Zeb,
Where is the original article, because I’d really rather see it in context. Something like “timeswatch” sounds like it may just have a wee bit of an agenda of it’s own to push…
This has been an eventful week in the ongoing translation of pre-war documents.
(I hope you appreciate the time it takes to condense these into liberal friendly soundbites)
bin laden + saddam
–A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein
–Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio.
Support for al-qaeda splinter cells
“SADDAM HUSSEIN’S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support–temporarily, it seems–after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.”
On how to thwart the un inspections:
“Document dated March 23, 1997
A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:
Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.).
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents.
Removing files from computers.
The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents”
Sources:
-
Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan? - ABC News
-
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
Ok, for the nitwits who won’t read.
Important points:
I. As most people with an IQ North of 0 suspected, alqaeda/binladen/saddam were in league. Further, saddam personally knew and approved operations between his regime and bin laden’s alqaeda.
II. saddam supported multiple terrorist regimes, including alqaeda.
III. The Iraqis had an offical plan to thwart the inspectors.
These documents are confirming many of the Bush Administration’s main contentions.
JeffR
[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:
“Ironic hearing this from Mr. Party Line himself. I don’t think you’ve had a thought on your own that hasn’t come from Limbaugh’s head.”
Great!!! Another in a long list of errors on your part!!!
Interesting. Out of curiosity, do you read Limbaugh?
I have to admit to reading susanestrich, the newyorktimes, cnn, and other liberal news outlets.
JeffR
Please provide examples of how the New York Times is a “liberal” media outlet.
harris,
You might want to ask the “public editor” of the NYT. He says it’s liberal.
Do you think he’s lying?
"Daniel Okrent, the Times “public editor” (what other newspapers would call an ombudsman) admitted the obvious in his Sunday Week in Review column, provocatively titled “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
Okrent answers his own question in the piece’s very first line: "Of course it is.
Okrent, who was the editor at large for Life magazine from 1999 to 2001, admitted his Democratic leanings in his very first column as ombudsman."
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0726.asp
[/quote]
The article finds liberal leanings in the magazine, op-ed page, and the fashion section.
It also accuses the Times of being “liberal” in that the Science section has come out in favor of evolution over creationism, which most people would not find “liberal,” just intelligent.
Forgive me if somebody smarter and or more articulate than me has said this already better than i am able to, but i stoped reading after page 2 as i was about to throw up.
do you guys not realize that you BOTH(right wing/left wingers) are doing the exact same thing???
bush went in on the claims saddam had wmd, and none were found, so the left cried :“liar-liar, pants on fire!!!” so the right decided to switch gears and say: “umm, well, we went in there to spread democaracy anyhoo, so there!”
now the right brings up so called “proof” that saddam had and was seeking wmd’s, so NOW the left is switching gears, “uhhhh, well, we dont care if he had them or not, lots of people have them, so we should not have gone in anyway”!
fuck, politics is the new religion in this country, we are to secular and civilized to fight about that(religion) so lets choose a political ideology and defend it to the tooth at all costs!!!1111!!! fuck that both sides are crooked as hell!!!
whew, that felt good…
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
Forgive me if somebody smarter and or more articulate than me has said this already better than i am able to, but i stoped reading after page 2 as i was about to throw up.
do you guys not realize that you BOTH(right wing/left wingers) are doing the exact same thing???
bush went in on the claims saddam had wmd, and none were found, so the left cried :“liar-liar, pants on fire!!!” so the right decided to switch gears and say: “umm, well, we went in there to spread democaracy anyhoo, so there!”
now the right brings up so called “proof” that saddam had and was seeking wmd’s, so NOW the left is switching gears, “uhhhh, well, we dont care if he had them or not, lots of people have them, so we should not have gone in anyway”!
fuck, politics is the new religion in this country, we are to secular and civilized to fight about that(religion) so lets choose a political ideology and defend it to the tooth at all costs!!!1111!!! fuck that both sides are crooked as hell!!!
whew, that felt good…;)[/quote]
No shit brother. They are all crooked anyway. That’s why I don’t like either side.
