 PM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post?
Why am I not surprised that you refused to answer anything that I
brought up in my post while you think that blathering something anything
carries some weight. Did you expect people to say, hmmm, there must be
something in all this arabic that our trained professionals could not
find? Something anything that would give a glimmer of respectability to
the sham of the cart pushing the donkey.
I know that your "trying" to intellectually sweep this under the carpet
and I for one is not impressed at all. These documents are relatively
new and for sure they are going to be scrutinized by members of "trained
professionals", as you call them, as they are being translated from
Arabic to English. To me that would be "our" members of the intelligent
committee and military. I would tend to believe these "professionals"
that someone like yourself who has no credibility whatsoever.
These documents are not made up by the right as you are trying to imply
as not being respectable enough because they're in Arabic and your so
called "trained professionals" did not find. These documents are there
in plain English for you or anyone else, if you would even bother to
read them. But again I suppose that this military web site is only
another lap dog for this president and his administration. This is a
story that will not go away and in the weeks to come, it will have proof
that Saddam had connections with Al-queda and OBL.
What is that, you go find it! Are you that completely useless?
You've got nothing! Bush has got nothing, Cheney has got nothing!
Rumsfeldt has got nothing!
and you have nothing. Give me reliable documents that says otherwise.
Frankly, you have been running from any actual analysis for some time.
??? This is all a figment of our imagination. There are no such
documents. That elephant is still in the room. Refute the analysis of
these "actual" documents with some validity, then maybe we might think
that you and your party do not have an ulterior motive.
And the left will
swear in their death bed (In November), that this is not about
politics in trying to get the power back that they lost or what was
done to Clinton.
Telles's Law again.
Bush is completely indefensible.
It only shows the hypocrisy of these lunatics. I wonder what they are
going to do or say when the Iran problem, come to our doorstep and
we're going to have to deal with it head on.
You still have presented nothing. And your side ignored actually doing
anything about Iran while calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". So,
make a bold statement and do the usual lack of follow up.
Here is that straw man again. What is it that you propose we do with
Iran, since you and your party are suppose to be the expert on foreign
affairs? If we go to war with them, it would be wrong according to you
and your "concerned" party. If we take the diplomatic road, that would
also be wrong also. The bottom line is that you and your party are only
concerned about the failings of this president and this administration
in order to regain back the power of the left. At least be honest enough
to admit your intentions and stop hiding behind, intellectual pretense.
Call it what it is. Political rhetoric and politics as usual.
And now, they
are send trifling amounts of money to support the opposition party. This
connection the US has created is causing great problems for them and no
benefit whatsoever. Read some of what they have to say, they think we
are insane for doing that!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
Yes,
You go there and read that and you will find that there is *only*
wishfull thinkinking.
Pretty much the same thinking that Paul Pillar, the CIA chief
intelligence analyst (2000- 2005 Middle East) talks about here:
The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it to
look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship -- calling on
analysts not only to turn over additional Iraqi rocks, but also to turn
over ones already examined and to scratch the dirt to see if there might
be something there after all. The result was an intelligence output that
-- because the question being investigated was never put in context --
obscured rather than enhanced understanding of al Qaeda's actual sources
of strength and support.
This process represented a radical departure from the textbook model of
the relationship between intelligence and policy, in which an
intelligence service responds to policymaker interest in certain
subjects (such as "security threats from Iraq" or "al Qaeda's
supporters") and explores them in whatever direction the evidence leads.
The process did not involve intelligence work designed to find dangers
not yet discovered or to inform decisions not yet made. Instead, it
involved research to find evidence in support of a specific line of
argument -- that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda -- which in turn
was being used to justify a specific policy decision.
<URL:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p20/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
Paul Pillar: During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, writes the
intelligence community's former senior analyst for the Middle East, "he
Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized
the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence
to make its public case."
