Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why did we create this mess? Only jr knows

In article <46FF13FD.7F48FA8C@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> > >
> > > Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence
> > > otherwise,
> > > then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
> > > to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.
> > >

> > You still haven't come close to addressing the original point, but I
> > know that you can't be expected to understand. You have no idea what's
> > being discussed, nor of the progression of events.
> >
> > The 9/11 Commission wasn't tasked with answering the question of whether
> > Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden, outside what concerns the 9/11
> > attacks.
> >
> > I may be wrong, but this MAY be why it's called the 9/11 Commission.

>
> The 911 commission WAS tasked with looking into Al Qaeda and it's
> connections...
>
> DUH


Yes?
>
> > Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
> > reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation before
> > the invasion.

>
> Oh of course. wink wink
>
> > There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't

>
> Proof? Oh yeah, "purged". How convenient. Zzzzzzz


"The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the
rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are
three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia
and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

"They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations
for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan,
where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad
hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five
months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted
list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

"Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents
at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin
Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to
reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."

---The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
by Inigo Gilmore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xm
l

The US military possesses millions of untranslated Iraqi government
documents in what is called the HARMONY database. These documents were
confiscated during and after Operation: Iraqi Freedom, and many remain
untranslated to this day (the administration claims that its military
and intelligence services translators were needed elsewhere, on far more
vital missions).

Because of pressure from constituents, journalists and US Rep. Curt
Weldon and others, a reluctant administration agreed to have the Defense
Department post these documents on the internet, where they may be
translated into English by private citizens.

As you may be aware, these unveted documents were posted on a
semi-regular basis until one series, once translated, turned out to be a
working blueprint for constructing an atomic bomb--and was filled with
highly sensitive engineering data. AFAIK, the HARMONY documents have not
been posted on the web since this scandal.

There are several other pertinent translations, but one such document is
of particular interest to the subject at hand:

(http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).

==begin quote==

Text of the document in English translated from Arabic.

In the Name of God the Merciful

Presidency of the Republic

Intelligence Apparatus

To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

Subject: Information

Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see
attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul
Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him
the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact
with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama bin
Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin
Laden group have shown cooperation to hit targets within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group
and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that
American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with
Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above
information.

Please view... Yours... With regards

Signature: ___________________
Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001

Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission

Signature: ___________________

===End quote===

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts

Much less clear (and much less probable) are connections between Iraq
intelligence services and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing--which may
have been instigated at higher levels within bin Laden's organization
(or may not). Most connections seem to indicate Iraq was an after the
fact accessory.

The bin Laden connection to the bombing is mostly through Ramzi Yousef,
who received training at bin Laden camps in Afghanistan. Also, Omar
Abdul Rahman (The "Blind Sheik") is an associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri,
and along with Zawahiri was arrested and later acquitted of involvement
in the assassination of Anwar Sadat (1981).

Iraq's connections to the bombing are far less clear, though Abdul Yasin
very much received support and protection from Iraqi Mukhabarat once he
left the US and escaped to Iraq (1993-1994).

"In the spring of 1994, a Jordanian stringer working for ABC News
spotted Abdul Rahman Yasin outside his father's house in Baghdad and
learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. After
that news was broadcast, Iraqi authorities took Yasin and the other men
in the house to an unknown location. His sixty-five-year-old mother, ill
with cancer, was allowed to visit them, until she died in October 1994,
in a hospital run by Iraqi security.13 As recently as May 1998, FBI
director Louis Freeh affirmed that Yasin was in Iraq."

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

In the end, there were definite connections between Iraq and bin Laden's
group, and these have been documented since the commencement of Op: IF.

Early reports to the contrary notwithstanding.


--
NeoLibertarian

"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
 
Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> In article <46FF13FD.7F48FA8C@hotmMOVEail.com>,
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence
> > > > otherwise,
> > > > then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
> > > > to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.
> > > >
> > > You still haven't come close to addressing the original point, but I
> > > know that you can't be expected to understand. You have no idea what's
> > > being discussed, nor of the progression of events.
> > >
> > > The 9/11 Commission wasn't tasked with answering the question of whether
> > > Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden, outside what concerns the 9/11
> > > attacks.
> > >
> > > I may be wrong, but this MAY be why it's called the 9/11 Commission.

> >
> > The 911 commission WAS tasked with looking into Al Qaeda and it's
> > connections...
> >
> > DUH

>
> Yes?


Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?

> > > Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
> > > reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation before
> > > the invasion.

> >
> > Oh of course. wink wink
> >
> > > There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't

> >
> > Proof? Oh yeah, "purged". How convenient. Zzzzzzz

>
> "The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the
> rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are
> three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia
> and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
>
> "They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations
> for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan,
> where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad
> hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five
> months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted
> list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
>
> "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents
> at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin
> Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to
> reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."
>
> ---The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
> by Inigo Gilmore
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xm
> l


Ooops, dated April 2003.

The 911 commission ended August 2004 ...

> The US military possesses millions of untranslated Iraqi government


And therefore not under consideration.

Thanks for playing.

> ...
> There are several other pertinent translations, but one such document is
> of particular interest to the subject at hand:
>
> (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).


