"Support the Troops"

[red states rule]

quit tap dancing and back pedalling! YOU were the one who said that the 9/11 Commission report proved that Saddam and AQ were working together.... and that was a lie then and it is now...and you don't have the balls to just admit you fucked up.

The links were there son - they are in the article.

 

[maineman]

The links were there son - they are in the article.

no they were not...nothing in the 9/11 commission reports an alliance between Saddam and AQ... why must you lie like that?

 

[maineman]

seriously...you are the king of cutting and pasting.... prove your own point: go to the 9/11 commission report and cut and paste the passages that report an alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda. I can wait.

 

[red states rule]

seriously...you are the king of cutting and pasting.... prove your own point: go to the 9/11 commission report and cut and paste the passages that report an alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda. I can wait.

Did you miss this part or did you ignore it?

Meanwhile, last year, a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee revealed bin Laden and Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The memo, dated Oct. 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. The memo cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources.

The memo reports Hussein's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through his overthrow. It says bin Laden sent ''emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.'' At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, ''Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al-Qaida.''

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al-Qaida-affiliated National Islamic Front.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

 

[maineman]

odd.

I asked you to post the section from the 9/11 commission report that you claimed proved your point, and you give me a piece from worldnetdaily. Did you misunderstand me?

 

[red states rule]

odd.

I asked you to post the section from the 9/11 commission report that you claimed proved your point, and you give me a piece from worldnetdaily. Did you misunderstand me?

It is part of the article that the Commission examined and commented on

Try reading very s-l-o-w-l-y

 

[maineman]

Doug Feith, by the way, was working in Rummy's renegade politicizing intell shop within the defense department .... if you could provide a more non-partisan sourse - like the 9/11 commission as you earlier claimed, that would be real nice.

 

[maineman]

It is part of the article that the Commission examined and commented on

Try reading very s-l-o-w-l-y

show me what the commission had to say about it.....

come on...you're the cut and paste master.... do your thing...cut and paste the comments from the commission that address this Fieth memo. I'll wait.

 

[Rosotar]

this logic brought to you by the lib who said Kerry did not insult the troops

Ahh....the old "bait and switch!"

Clever ploy red states.

Now back to the AQ Saddam connection.

This conversation sparked my interest and I am waiting with baited breath for you to substantiate this connection.

 

[maineman]

I say again:

show me what the commission had to say about it.....

come on...you're the cut and paste master.... do your thing...cut and paste the comments from the commission that address this Fieth memo. I'll wait.

 

[red states rule]

I say again:

The 9-11 Copmmission mentioned this link and here are more details............

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
Last Updated: 12:14pm BST 27/04/2003



Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

 

[maineman]

what part of "show me the 9/11 commission text" do you not understand?

I say again...you are the acknowledged master of cut and paste....

go cut and paste the text from the 9/11 commission report that supports your allegation that the commission claimed an alliance between Saddam and AQ.

I'll wait.

 

[Gunny]

this logic brought to you by the lib who said Kerry did not insult the troops

WTF? Dude, you are tap-dancing your ass off.

 

[Gunny]

The 9-11 Copmmission mentioned this link and here are more details............

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
Last Updated: 12:14pm BST 27/04/2003



Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

God, you are embarrassing.

 

[red states rule]

Sorry to bust your bubble amd your new best friends MM..................


With al Qaeda as its foundation, bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea, With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force reprsented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.

9/1 Commission Staff Statement #15, Overview of the Enemy, Page Three

 

[maineman]

Sorry to bust your bubble amd your new best friends MM..................


With al Qaeda as its foundation, bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea, With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force reprsented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.

9/1 Commission Staff Statement #15, Overview of the Enemy, Page Three

I am sorry to bust YOUR bubble....

No one is suggesting that Al Qaeda did not draw its recruits from throughout the region. What I am suggesting is that there is no proof that the government of Iraq was involved in any way. Please read the sentence above... it claims that terrorist groups from Iraq were part of an organization that Al Qaeda and bin Laden "sought to build".... it does not say that he was successful in building that organization and it certainly does not say that Saddam or the government of Iraq was involved in any way.

Now...if you could please cut and paste that section from the 9/11 report that proves the alliance between Saddam and OBL that you claim exists, I'd love to see it. Either that, or just admit that your wise mouth wrote a check that your ass couldn't cash.

 

[red states rule]

I am sorry to bust YOUR bubble....