And of course we are going to have to believe one of the mouth piece and
an apologists for the left, as having any validity to his findings. It
must be great being a Monday morning quarterback. I suppose that if the
left had this information before the war began they would not have voted
to go to war. I wonder why he doesn't mentions the intelligence of
other country's and the foolishness of the left in accepting it, in his
report? Only that Bush mislead the world and everyone in our government.
How convenient.
Boy, after these documents does he sound and look stupid. You think that
there would be a detraction from this ignoramus statement? Let me not
hold my breath. What are you and Paul Pillar are going to do with these
documents, when the media and public start looking into this more
closely in the next weeks to come? Sweep them under the rug?
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC
News."
<snipped drivil>
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Don't you think that if there actually was something in there that Bush
or Cheney or Rumsfeldt would be screaming about the proof? Don't you?!
Time will tell. The story has legs and it will start running really
fast, when the time is right. November is around the corner.
But no, what they expect is for some blogger to uncover some hidden
meaning in these documents, which incidently are still in Arabic!
Blogger? Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the US Army
Foreign Military Studies Office. I didn't know that they were bloggers.
Incidentally, a lot of these documents have already been translated into
English. If you care to read them.
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
It's just more smokescreen. You go there Yankoff and you show us the
proof in those documents now!
They are all there, for you or anyone else to download, if you care to
read them and except the facts. I know that it would be a hard thing to
do. Since your previous administration taught your party very well in
running on lies and deceptions. Like you said; "you have been running
from any actual analysis for some time" But then again, you and your
party are not concerned with facts or truth. Only a coup d'état, would
satisfy the needs of you and your party.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 06:38:01 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and
here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Why I'm I not surprise of the responses of this post?
Why am I not surprised that you refused to answer anything that I
brought up in my post while you think that blathering something
anything carries some weight. Did you expect people to say, hmmm,
there must be something in all this arabic that our trained
professionals could not find? Something anything that would give a
glimmer of respectability to the sham of the cart pushing the donkey.
I know that your "trying" to intellectually sweep this under the carpet
and I for one is not impressed at all.
is not impressed?
These documents are relatively
new
Nope that is where you are wrong wrong wrong. This is old old stuff.
Newly declassified is all. No where does it say this is new. You really
should reread that and you will see that it says:
The Bush administration on Thursday released prewar Iraqi government
documents confiscated by U.S. forces, including some it said showed
Saddam Hussein's regime suspected an al Qaeda presence in the country.
Note that it does *not* indicate when these were confiscated, you have
read that into it. But reading into things what you wish is a hallmark
of your side.
and for sure they are going to be scrutinized by members of "trained
professionals", as you call them,
They've been there and done that, a long long time ago. What makes you
think any of this is not only new but unanalyzed. Even I do not think
our government it *that* foolish. I happen to believe that the CIA has
done a pretty good job, but the White House has not really looked at
what they were saying. I posted this at leat 3 times for you to read:
<URL:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p20/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
From Paul Pillar, who was in charge of the analysis. Haven't you read
that yet!
as they are being translated from
Arabic to English. To me that would be "our" members of the intelligent
committee and military. I would tend to believe these "professionals"
that someone like yourself who has no credibility whatsoever.
Unlike yourself, who ponied that up as an example of something that we
all need to look at. You in fact ponied up nothing, why don't you
actually look through that, I have! I don't mindlessly say something
without having looked through it.
If there is something in there you think I missed, by all means point to
a specific example. I think pointing at Arabic PDF's is disingenuous,
and those other listings had no relevance to Saddam supporting alQaeda.
One doc does point out that he suspected alQaeda presence in Iraq,
hell it says that in the ABC story. Remember that he did not control the
Kurdish section in the North East and that is where AlQaeda was
suspected (we in this country knew that). Also note that other documents
released recently point to a concerted effort by Saddam to kill
Zawahiri, if he could find him. It seems clear to everyone but some on
your side that alQaeda and Saddam were mortal enemies.
These documents are not made up by the right
Nobody said that.
There's a big difference between documents and documents that are
*relevant* to your point, Frankly that should not be a difficult concept
for you to understand , but you have missed it repeatedly.