Dead link. oops

> ==begin quote==
> ...
>
> http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm


Dated 2001 - duh.

> In the end, there were definite connections between Iraq and bin Laden's


in the minds of rightards...

> group, and these have been documented since the commencement of Op: IF.
>
> Early reports to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
In article <47030B79.CB6C8ABD@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > In article <46FF13FD.7F48FA8C@hotmMOVEail.com>,
> > Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence
> > > > > otherwise,
> > > > > then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
> > > > > to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.
> > > > >
> > > > You still haven't come close to addressing the original point, but I
> > > > know that you can't be expected to understand. You have no idea what's
> > > > being discussed, nor of the progression of events.
> > > >
> > > > The 9/11 Commission wasn't tasked with answering the question of whether
> > > > Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden, outside what concerns the 9/11
> > > > attacks.
> > > >
> > > > I may be wrong, but this MAY be why it's called the 9/11 Commission.
> > >
> > > The 911 commission WAS tasked with looking into Al Qaeda and it's
> > > connections...
> > >
> > > DUH

> >
> > Yes?

>
> Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?


Some people erroneously call it "al-Qaeda." Of course, that was never
bin Laden's name for it. Nor anyone else's.

Calling it by the CIA nickname is all the rage today in the West.

However, "Osama's Outfit" as you say, or simply, "bin Laden's Group"
will work. But one assumes you weren't answering your own rhetorical
question--which, as it turns out, isn't rhetorical anyway.

When one says "bin Laden's Group" there are two entities being referring
to: Those jihadis who have sworn direct allegiance to Osama, himself (at
peak, this was about 3,000 men), and the other is his greater global
jihad network.

In bin Laden's "expanded fatwa" of 1998, he was formerly endorsed by
jihad leaders from Afghanistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen,
Eritrea, Djibouti, Kenya, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Algeria, Tunisia,
Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Bangladesh, Kashmir,
Azerbaijan, and Palestine.

This alarmed the CIA sufficiently that "on December 4, 1998, DCI Tenet
issued a directive to several CIA officials and the DDCI for Community
Management, stating: 'We are at war. I want no resources or people
spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community.'"

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/911commission/report/report.htm

If you are asking about "Osama Been Forgotten's outfit" in the sense of
the small group of jihadis who had sworn allegiance to him, personally,
then the answer is they are 1) dead, or 2) being waterboarded at Gitmo,
or 3) they are living "snug-as-a-bug-in-a-Persian-rug" in Iran--mostly
in a resort town on the Southern shores of the Caspian Sea (about 45
minutes North of Tehran).

If you're asking about "Osama Been Forgotten's outfit" in the sense of
the Global Jihad Network, it seems that they are doing their best to
head to Iraq in order to throw themselves on American swords.

In fact they seem to be making their way there as soon as anyone can put
an AK-47 in their hands or strap a bomb under their shirts.

It is, of course, the greater Global Jihad Group of which Saddam
Hussein, the Ba'athist Party, his state security agency the Mukhabarat,
and Saddam's own jihad groups the Arab Liberation Front and Fedayeen
Saddam were so intimately connected.
>
> > > > Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
> > > > reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation before
> > > > the invasion.
> > >
> > > Oh of course. wink wink
> > >
> > > > There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't
> > >
> > > Proof? Oh yeah, "purged". How convenient. Zzzzzzz

> >
> > "The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the
> > rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are
> > three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia
> > and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
> >
> > "They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations
> > for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan,
> > where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad
> > hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five
> > months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted
> > list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
> >
> > "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents
> > at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin
> > Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to
> > reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."
> >
> > ---The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
> > by Inigo Gilmore
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xm
> > l

>
> Ooops, dated April 2003.
>
> The 911 commission ended August 2004 ...


Ooops. Neither the article nor the Mukhabarat file the Telegraph found
in Baghdad was ever introduced as evidence to the 9-11 Commission.

The Commission based its conclusions almost exclusively upon expert
testimony, intelligence reports, and, to a lesser extent, on statements
of captured jihadis (reliability of which was not weighted definitively
by the Commission). Very little original documentation was supplied, and
almost none from captured Iraqi documents. As stated earlier, there are
millions of these, but they remain untranslated even to this day.
>
> > The US military possesses millions of untranslated Iraqi government

>
> And therefore not under consideration.


EXACTLY!!! The whole point from two posts ago. Finally, this fact seems
to be soaking in between your ears.
>
> Thanks for playing.


I'm not "playing" anything.
>
> > ...
> > There are several other pertinent translations, but one such document is
> > of particular interest to the subject at hand:
> >
> > (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).

>
> Dead link. oops


You're quite right. I haven't visited it in a long, long while. Those
documents didn't do me much good, anyway, since they were all written in
Arabic. It was the translations to which I was referring to (found at
the other link I provided that wasn't dead).

US SHUTS DOWN IRAQI DOCUMENTS WEBSITE OVER 'NUCLEAR BOMB GUIDE'

(November 5, 2006)

"The Bush administration has closed a government website set up to
publicly display pre-war Iraqi documents on weapons of mass destruction
after experts said that its content included details for building a
nuclear bomb."