No one is suggesting that Al Qaeda did not draw its recruits from throughout the region. What I am suggesting is that there is no proof that the government of Iraq was involved in any way. Please read the sentence above... it claims that terrorist groups from Iraq were part of an organization that Al Qaeda and bin Laden "sought to build".... it does not say that he was successful in building that organization and it certainly does not say that Saddam or the government of Iraq was involved in any way.

Now...if you could please cut and paste that section from the 9/11 report that proves the alliance between Saddam and OBL that you claim exists, I'd love to see it. Either that, or just admit that your wise mouth wrote a check that your ass couldn't cash.

Oh, there is more from the Commission - not that you will pay any attention


"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. The Sudanese government arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intellignece officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring waepons"

9/11 Commission, Staff Statement #15, Page 5

 

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of the thread.............


Burns of NY Times on 'Today': 'No Limit to this Violence' if US Troops Removed
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 29, 2007 - 10:56.
Far be it from me to put in a plug for "Today," but I do hope Nancy Pelosi & Friends were watching this morning. Congressional Dems might be quick to dismiss what President Bush predicts would be the upshot of a date-certain pull-out from Iraq. But perhaps they would not so blithely disregard the observations of one of the most experienced and respected reporters on Iraqi matters . . . a New York Times staffer, no less.

During this morning's first half-hour, "Today" aired a segment devoted to answering the question "What if US Troops Withdraw?" In the first part, narrated by David Gregory, dueling experts painted alternatively gloomy and not-so-glum pictures of what things would be like if the US withdrew. Those on the "things wouldn't-be-so-bad" side seemed to receive more than their fair share of air time.

But then, Matt Lauer interviewed John Burns. As Matt observed, "few Western journalists have as a good a perspective on this war in Iraq as New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns."

View video here.

LAUER: What do you think happens if there's a date certain set for that withdrawal?

BURNS: If United States troops stay, there will be mounting casualties and costs for the American taxpayer. If they leave, I think from the perspective of watching this war for four years or more in Baghdad, there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

And later: "Most would agree there is a civil war, but a countervaling force exercised principally by Americans but also other coalition troops is a very significant factor that leaves the potential for a considerable worsening once you remove that countervaling force. . . Remove that countervaling force and then there will be no limit to this violence."

LAUER: What about this idea that if we leave, we leave behind a vacuum that other states in that region will rush to fill?

BURNS: Very difficult to tell what they would do, but of course this could come as a wake-up call to them, once they were convinced that American troops were going to withdraw and that they might get drawn in, perhaps they would get serious amongst themselves about drawing up some sort of compact to avoid that possibility, but that's purely in the realm of speculation. We really don't know what their intentions would be, but there's certainly a potential for regional conflict.

LAUER: And scenario number three, John, is that if we leave a terrorist haven behind in Iraq, as the president has warned a number of times over these last four years, that we're going to have to fight those terrorists again here at home. What's the likelihood of that, in your opinion?

BURNS: Well, it's very difficult for me, for anyone, to predict what would happen, but you only have to look at Afghanistan to see what happens when you have a failed state and an Islamic militant component of some size, not necessarily controlling the state. But certainly in Anbar province, to the west of Baghdad, they probably would have effective control and that's a province that abuts, as you know, to the west, key Sunni Arab states. Who knows what could happen? But certainly, yes, there's a potential for an external threat arising from that.

LAUER: From what you've seen, from what you've heard, is the surge working?

BURNS: When I left Baghdad it was just beginning, but from what I see and hear, from here in England at the moment [he's scheduled to return to Iraq soon], the American military command is reporting a 25% decrease in overall levels of violence in Baghdad. That was predictable. The question is, of course, how long can you sustain it, and is the American public prepared to pay the costs of sustaining it, not over six months, or twelve months, but more likely over a much longer period than that?

Burns was duly modest about his powers of prognostication. But on sum, he clearly seems to believe that the kind of withdrawal being proposed by the congressional Dems could have disastrous consequences both for Iraq itself as well as for U.S. national security interests. Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid -- are you listening?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11699

 

[maineman]

Oh, there is more from the Commission - not that you will pay any attention


"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. The Sudanese government arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intellignece officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring waepons"

9/11 Commission, Staff Statement #15, Page 5

that quote says nothing about Saddam establishing an alliance with OBL. OBL is "said to have requested" stuff.... nowhere does it say that Saddam fulfilled those requests. Keep trying.

 

[red states rule]

that quote says nothing about Saddam establishing an alliance with OBL. OBL is "said to have requested" stuff.... nowhere does it say that Saddam fulfilled those requests. Keep trying.

as I said, not surprised you dismiss the links