Drip by drip, Hussein/Bin Laden truth is coming out

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Remember, this is ABC News editorial comments trying to do their best spin on things.

New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Here's a taste...

March 16, 2006 — 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: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.


"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

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.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: 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.)


"Election Campaign Laws in France"

Documents dated July-August 1999

Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called "Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed."

(Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Surely you didn't read what you posted:

"this document is of limited evidentiary value"

And this:

"The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda."

Reaching a bit aren't you?
 
Barry, the parts you quoted were "Editor's notes". How convenient for a supposed news piece to have those "Editor's notes" so that people would know how to translate the information. For pete's sake, just give the info and let us make up our own mind. Or is ABC News afraid that people will side with the President? It's outrageous. And btw, "limited evidentiary value" does NOT mean "no evidentiary value". In other words, it's worth something, even to the thought-controlling editors at ABC News.
 
barry2952 said:
Surely you didn't read what you posted:

"this document is of limited evidentiary value"

And this:

"The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda."

Reaching a bit aren't you?

MonsterMark said:
Remember, this is ABC News editorial comments trying to do their best spin on things.
Try reading before replying.

Barry, I know you can't help it, but sometimes you are such a ...

donkey.jpg
 
Kbob said:
Barry, the parts you quoted were "Editor's notes". How convenient for a supposed news piece to have those "Editor's notes" so that people would know how to translate the information. For pete's sake, just give the info and let us make up our own mind. Or is ABC News afraid that people will side with the President? It's outrageous. And btw, "limited evidentiary value" does NOT mean "no evidentiary value". In other words, it's worth something, even to the thought-controlling editors at ABC News.
Lefties (MSM) are stunning in their stupidity.
 
barry2952 said:
Surely you didn't read what you posted:

"this document is of limited evidentiary value"
Surely you decided not to print this...

ABC News Editor: "While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, ...
 
You make it seem like these four documents justify us going into Iraq. Most people now disagree with you.

If Bush had something of value he would have presented it long ago.
 
barry2952 said:
You make it seem like these four documents justify us going into Iraq. Most people now disagree with you.

If Bush had something of value he would have presented it long ago.
In case you haven't heard, we have captured 10's of thousands of documents. Unfortunately for us, they are written in jibberish. May take a while.

And trust me, Bush doesn't need to explain himself to you or anyone else for that matter.
 
MonsterMark said:
And trust me, Bush doesn't need to explain himself to you or anyone else for that matter.

I must disagree with you there, the President serves the American people, not the other way around. Otherwise, he'd be Emperor George W. Bush.


And that avatar of yours is torture, must you use it? :)
 
Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link

(AP) Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq, contending that the terrorist group was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al Qaeda. Others in al Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview Thursday. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network during that period.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate.

The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President George W. Bush took the country to war.

Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al Qaeda, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/iraq/main2655316.shtml
 
Eh, stop misquoting me. Is that the best you can do or just what you do when proven wrong?
 
My avatar is what I really look like...blah blah blah...I hate Bush...blah blah blah...

See you fellows around...maybe. I've got better things to do with my time than wasting it being edited by censorous thugs like you.

Ain't the First Amendment great? [If you're an administrator, that is!]
-- Joeychgo
 
I havent edited your posts my friend. Monstermark did, on his own and without my comment. Its really bad when he edits something.

Maybe you should look in the mirror. The only hater I have seen around here, really is you. You hate anyone who disagrees with you.
 
I think he needs to get the sand out of his vagina. Grow a pair man. If you don't like something, throwing a girly little fit doesn't help anything. You have the ability to put together intelligent, meaningful posts. Yet half the time you choose to throw fits and make yourself seem more unintelligent than those you so quickly criticize.
 
:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:
 
I think he took his ball and went hme guys. Couldnt take the heat I guess.
 
He's stomped his little feet before, left and come back, guns ablazin'. Why do you think this hissy fit is any different?

He'll be back.
 
I think he took his ball and went hme guys. Couldnt take the heat I guess.

That's not the issue.

The issue is pretty simple.

As an admin, I play pretty loose with this forum. You can pretty much say whatever you want.

HOWEVER, the line in the sand has to be drawn when it comes to name calling. What purpose does that serve?

It is the only thing that puts me over the top and the only thing I have censored.

If two guys are giving and taking pretty equally, I usually let it slide. Politics can be rough and tumble. And especially frustrating when having to deal with all the libs around here.:cool:
 
He's stomped his little feet before, left and come back, guns ablazin'. Why do you think this hissy fit is any different?

He'll be back.
Like I really need you to jump in here right now.

But I have noticed this pattern in the past. You seem to like to pile on.

Humm. Character trait?
 
Nope. Just can't wait for him to leave. Might restore a level of civility around here. Might find a few new contributors, too.
 
That's not the issue.

The issue is pretty simple.

As an admin, I play pretty loose with this forum. You can pretty much say whatever you want.

HOWEVER, the line in the sand has to be drawn when it comes to name calling. What purpose does that serve?

It is the only thing that puts me over the top and the only thing I have censored.

If two guys are giving and taking pretty equally, I usually let it slide. Politics can be rough and tumble. And especially frustrating when having to deal with all the libs around here.:cool:


And I agree with this policy and pretty much follow the same thing myself. I often let his name calling go. It just demeans the integrity of any argument.

Like I really need you to jump in here right now.


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope. Just can't wait for him to leave. Might restore a level of civility around here. Might find a few new contributors, too.

I wish he would just behave. He's smart - and a tough debater - but he is too friggin arrogant and abusive. He could be an asset but chooses to not be one.

Hopefully, more people will debate now that they can do so without fear of being berated for their effort.
 
I wish he would just behave. He's smart - and a tough debater - but he is too friggin arrogant and abusive. He could be an asset but chooses to not be one.

Hopefully, more people will debate now that they can do so without fear of being berated for their effort.

If people are actually afraid to debate in here because of "Fosstenphobia"; I'll berate those pussies myself.
 

Members online

Back
Top