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1638432006

Those pesky WMD again. Let's don't get started on those.

> > ==begin quote==
> > ...
> >
> > http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

>
> Dated 2001 - duh.


The 9-11 Commission didn't discount the evidence I presented from that
link--even in August of 2004.

You really have no idea of what's being discussed at all, do you?

In fact, you've proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you've never
read the 9-11 Commission Report, nor do you have the foggiest notion of
what's in there. It's painfully obvious at this point, that you get all
of your opinions from at best newspaper headlines, and/or from lunatic
fringe blogs.

That's lazy.

For instance:

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an
agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam
[1992]. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time,
although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in
part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late
1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces
In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization
called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi
regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the
common Kurdish enemy."

---9/11 Commission Report, Page 62

And:

He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one
reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials,
who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that
some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go
to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network
would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually
impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
declared.

Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this.
It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[istan's]
intel[ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that
the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with
that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein
wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single
U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the
information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.

---9/11 Commission Report, Page 135

There were other meetings between Iraqi intelligence services and bin
Laden's group after 1994, but the 9-11 Commission chose not to pursue
evidence that could not be independently verified at the time.

This procedure is perfectly in line with the Commission's mandate,
because of the limited scope of its mission.

No, Saddam Hussein did not help plan the 9/11 attacks. Which was never
the point of the discussion in this thread. In fact, it is as irrelevant
to this discussion as it was to the 9-11 Commission.

Yes, Saddam had an ongoing relationship with many global jihadi groups,
including bin Laden's. The 9-11 Commission nowhere discounts this
conclusion (though some testimony to the Commission did)--and, indeed,
these facts have been corroborated in open source intelligence documents
and reports since the Commission closed up shop. Yes, some of this open
source intelligence, as you and I have noted, came before the
Commission's final report.

> > In the end, there were definite connections between Iraq and bin Laden's

>
> in the minds of rightards...


Silly, next to my views, the "rightards" might as well all be from the
Smolny Institute.

--
NeoLibertarian

"We live in a stage of politics, where legislators
seem to regard the passage of laws as much more
important than the results of their enforcement."
---William Howard Taft
 
Same reason we went to war with Japan and Germany. Only difference is
that FDR's war cost us a hundred times more American lives than
President Bush's and President Bush's war is voluntary. Somehow I
prefer President Bush's war.
 
Harold Burton wrote:
>
> Same reason we went to war with Japan and Germany. Only difference is
> that FDR's war cost us a hundred times more American lives than
> President Bush's and President Bush's war is voluntary. Somehow I
> prefer President Bush's war.



Yeah Clinton's budget surplus came -after- Desert Storm.

--
So much to learn, so little time.
 
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-5E6E66.21402503102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>
> Same reason we went to war with Japan and Germany. Only difference is
> that FDR's war cost us a hundred times more American lives than
> President Bush's and President Bush's war is voluntary. Somehow I
> prefer President Bush's war.


you're one sick, ignorant hillbilly aren't you goober

but the complexity of the issues must be overwhelming
to you, which is why you explain it in such a unique, child like
hillbilly manner

keep thinking like that gomer, leave the intelligent analysis and decision
making to
liberals
 
In article <_EZMi.173$sm6.48@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-5E6E66.21402503102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> >
> > Same reason we went to war with Japan and Germany. Only difference is
> > that FDR's war cost us a hundred times more American lives than
> > President Bush's and President Bush's war is voluntary. Somehow I
> > prefer President Bush's war.

>
> you're one sick, ignorant hillbilly aren't you goober



Yet another example of what passes for debate among leftards.


> but the complexity of the issues must be overwhelming
> to you, which is why you explain it in such a unique, child like
> hillbilly manner



And you can't explain it at all....or refute anything I've said.



> ...leave the intelligent analysis and decision making to liberals



We did that in 1941 and it only cost 400,000 American lives.
 
Neolibertarian wrote:
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence
> > > > > > otherwise,
> > > > > > then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
> > > > > > to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You still haven't come close to addressing the original point, but I
> > > > > know that you can't be expected to understand. You have no idea what's
> > > > > being discussed, nor of the progression of events.
> > > > >
> > > > > The 9/11 Commission wasn't tasked with answering the question of whether
> > > > > Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden, outside what concerns the 9/11
> > > > > attacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > I may be wrong, but this MAY be why it's called the 9/11 Commission.
> > > >
> > > > The 911 commission WAS tasked with looking into Al Qaeda and it's
> > > > connections...
> > > >
> > > > DUH
> > >
> > > Yes?

> >
> > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?

>


Smokescreen snipped.

> If you are asking about "Osama Been Forgotten's outfit" in the sense of


In the sense that the 911 commission say it - rather obviously. See

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

> [...]
> It is, of course, the greater Global Jihad Group of which Saddam
> Hussein, the Ba'athist Party, his state security agency the Mukhabarat,
> and Saddam's own jihad groups the Arab Liberation Front and Fedayeen
> Saddam were so intimately connected.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States.
...

> > > > > Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
> > > > > reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation before
> > > > > the invasion.
> > > >
> > > > Oh of course. wink wink
> > > >
> > > > > There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't
> > > >
> > > > Proof? Oh yeah, "purged". How convenient. Zzzzzzz
> > >
> > > "The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the
> > > rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are
> > > three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia
> > > and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
> > >
> > > "They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations
> > > for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan,
> > > where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad
> > > hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five
> > > months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted
> > > list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
> > >
> > > "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents
> > > at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin
> > > Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to
> > > reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."
> > >
> > > ---The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
> > > by Inigo Gilmore
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xm
> > > l

> >
> > Ooops, dated April 2003.
> >
> > The 911 commission ended August 2004 ...

>
> Ooops. Neither the article nor the Mukhabarat file the Telegraph found
> in Baghdad was ever introduced as evidence to the 9-11 Commission.


Oops, not al Qaeda then.

> The Commission based its conclusions almost exclusively upon expert
> testimony, intelligence reports, and, to a lesser extent, on statements
> of captured jihadis (reliability of which was not weighted definitively
> by the Commission). Very little original documentation was supplied, and
> almost none from captured Iraqi documents. As stated earlier, there are
> millions of these, but they remain untranslated even to this day.
> >
> > > The US military possesses millions of untranslated Iraqi government

> >
> > And therefore not under consideration.

>
> EXACTLY!!! The whole point from two posts ago. Finally, this fact seems
> to be soaking in between your ears.


Your red herring was apparent from the start.

> > Thanks for playing.

>
> I'm not "playing" anything.


So, you really are a conspiracy kook?

> > > ...
> > > There are several other pertinent translations, but one such document is
> > > of particular interest to the subject at hand:
> > >
> > > (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).

> >
> > Dead link. oops

>
> You're quite right. I haven't visited it in a long, long while. Those
> documents didn't do me much good, anyway, since they were all written in
> Arabic. It was the translations to which I was referring to (found at
> the other link I provided that wasn't dead).
>
> US SHUTS DOWN IRAQI DOCUMENTS WEBSITE OVER 'NUCLEAR BOMB GUIDE'
>
> (November 5, 2006)
>
> "The Bush administration has closed a government website set up to
> publicly display pre-war Iraqi documents on weapons of mass destruction
> after experts said that its content included details for building a
> nuclear bomb."
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1638432006
>
> Those pesky WMD again. Let's don't get started on those.


Oops:

Negroponte's office shut down the site, known as the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom
Document Portal', after the New York Times informed the Bush administration about
expert concerns over posted accounts of Iraq's nuclear research before the 1991
Gulf War.

You don't check links, you don't apparently read the ones that do work.

Thanks for playing.

> > > ==begin quote==
> > > ...
> > >
> > > http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

> >
> > Dated 2001 - duh.

>
> The 9-11 Commission didn't discount the evidence I presented from that
> link--even in August of 2004.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States.
...

Looks like they didn't make much of it ;)

> You really have no idea of what's being discussed at all, do you?


You really have no idea what you're doing.

> In fact, you've proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you've never
> read the 9-11 Commission Report, nor do you have the foggiest notion of


Where do you think I'm quoting from?

> what's in there. It's painfully obvious at this point, that you get all
> of your opinions from at best newspaper headlines, and/or from lunatic
> fringe blogs.
>
> That's lazy.


Says the guy who posts dead links and doesn't read the ones that do work...

> For instance:
>
> "To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an


A Sudanese. ;) Big whoop!

> agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam
> [1992]. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time,


"activities against Saddam", yeah, there's a real sign of cooperation!

> although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in
> part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late


"outside of Baghdad's control"!!!

> 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces
> In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization
> called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi
> regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the
> common Kurdish enemy."


Only against the Kurds! LOL!

> ---9/11 Commission Report, Page 62


You mean chapter 2. Afraid to use the web links? It IS all online, you know...

>
> And:
>
> He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one
> reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials,
> who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that


"may have" LOL!

> some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go
> to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network


"if" LOL

> would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually
> impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
> declared.
>
> Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this.
> It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[istan's]
> intel[ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that


Gee, there's more a case here for a relationshipo between Osama Been Forgotten
and Pakistan that with Iraq!

> the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with
> that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."
>
> Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein
> wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single


"wanted" is not the same as having! You're not even trying here.

> U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the
> information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.
>
> ---9/11 Commission Report, Page 135
>
> There were other meetings between Iraqi intelligence services and bin
> Laden's group after 1994, but the 9-11 Commission chose not to pursue
> evidence that could not be independently verified at the time.


IOW, blow.

> This procedure is perfectly in line with the Commission's mandate,
> because of the limited scope of its mission.
>
> No, Saddam Hussein did not help plan the 9/11 attacks. Which was never
> the point of the discussion in this thread. In fact, it is as irrelevant
> to this discussion as it was to the 9-11 Commission.
>
> Yes, Saddam had an ongoing relationship with many global jihadi groups,


You've yet to show it.
 
Harold Burton wrote:
>
> Same reason we went to war with Japan and Germany. Only difference is
> that FDR's war cost us a hundred times more American lives than


Uh, are you forgetting that Japan and Germany declared war on the US?

