ABC News--More evidence of ties Iraq-Bin Laden, WMD

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan? - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>the information is as to reports dating back to 1995. In years past the US was allied with Bin Laden and Sadaam. Years pass, allies change, friends become enemies and vice versa… so a decade after these reports, what is the relevance.</p>

3

<p>One document states they were working together in 2001. That is very close to when we were deciding to go in.</p>

<p>I concur on the point that over time allies can become enemies and vice versa. I wish all those on the democrat side would remember that.</p>

4

<p>I have been reading a number of these documents and they provide very fascinating reading, but as bullwinkle’s post shows - those who are inclined to not believe it when facts are shown to them will continue to not believe. As recently as this Sunday I heard John Murtha say that there “was absolutely no relationship” between Iraq and terrorists. I think he needs to read the reports of the various commisions … again - but this time with his eyes open.</p>

5

<p>Keep scraping – maybe you’ll actually figure out someday why your president went to war. And if you do, maybe you should let him know too.</p>

6

<p>Facts? Gee, facts, facts, facts</p>

<p>Oh, yeah, Bush’s facts about why we went to war? What are they this week…oh yeah, he BALEEVVEESS, faith above facts seems to be his motto</p>

7

<p>Didn’t Chenney meet with Saddam!! Yes!!! So he is a terrorist sympothizer!!! </p>

<p>And Bush Sr met with the Bin Laden family!!</p>

<p>If you want to talke about that past, then talk about the past in its totallity</p>

8

<p>fundingfather-i’m so very honored to have you single me out. I’m more than happy to keep an open mind and to accept facts. Maybe someday this administration will come up with some that actually have a basis in reality.</p>

9

<p>If you read the article, this is what you find:</p>

<p>"(Editor’s Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states “Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.”</p>

<p>Yeah, this is a document that can be trusted, tha just is shared NOW when things aren’t going Bush’s way</p>

<p>(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.)</p>

10

<p>So FF, what exactly does any of this prove? What evidence is there/</p>

<p>Some didn;t even believe the DOwning Street Memos were real, yet this is the evidence they claim is valid to support the reason for going to war?</p>

<p>Uhhuh</p>

11

<p>Barrons states: One document states they were working together in 2001. That is very close to when we were deciding to go in.</p>

<p>Please clarify which one and exactly how we know it is real</p>

<p>I mean, that these come out NOW, after years of asking about proof, to suddenly be shown hand written notes, with questionable sources</p>

<p>yet we don’t beleive our own people</p>

12

<p>“I mean, that these come out NOW, after years of asking about proof, to suddenly be shown hand written notes, with questionable sources”</p>

<p>The reason they came out now is that people like Stephen Hayes who has researched this issue more than any other person and Congressman Pete Hoekstra finally wore the administration down to get them to release the documents - there are millions of them, the vast majority of which have yet to be looked at much less translated. The rationale for finally releasing them was to take advantage of the resources of web for people to translate them.</p>

<p>So far what has been translated has been much more incriminating than exculpatory - lots and lots of dots pointing in one direction. But as I said above, this whole effort is wasted on people like yourself.</p>

13

<p>What all these new mystery, just uncovered, out of date, unsigned and unsubstantiated nonsense memos are leading up to is, at least in part, an effort to discredit (as if that’s needed) Rumsfeld as the administration is now (per various news reports) looking to set him up as the fall guy and ease him out the door. Not unlike Reagan shaking up his staff to move away from the second term troubles he faced.</p>

<p>Dumbya and Cowboy Dick want to set up old Uncle Donald as the patsy, create more misdirection as to the phantom reasons we went to war and clear a path for our ongoing occupation of Iraq and ultimately the oil fields (an occupation that was always intended given that no exit strategy was EVER in place and still ain’t).</p>

14

<p>Yeah, that is why they arebeing shared now</p>

<p>Sure, it is</p>

15

<p>But translated from WHAT? It takes three years to translate stuff?</p>

<p>We are in worse shape than I thought</p>

16

<p>Oh, this is just plain hilarious.</p>

<p><<sarcasm>></sarcasm></p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>There were other things going on that these documents didn’t support, so they sat in boxes. They’ve only been released to the public recently and that’s what’s made them available to be translated.</p>

<p>This story is apparently starting to attract attention.

</p>

<p>But the news gets better. This is based on interviews with a detainee:

<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp[/url]”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
</ol>