On a side note, doesn’t this make the George II look like an asshole?
Well, we switched causes because we thought we were wrong, but it turns out we were right, I swear this was all faulty intelligence
“A good war justifies any cause” - Nietzsche
i think it makes both sides look pretty silly…
little irish and heavythrower,
I appreciate your input.
However, your commentary added nothing to this discussion.
The facts that are coming out back up many of the main assertions for which the United States went to war.
Bush clearly stated that regimes that supported terrorists would be held accountable. He clearly stated Iraq had been defying the will of the international community. He clearly stated that hussein must not be allowed to disseminate wmd and their capability to groups dedicated to our harm.
Now, I am aware that you have limited powers of concentration, but, I ask you to revisit this issue. Think it through (if possible). If you can’t, at least refrain from adding commentary that adds nothing to the discussion (see the thread title).
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish and heavythrower,
I appreciate your input.
However, your commentary added nothing to this discussion.
The facts that are coming out back up many of the main assertions for which the United States went to war.
Bush clearly stated that regimes that supported terrorists would be held accountable. He clearly stated Iraq had been defying the will of the international community. He clearly stated that hussein must not be allowed to disseminate wmd and their capability to groups dedicated to our harm.
Now, I am aware that you have limited powers of concentration, but, I ask you to revisit this issue. Think it through (if possible). If you can’t, at least refrain from adding commentary that adds nothing to the discussion (see the thread title).
JeffR[/quote]
I’ll post on whatever thread I like.
So fuck off.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Bush clearly stated that regimes that supported terrorists would be held accountable.[/quote]
Then he lied about that too, I guess.
Maybe allowing the United Arab Emirates to control our port security is Bush’s idea of being held accountable? The UAE was the homeland of two of the 911 hijackers (zero hijackers came from Iraq) and the UAE royal family funneled money to them in support of the mission. The UAE is one of three nations to recognize the Taliban as legitimate. The UAE does not recognize the right of Israel to exist. Members of the UAE royal family met with Bin Laden as recently as 1999. But according to Bush they are a valuable ally.
Meanwhile Bin Laden is still hiding out in Pakistan. Pakistan has unsecured nukes. Pakistan has radical Islamic factions that want to destroy Amerca, and Pakistan harbors terrorists. But Bush says that Pakistan is an ally.
I guess Bush has a very nuanced view of what it means to support terrorists.
The three nations who think the Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan:
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Not Iraq.
Where did the 9-11 hijackers come from:
15 from Saudi Arabia
2 from United Arab Emirates
1 from Egypt
1 from Lebanon
Zero from Iraq.
bradley,
It’s unfortunate that you chose to add your zero cents to the argument.
You would not support attacking Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Pakistan if Bush suggested it.
Don’t you ever tire of trotting out the same old arguments? The place of someone’s birth is an ACCIDENT.
What’s important is the funding and official/nonofficial support behind the terrorist.
Are you claiming that Egypt should be attacked because one of her citizens became a homicidal murder?
If yes, then we’ll have to attack the United States. Example: tim mcveigh.
Anyway, I look forward to your pain in 2008.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish and heavythrower,
I appreciate your input.
However, your commentary added nothing to this discussion.
The facts that are coming out back up many of the main assertions for which the United States went to war.
Bush clearly stated that regimes that supported terrorists would be held accountable. He clearly stated Iraq had been defying the will of the international community. He clearly stated that hussein must not be allowed to disseminate wmd and their capability to groups dedicated to our harm.
Now, I am aware that you have limited powers of concentration, but, I ask you to revisit this issue. Think it through (if possible). If you can’t, at least refrain from adding commentary that adds nothing to the discussion (see the thread title).