Did Iraq? No?

> President Bush's and President Bush's war is voluntary. Somehow I
> prefer President Bush's war.


That's because you're not very bright.

RT
 
In article <470868B8.55FBBDBE@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

[snip]
> > >
> > > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?

> >

>
> Smokescreen snipped.


It was a smokescreen (one which you, my fine feathered friend,
unwittingly brought up) that explains how truly ignorant it is to call
bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda."

That's not its name, any more than the U.S. Marines are called "Lejeune."

"Q: But there's some confusion here apparently. Today in the United
States, we hear from law enforcement about Al Qaeda.

"A: Yes.

"Q: But to you that's something different.

"A: Well, I [really] laugh when I hear the FBI talking about Al Qaeda as
an organization of bin Laden. ... [It's really a] very simple story. If
bin Laden is to receive Arabs from Saudi Arabia and from Kuwait--from
other regions--he is [to] receive them in the guest house in Peshawar.
They used to go to the battle field and come back, without documentation.

"Q: What do you mean without documentation?

"A: There [was] no documentation of who has arrived. Who has left. How
long he stayed. There's only [a nice general reception]. And you go
there. And you join in the battle field. ... Very simple organization.
Now, he was embarrassed by many families when they called him and ask
what happened to our son. He don't know. `Cause there's no record.
There's no documentation. Now he asked some of his colleagues to start
documenting the movement of every Arab coming under his umbrella. ... It
is recorded that [they] arrived in this date and stayed in this house.
.... And then there was a record of thousands and thousands of people.
Many of them had come only for two weeks, three weeks and then
disappeared. That record, that documentation was called the record of Al
Qaeda. So that was Al Qaeda. There's nothing sinister about Al Qaeda.
It's not like an organization--like any other terrorist organization or
any other underground group. I don't think he used any name for his
underground group. If you want to name it, you can name it "bin Laden
group." But if they are using the term Al Qaeda ... Al Qaeda is just a
record for the people who came to Peshawar and moved from there back and
forth to the guest house. And moved back to their country. And if they
want to follow the number, they must be talking about 20, 30 thousand
people. Which is impossible to trace. And I think most of those records
are in the hands of the Saudi government anyway, because people used the
Saudi airlines, [at] a very much reduced fare. Twenty-five percent of
the total fare of a trip to Islamabad. ...

"Q: So Al Qaeda ... [is] not a secret organization at all, is it?

"A: It's not a secret organization at all. It was common knowledge to
many people who went there. ... Al Qaeda was public knowledge. It was a
record of people who ended up in Peshawar and joined, and move from
Peshawar to Afghanistan. It was very [benign] information. A simple
record of people who were there just to make record available to bin
Laden if he's asked by any family or any friend what happened to Mr.
so-and-so. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagi
h.html

In other words, "al-Qaeda" is the name of a computer disk, and a
compound of houses in Peshawar--it's NOT the name of bin Laden's group.

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=peshawar+pakistan&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=1
8&ll=33.999023,71.497693&spn=0.002624,0.006652&t=k

"Al-Qaeda" is just for the kiddies. Something to hang their hat on. Bin
Laden has been careful not to give the West ANYTHING to hang its hat
on--no uniforms, no central base, no nation, no army, no "Nazi Party."
This absence of identity is central to any anarchist strategy--and his
use of futile terrorist acts certainly qualifies him as an
anarchist--even though anarchy is not his endgame.

It was also a smokescreen that explains how a group of dispersed
jihadis, something less than 3,000 in number at best, could be
"responsible" for so many world wide attacks and ongoing insurgencies.

A basic understanding of these key terms is necessary to keep you from
arguing what I'm not asserting.

So far, you seem to be arguing what I'm not asserting.
>
> > If you are asking about "Osama Been Forgotten's outfit" in the sense of

>
> In the sense that the 911 commission say it - rather obviously. See
>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm


"In now analyzing the terrorist programs carried out by members of this
network, it would be misleading to apply the label "al Qaeda operations"
too often in these early years. Yet it would also be misleading to
ignore the significance of these connections. And in this network, Bin
Ladin's agenda stood out."

EXACTLY!
> > [...]
> > It is, of course, the greater Global Jihad Group of which Saddam
> > Hussein, the Ba'athist Party, his state security agency the Mukhabarat,
> > and Saddam's own jihad groups the Arab Liberation Front and Fedayeen
> > Saddam were so intimately connected.

>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm


"In now analyzing the terrorist programs carried out by members of this
network, it would be misleading to apply the label "al Qaeda operations"
too often in these early years. Yet it would also be misleading to
ignore the significance of these connections. And in this network, Bin
Ladin's agenda stood out."

EXACTLY!

I'm not sure you are grasp what I've asserted.
> ...
> But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
> evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
> carrying out any attacks against the United States.
> ...


They weren't examining all the evidence available--because it wasn't
really available to them (untranslated).

"We have seen no evidence" means "we have seen no evidence," nothing
more or less. The question (as it pertains here) that the Commission was
tasked with laying to rest was: "was Saddam involved in the 9-11
attacks?" The Commission did so to our complete satisfaction.