I do not doubt these documents, even though they are specifically listed
as unverified. I don't see how they are relevant to Saddam <-> al Qaeda.
That is your point, isn't it?
as you are trying to imply
as not being respectable enough because they're in Arabic and your so
called "trained professionals" did not find. These documents are there
in plain English for you or anyone else, if you would even bother to
read them.
Read what? The examples you posted are in Arabic! The others say nothing
about Saddam <-> alQaeda. Did you not read the list of topics?
But again I suppose that this military web site is only
another lap dog for this president and his administration.
Nope, nobody said that. Don't you read what I post, or do you just
imagine what I must be saying?
This is a
story that will not go away and in the weeks to come, it will have proof
that Saddam had connections with Al-queda and OBL.
What is that, you go find it! Are you that completely useless?
You've got nothing! Bush has got nothing, Cheney has got nothing!
Rumsfeldt has got nothing!
and you have nothing. Give me reliable documents that says otherwise.
Your logic is failing completely there. You want documents that prove W
has got no documents that prove his case? Does that not seem absurd to you?
Frankly, you have been running from any actual analysis for some time.
??? This is all a figment of our imagination. There are no such
documents.
Of course there are no documents on your side. If there were they would
be out there. The W White House has never had a problem declassifying
anything that helps it make it's case!
That elephant is still in the room. Refute the analysis of
these "actual" documents with some validity,
There is nothing in there that points to Saddam and alQaeda having
anything but hatred for each other. Point at that document in there!
Point at anything that even implies that it is in there. The only thing
that is stated, again, is that Saddam suspected there was an alQaeda
presence in Iraq. Hell that seems to be a step better than the US under
W, who missed alQaeda in America completely.
then maybe we might think
that you and your party do not have an ulterior motive.
There is nothing in them, if there were it would be big big news for
Bush.
And the left will
swear in their death bed (In November), that this is not about
politics in trying to get the power back that they lost or what was
done to Clinton.
Telles's Law again.
Bush is completely indefensible.
It only shows the hypocrisy of these lunatics. I wonder what they are
going to do or say when the Iran problem, come to our doorstep and
we're going to have to deal with it head on.
You still have presented nothing. And your side ignored actually doing
anything about Iran while calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". So,
make a bold statement and do the usual lack of follow up.
Here is that straw man again. What is it that you propose we do with
Iran, since you and your party are suppose to be the expert on foreign
affairs? If we go to war with them, it would be wrong according to you
and your "concerned" party. If we take the diplomatic road, that would
also be wrong also.
Here is what Howard Dean said:
First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North
Koreans to disarm North Korea. Secondly, under no circumstances will a
Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden and four, the authority
and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by
American companies.
No one on our side has ever said that we shoudn't work with our Allies
and others, such as Russia and China. W has done a remarkably poor job
of that, or did you miss the fact that the Coalition of the Willing was
not only weak to start but has fallen off considerably. Anyone else, on
either side could have done better.
The bottom line is that you and your party are only
concerned about the failings of this president and this administration
in order to regain back the power of the left. At least be honest enough
to admit your intentions and stop hiding behind, intellectual pretense.
It seems that you respond more to faith than to reason. I have pointed
over and over to what ex Administration staffers have said and you argue
even with what Republicans say!
It would be step in right direction if you could put anyone else in
office. Hell, Chuck Hagel for one. But we know that won't happen.
Call it what it is. Political rhetoric and politics as usual.
Don't you remember when W said he was a uniter not a divider.
Wouldn't that have been a great promise to have kept.
Here's a thought for you, how many Republicans were in the Clinton Cabinet?
Hint, two more than the number of Democrats in W's cabinet.
And now, they
are send trifling amounts of money to support the opposition party.
This connection the US has created is causing great problems for them
and no benefit whatsoever. Read some of what they have to say, they
think we are insane for doing that!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
Yes,
You go there and read that and you will find that there is *only*
wishfull thinkinking.