JeffR[/quote]
jeff, personal insults aside, my inention is not to hijack your thread, and i do not like it when people chime in on a thread i am interested and participating in, with comments like"this is stupid" etc. so i a not trying to do that here.
i am trying to contribute to the discussion, but apparently my said contribution is not worthy in your eyes, but since this is an open forum and a free country, you will have to get over it.
what i am trying to say, is that i dont think no matter how many facts or how much "evidence’ each side puts up it will ever change anybodies mind. like i said, politics is the new religion in this country.
bush could come up with the cure for cancer and the left would still hate him, and likewise pictures could surface of bush snorting cocaine off the bare chest of a 12 yearold girl scout and the right would still find a way to defend him. it has gotten that out of hand in my opinion.
despite this “new evidence” i do not think that any reasonable fair minded person in their heart of hearts really think that saddam did not have any ties to terrorist and did not either possess or was trying to obtain WMD ability that could at some time pose a threat to the USA in this new world.
but hey, it does not matter, cause we are not talking about facts and evidence that is needed to win a case in a court of law, we are talking about ideology. 30-40% of the country would not support any sort of military force period, even if china was crossing the canadian border to kick our ass, LOL.
hey no worries, keep the thread going, lots of good information is being exchanged between all the bickering and insults, and i plan to keep checking in and reading posts here from time to time.
heavythrower wrote:
“jeff, personal insults aside, my inention is not to hijack your thread, and i do not like it when people chime in on a thread i am interested and participating in, with comments like"this is stupid” etc. so i a not trying to do that here.
i am trying to contribute to the discussion, but apparently my said contribution is not worthy in your eyes, but since this is an open forum and a free country, you will have to get over it.
what i am trying to say, is that i dont think no matter how many facts or how much "evidence’ each side puts up it will ever change anybodies mind. like i said, politics is the new religion in this country.
bush could come up with the cure for cancer and the left would still hate him, and likewise pictures could surface of bush snorting cocaine off the bare chest of a 12 yearold girl scout and the right would still find a way to defend him. it has gotten that out of hand in my opinion.
despite this “new evidence” i do not think that any reasonable fair minded person in their heart of hearts really think that saddam did not have any ties to terrorist and did not either possess or was trying to obtain WMD ability that could at some time pose a threat to the USA in this new world.
but hey, it does not matter, cause we are not talking about facts and evidence that is needed to win a case in a court of law, we are talking about ideology. 30-40% of the country would not support any sort of military force period, even if china was crossing the canadian border to kick our ass, LOL.
hey no worries, keep the thread going, lots of good information is being exchanged between all the bickering and insults, and i plan to keep checking in and reading posts here from time to time."
Heavy. That was an excellent post. I agree with everything you wrote.
I’ve learned it is an exercise in futility to try to convince the bradley’s and harris’ of the world of the truth. They see things one way only. I have to admit, it is fun to rub their noses in their uncompromising ideology. It’s based largely on ambition and schemes to try to wrest power from Republicans.
That’s fine. However, from time to time, there are open minded people who have thanked me for my input. As I have pointed out, the media does a POOR job of updating stories.
For instance: wmd and links to bin laden.
This is NOT a dead story. Incidentally, I have to give npr credit. Yesterday, EVEN THEY reported on the new information.
The government has said that there are literally TONS of information (tapes, letters, etc) that haven’t been translated.
It appears to be a literal gold mine.
Again, I agree 100%. If Bush said to hairy harris/bradley, that night was dark, they would ask for a “more credible source.”
JeffR
Jeff, Great Job!! I agree 100%, and I hope that you are as thankful as I am, that the Russians were helping Saddam track our movements in 2003. Those Russians, they really are some swell people to have as allies,( choke, gasp, cough).
Jerffy,
You are such a twit. You are just as bad if not worse from a cheerleading point of view as the people you point to as haters.
You are one of those guys that would defend Bush if he was snorting coke and screwing interns in the oval office.