There's nothing to indicate he was.

http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg

....not withstanding.

The 9/11 Commission explains that there is a greater Global Jihad
Network. Best stated in the paragraph I extracted above. This is what
the United States is engaging around the world this afternoon, and with
this network, Saddam Hussein was intimately involved. This DEFINITELY
includes the greater network in which bin Laden was involved.

More on this farther below.

Direct contact in 1994 was observed by the Commission. Later contacts
were unclear. One of the experts called to testify before the Commission
was a former advisor on Iraq to William Clinton. She drew a picture of
an ongoing relationship between Saddam and bin Laden--including both the
greater network and bin Laden's own jihad group. The Commission chose to
not deal with this picture, since it had little corroborating evidence
that might lead to 9-11 specifically.

I have provided what may be corroborating evidence--which was not
considered by the Commission. This indicates a farther reaching
relationship. You haven't dealt with this evidence, other than to try to
draw attention away from it.

Which is fine. It is evidence which stands alone--outside a broader
context. The meaning and depth of this evidence isn't entirely clear.

But the 9-11 Commission isn't dealing with it at all--it closed in
August of 2004.

You don't have the same excuse. And one would believe that your own
mission differs from the Commission's, anyway.

> > > > > > Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
> > > > > > reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > the invasion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh of course. wink wink
> > > > >
> > > > > > There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof? Oh yeah, "purged". How convenient. Zzzzzzz
> > > >
> > > > "The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the
> > > > rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are
> > > > three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the
> > > > insignia
> > > > and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
> > > >
> > > > "They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations
> > > > for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan,
> > > > where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad
> > > > hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five
> > > > months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted
> > > > list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
> > > >
> > > > "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents
> > > > at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin
> > > > Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to
> > > > reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."
> > > >
> > > > ---The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
> > > > by Inigo Gilmore
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.x
> > > > m
> > > > l
> > >
> > > Ooops, dated April 2003.
> > >
> > > The 911 commission ended August 2004 ...

> >
> > Ooops. Neither the article nor the Mukhabarat file the Telegraph found
> > in Baghdad was ever introduced as evidence to the 9-11 Commission.

>
> Oops, not al Qaeda then.


Oops. That's non sequitur. The Mukhabarat file speaks of bin Laden's
people being in contact with Iraqi agents.

The Commission "found" no evidence.

The London Telegraph did.

Neither are logically to blame for these facts--nor do they contradict
each other.
>
> > The Commission based its conclusions almost exclusively upon expert
> > testimony, intelligence reports, and, to a lesser extent, on statements
> > of captured jihadis (reliability of which was not weighted definitively
> > by the Commission). Very little original documentation was supplied, and
> > almost none from captured Iraqi documents. As stated earlier, there are
> > millions of these, but they remain untranslated even to this day.
> > >
> > > > The US military possesses millions of untranslated Iraqi government
> > >
> > > And therefore not under consideration.

> >
> > EXACTLY!!! The whole point from two posts ago. Finally, this fact seems
> > to be soaking in between your ears.

>
> Your red herring was apparent from the start.


What red herring?

The 9-11 Commission's conclusions aren't what you've attempted to make
them out to be.
>
> > > Thanks for playing.

> >
> > I'm not "playing" anything.

>
> So, you really are a conspiracy kook?


Not in the sense that I might "prove," solely by some anomalies, that
the Warren Commission conclusions were false.

Lee Oswald DEFINITELY WAS a lone nut assassin. The Commission evidence
and testimony are all consistent with this fact--the anomalies and
subsequent evidence and testimony can't alter the basic realities of the
case--they only seem to on the surface.

No where in the 9-11 Commission's testimony, evidence nor conclusions is
there any indication that Osama bin Laden was a lone nut. His part in
large network is well established, and his use of this large network are
well established in the report.

The Commission was rightly silent on connections which were incidental
to 9-11. The Commission also points out that the scope of Global Network
is greater than it discussed in the final report.

> > > > There are several other pertinent translations, but one such document
> > > > is
> > > > of particular interest to the subject at hand:
> > > >
> > > > (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).
> > >
> > > Dead link. oops

> >
> > You're quite right. I haven't visited it in a long, long while. Those
> > documents didn't do me much good, anyway, since they were all written in
> > Arabic. It was the translations to which I was referring to (found at
> > the other link I provided that wasn't dead).
> >
> > US SHUTS DOWN IRAQI DOCUMENTS WEBSITE OVER 'NUCLEAR BOMB GUIDE'
> >
> > (November 5, 2006)
> >
> > "The Bush administration has closed a government website set up to
> > publicly display pre-war Iraqi documents on weapons of mass destruction
> > after experts said that its content included details for building a
> > nuclear bomb."
> >
> > http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1638432006
> >
> > Those pesky WMD again. Let's don't get started on those.

>
> Oops:
>
> Negroponte's office shut down the site, known as the 'Operation Iraqi
> Freedom
> Document Portal', after the New York Times informed the Bush administration
> about
> expert concerns over posted accounts of Iraq's nuclear research before the
> 1991
> Gulf War.
>
> You don't check links, you don't apparently read the ones that do work.