Pretty much the same thinking that Paul Pillar, the CIA chief
intelligence analyst (2000- 2005 Middle East) talks about here:
The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it
to look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship -- calling
on analysts not only to turn over additional Iraqi rocks, but also to
turn over ones already examined and to scratch the dirt to see if
there might be something there after all. The result was an
intelligence output that -- because the question being investigated
was never put in context -- obscured rather than enhanced
understanding of al Qaeda's actual sources of strength and support.
This process represented a radical departure from the textbook model
of the relationship between intelligence and policy, in which an
intelligence service responds to policymaker interest in certain
subjects (such as "security threats from Iraq" or "al Qaeda's
supporters") and explores them in whatever direction the evidence
leads. The process did not involve intelligence work designed to find
dangers not yet discovered or to inform decisions not yet made.
Instead, it involved research to find evidence in support of a
specific line of argument -- that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda
-- which in turn was being used to justify a specific policy decision.
<URL:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p20/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
Paul Pillar: During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, writes the
intelligence community's former senior analyst for the Middle East, "he
Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized
the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence
to make its public case."
And of course we are going to have to believe one of the mouth piece and
an apologists for the left,
On the left! Are you crazy? He was one of yours, just like Colin
Powell's aide Col Lawrence Wilkerson was one of yours! Just like Paul
O'Neal was one of yours. Just like Richard Clarke was one of yours.
Clarke came out of the first Bush Whitehouse and was a card carrying
Republican!
as having any validity to his findings. It
must be great being a Monday morning quarterback. I suppose that if the
left had this information before the war began they would not have voted
to go to war.
There is a long trail of the White House being warned before the fact.
There is a long trail of manipulations to subvert that.
I wonder why he doesn't mentions the intelligence of
other country's and the foolishness of the left in accepting it,
Get it through your thick skull, This has nothing to do with the left.
in his
report? Only that Bush mislead the world and everyone in our government.
How convenient.
Boy, after these documents does he sound and look stupid.
You think that
there would be a detraction from this ignoramus statement? Let me not
hold my breath. What are you and Paul Pillar are going to do with these
documents, when the media and public start looking into this more
closely in the next weeks to come? Sweep them under the rug?
We welcome any light!
That is not something that can be said about the most secretive White
House in memory!
Jeff
<snipped more drivil that was addressed above>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: Documents Tie Saddam's Iraq, Al-Qaeda |
18 Mar 2006 02:26:14 AM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
ABC reports the evidence, then tells us not to believe it...
Here's what I been telling you for the last couple of months and here it
is. It's from ABC News. Not CNS, Drudge Report...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1734436
Yes,
You go there and read that and you will find that there is *only*
wishfull thinkinking.
Pretty much the same thinking that Paul Pillar, the CIA chief
intelligence analyst (2000- 2005 Middle East) talks about here:
The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it
to look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship -- calling
on analysts not only to turn over additional Iraqi rocks, but also to
turn over ones already examined and to scratch the dirt to see if there
might be something there after all. The result was an intelligence
output that -- because the question being investigated was never put in
context -- obscured rather than enhanced understanding of al Qaeda's
actual sources of strength and support.
This process represented a radical departure from the textbook model of
the relationship between intelligence and policy, in which an
intelligence service responds to policymaker interest in certain
subjects (such as "security threats from Iraq" or "al Qaeda's
supporters") and explores them in whatever direction the evidence leads.
The process did not involve intelligence work designed to find dangers
not yet discovered or to inform decisions not yet made. Instead, it
involved research to find evidence in support of a specific line of
argument -- that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda -- which in turn
was being used to justify a specific policy decision.
<URL:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p20/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin
Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries
of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government,
which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents
discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military
Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say,
"The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC News."
<snipped drivil>
To Read More Of The Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
Don't you think that if there actually was something in there that Bush
or Cheney or Rumsfeldt would be screaming about the proof? Don't you?!
But no, what they expect is for some blogger to uncover some hidden
meaning in these documents, which incidently are still in Arabic!
It's just more smokescreen. You go there Yankoff and you show us the
proof in those documents now!
Other released documents can be found at
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
