Username:
Password:
lost p/w?
home
|
help
|
search
|
register
Music
News
Forum
Community
public
search
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.
Previous 100
Page: [
1
2
]
Next 100
Post A Reply
From:
Guest
(
Icons
-
Linking
)
Post:
© DMusic LLC -
Employment
|
TOS
|
Subscribe