I'm aware of the dates. You aren't aware of the significance--in 1998
Scott Ritter testified to the Senate that he believed Saddam had
possession of three working nuclear triggering devices--only lacking
fissile material.

In another dimension, the possession of these papers was expressly
forbidden by UNSC RES 687 and 1441.

Really, and truly: don't go there.

> > > > ==begin quote==
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
> > >
> > > Dated 2001 - duh.

> >
> > The 9-11 Commission didn't discount the evidence I presented from that
> > link--even in August of 2004.

>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> ...
> But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
> evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
> carrying out any attacks against the United States.
> ...
>
> Looks like they didn't make much of it ;)


Look, I've shown here that there are differing thresholds when one
speaks of "al-Qaeda" or bin Laden's group.

You haven't grasped that yet, and that's fine, too.

The Commission also understood that it's difficult to convey this
understanding.

We aren't speaking about a singular entity. But sometimes, we ARE.

It's confusing, admittedly.

Calling bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda" only perpetuates the confusion.

> > You really have no idea of what's being discussed at all, do you?

>
> You really have no idea what you're doing.


I absolutely understand what I'm doing.
>
> > In fact, you've proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you've never
> > read the 9-11 Commission Report, nor do you have the foggiest notion of

>
> Where do you think I'm quoting from?


I've pissed you off into reading some of it. How much you've actually
read is still unclear (with "copy and paste," I'm glad I don't have to
grade research papers in high school or college).
>
> > what's in there. It's painfully obvious at this point, that you get all
> > of your opinions from at best newspaper headlines, and/or from lunatic
> > fringe blogs.
> >
> > That's lazy.

>
> Says the guy who posts dead links and doesn't read the ones that do work...
>

It worked when I first posted it. That I'm still posting it years later
is only testament to massive disinformation I seem to be fighting.

> > For instance:
> >
> > "To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an

>
> A Sudanese. ;) Big whoop!
>
> > agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam
> > [1992]. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time,

>
> "activities against Saddam", yeah, there's a real sign of cooperation!


That's a common fallacy you've jumped into. Be careful--you don't seem
to have an oar.

Not only was bin Laden working against Iraq, he attempted to raise an
army of "100,000 mujahidin" to force the Iraqi army out of Kuwait
(1990-1991).

His mistake here was asking the Sauds to allow him to raise that army on
Saudi soil. The Sauds politely declined (politely, because the bin Laden
family is like an Arab version of the Kennedys and Bushs--all rolled
into one). They explained that it had already been decided to allow the
Americans to handle the Iraq problem. From that moment on, the Sauds
realized that Osama was a definite problem, and the GID began monitoring
his movements. Soon afterwards, Osama was placed under a kind of house
arrest and forbidden to leave the country.

The Sauds may have allowed him to slip out of Saudi Arabia. Maybe they
thought that would solve some pesky and festering problems for them--but
he came back to bite them anyway, didn't he?

The fallacy you've jumped into is: that ain't the end of the story--by a
long shot. This is generally called The Fallacy of the Biased Sample.

Or, perhaps you don't think that Stalin and Roosevelt could ever have
become allies?
>
> > although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in
> > part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late

>
> "outside of Baghdad's control"!!!
>
> > 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces
> > In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization
> > called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi
> > regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the
> > common Kurdish enemy."

>
> Only against the Kurds! LOL!


LOL--this is key to the slaughter that has occurred in Iraq since.

Really funny stuff.

"Only the Kurds..." indeed.

It is also the key to the Greater Jihad, and how an important nexus of
this organization formed in Iraq before the commencement of OP: IF.

"Before" is operative.

And, it seems that the 9-11 Commission is speaking of the "Iraqi regime
tolerat[ing] and may even [have been] help[ing] Ansar al Islam."

Which it, in fact, was. Even though it's also a popular fallacy today to
say "Saddam had no control over the Kurdish north" --so that
al-Zarqawi's activities "couldn't have been supported by Saddam."

The usual addendum here, of course, is the horrible fallacy that "Saddam
was a secular leader who treated jihadis as a threat to his regime. He
would never have assisted jihadis."

Heh.

The 9-11 Commission indirectly (but assuredly) agrees that it was
possible Saddam was assisting al-Zarqawi.

>
> > ---9/11 Commission Report, Page 62

>
> You mean chapter 2. Afraid to use the web links? It IS all online, you
> know...


It's easier to read the hard copy. The Commission site is helpful
because it also includes the expert testimony (not included in the final
report).

The testimony is contradictory--confusingly so--but it is a perfect
starting point for further research.

> > And:
> >
> > He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one
> > reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials,
> > who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that

>
> "may have" LOL!
>
> > some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go
> > to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network

>
> "if" LOL


Enough of a concern to have Tenet declare war against "al-Qaeda" in
December of 1998, the same month that Clinton and Congress declared war
against Iraq.

Coincidental in some ways, and in other ways, not.

More funny stuff.
>
> > would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually
> > impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
> > declared.
> >
> > Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this.
> > It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[istan's]
> > intel[ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that

>
> Gee, there's more a case here for a relationshipo between Osama Been
> Forgotten
> and Pakistan that with Iraq!


