DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: U Think The Troops Should Come Home?

Forums > The General Forum

U Think The Troops Should Come Home?

zedsalt	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 4:11 PM The "documents" alluded to by Mona Charen (speechwriter for Nancy Reagan and Jack Kemp / Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison and Public Affairs officer for Ronald Reagan) are, in reality, a single document- a sixteen page, handwritten document which "appears to have been authored in early '97". That last quote is from a fifty point memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. The memo states both that the document "appears to have been authored in early '97" and that it "details Iraq-al Qaeda contacts beginning in 1990 and continuing through mid-March 2003". This single document has been repeatedly cited as proof of the following meetings: 1990- "emissaries of bin Laden" with "Iraqi government officials" in Jordan 1992- "the first meeting between the Iraqi Intelligence Service" (specifically, former IIS Deputy Director and Ambassador to Turkey, Faruq Hijazi) and "al Qaeda" (specifically, Ayman al Zawahiri) in Sudan, "brokered by Hassan al-Turabi". An indeterminate number of these meetings was said to have happened in '92 through '95. 1994- "a Sudanese official" representing, not the Sudanese government, but moonlighting as a representative of "bin Laden's Advice and Reform Commission" with Uday Hussein in Iraq February 19th, 1995- This is The Big One, the meeting most often cited as proof positive that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. Unlike most of the meetings mentioned in the sixteen page handwritten document, the claim is that this meeting has been corroborated by multiple sources. This meeting was reportedly between "a former Director for Iraq Intelligence Directorate 4" and bin Laden. Some of the corroborating sources have been said to have expressed outrage that this same former Director was placed in a very high position in the temporary Iraqi government set up after the war, but that outrage quieted when he was eventually voted out by the Iraqi people. July 1996- Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, Director of Iraqi Intelligence, with bin Laden "at bin Laden's farm in Sudan" February 3, 1998- Ayman al Zawahiri with "the Iraqi Vice President" in Iraq "late 1998", December 1998- Here, it gets a little trickier...not just because this is the first date which conflicts with the "early '97" assessment of when the document was authored, but because the corroboration is far from perfect. The document states that "An Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraq Intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan" met with bin Laden in Afghanistan. The CIA authored two reports which conflict with this and with each other. One says they have evidence that "two Iraqi Intelligence officers" met with bin Laden and al Zawahiri; the other says that it was one IIS officer. 1999- Faruq Hajazi with bin Laden, once in Sudan, once in Afghanistan And last but certainly not least, the document says that "a large number of al Qaeda operatives headed to Iraq" in October of 2002 Granted, this single document does NOT represent the sum total of evidence said to exist of ties between al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq, but it does seem consistent in character with the other "evidence" we've been fed, doesn't it?
GreatGooglyM...	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 4:48 PM My... eyes... bleed...
K3VIN	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 8:06 PM ElectronicEmpireDay3 Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:16 AM hate9, #1. and now they're everywhere, including iraq not true the taliban were not in iraq when saddam was in power.. and if they were.. it was not under his knowlede.. like the members of the taliban in the us we did not know about #2. which is why the wmd's found today were probably active when saddam was lying to the world about not having any they were old... its a big lie.. the pwoer of suggestion is really screwing up ur mind.. why is america allowed to have them and not iraq? #3. it's easy to get caught up in your own spin, isn't it - when you want something to be the truth so bad, I guess you'll pose it any way you can to present your particular brand of fiction as fact, eh? kinda like what our government does to us.. propaganda anyone? #4. the 9/11 attcks were being planned pretty much the entire time clinton was in office what does this have to do with anything really.. bush was talking to some kids.. #5. the stubborn people you refer to happen to be the ones who will be devastated by the fact that iraq is now a democracy - and documents recovered from al zarqawi verify that it is working. mhmm -_- ElectronicEmpireDay3 Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:28 AM how about a little perspective: http://www.nysun.com/article/32787?page_no=1 "...the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9..." keep that in mind when booking your next vacation! wow thanks for putting some statistics up for me... so why would u invade iraq qhich is really less of a threat to the us, then itself? america needs to fix its own problems.
zedsalt	Date: June 26, 2006 @ 3:38 PM What I was hoping to point out yesterday was that on one side of the argument, we have rooms full of evidence, corroborated by multiple discrete sources, with juuuuust enough inconsistency to be explained by lapses in memory and attempts at self-aggrandizement. On the other side, we have a handful of pathetic, self-contradictory documents like the one which was declassified last March because it "was found to have neither worth nor merit". When members of Saddam Hussein's government were exposed as having met with al Qaeda operatives, he had them executed...and their FAMILIES. Now, I realize that we're talking about Saddam freakin' Hussein here, but to me, having someone's sons and daughters lined up along a trench and shot in the back of the head does NOT sound like a pat on the back for being a good envoy. Ms. Charen would like us to take the debunked and declassified document as an example of why we should have faith in our government. I do take it as such...just not for the reasons she gave. Recently our leadership has, in an admirable display of proper governance, bravely begun to admit that it was WRONG- wrong on WMDs, wrong on Iraq/al Qaeda links, wrong on strategy for the war and its aftermath. It DOES strengthen my faith. It makes it easier to believe that the errors were honest ones, largely the result of the pain and fervor caused by the 9/11 attacks. It IS heartening. It gives me hope that "staying the course" will eventually give way to reason.

Page: [ 1 2 ]

~~Next 100~~

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post:

© DMusic LLC - Employment | TOS | Subscribe