No. You seem to have a problem with context.

As in the above when you seized upon ""activities against Saddam,"
showing your abysmally shallow understanding of current history--a
history covered in the 9-11 Commission Report and other easily available
sources.

The Pakistan regime was a problem for many years. They also were
instrumental in delivering CIA aid to the Afghani Mujahidin during the
Soviet Occupation.

If Mandarin machinations are too much for you to follow in a profitabe
manner, well, then they are.
>
> > the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with
> > that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."
> >
> > Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein
> > wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single

>
> "wanted" is not the same as having! You're not even trying here.


"Wanted" indicates a complete and polar opposite to the silly ideas
you've attempted to assert here by default.

If Saddam "wanted" bin Laden in Baghdad, then he was attempting to
utilize the Global Jihad to his own ends (and the stupid assertion that
Roosevelt and Stalin could never be allies is laid to rest).

As President of the United States after the 9-11 attacks, knowing that
"Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad," --well, you'd certainly
take a rather close look at Saddam Hussein as a central figure in the
greater Global Jihad you'd been tasked with fighting.

Albeit, this plain fact of participation has been a plain fact for well
over a decade. Congress, in 1991 claimed that Saddam Hussein was a "Big
League Hitter in the Terrorist Big Leagues."

Something the lunatic blogs you frequent have "conveniently"
forgotten--mostly because they are clueless--and sometimes because they
are intentionally feeding you fallacies of the biased sample.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm

When Iraqi Jihad Groups such as Jund al-Islam and the Second Soran Unit
are reformed into a new group called "Ansar al-Islam"--and assisted in
this reformation by HAMAS and Iraqi Mukhabarat, you might have
pinpointed a viable threat. Perhaps a key threat.

Subsequent documentation of this threat may be superfluous. Especially
open source corroboration.
>
> > U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the
> > information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.
> >
> > ---9/11 Commission Report, Page 135
> >
> > There were other meetings between Iraqi intelligence services and bin
> > Laden's group after 1994, but the 9-11 Commission chose not to pursue
> > evidence that could not be independently verified at the time.

>
> IOW, blow.


In other words, they occurred.
>
> > This procedure is perfectly in line with the Commission's mandate,
> > because of the limited scope of its mission.
> >
> > No, Saddam Hussein did not help plan the 9/11 attacks. Which was never
> > the point of the discussion in this thread. In fact, it is as irrelevant
> > to this discussion as it was to the 9-11 Commission.
> >
> > Yes, Saddam had an ongoing relationship with many global jihadi groups,

>
> You've yet to show it.


I'm confident that I've shown it--what I've yet to show is if you're
able to deal with facts beyond showing me pull quotes from the 9-11
Commission--which only seem to contradict my assertion. And yet don't,
actually.

--
NeoLibertarian

"The people that once bestowed commands, consulships,
legions, and all else, now concerns itself no more,
and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and
circuses"
---Juvenal
 
Neolibertarian wrote:
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?
> > >

> >
> > Smokescreen snipped.

>
> It was a smokescreen (one which you, my fine feathered friend,
> unwittingly brought up) that explains how truly ignorant it is to call
> bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda."
>
> That's not its name, any more than the U.S. Marines are called "Lejeune."


Irrelvant. A new smokescreen by you. Congratulations.

> [...]
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagi
> h.html
>
> In other words, "al-Qaeda" is the name of a computer disk, and a
> compound of houses in Peshawar--it's NOT the name of bin Laden's group.
>
> http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=peshawar+pakistan&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=1
> 8&ll=33.999023,71.497693&spn=0.002624,0.006652&t=k
>
> "Al-Qaeda" is just for the kiddies. Something to hang their hat on. Bin
> Laden has been careful not to give the West ANYTHING to hang its hat
> on--no uniforms, no central base, no nation, no army, no "Nazi Party."
> This absence of identity is central to any anarchist strategy--and his
> use of futile terrorist acts certainly qualifies him as an
> anarchist--even though anarchy is not his endgame.
>
> It was also a smokescreen that explains how a group of dispersed
> jihadis, something less than 3,000 in number at best, could be
> "responsible" for so many world wide attacks and ongoing insurgencies.
>
> A basic understanding of these key terms is necessary to keep you from
> arguing what I'm not asserting.
>
> So far, you seem to be arguing what I'm not asserting.


Sid9:
1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.


You:
The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.

Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?


Me:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States.
...

Hint: What is the subject line?

> > [...]

> I'm not sure you are grasp what I've asserted.


Sid9:
1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.


You:
The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.

It's quite clear what you're asserting. It's also clear you're wrong.

> > ...

> http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg
>
> ...not withstanding.


Oh well that proves it! A painting! LOL

> The 9/11 Commission explains that there is a greater Global Jihad
> Network. Best stated in the paragraph I extracted above. This is what
> the United States is engaging around the world this afternoon, and with
> this network, Saddam Hussein was intimately involved. This DEFINITELY
> includes the greater network in which bin Laden was involved.


Hint: What is the subject line?

Something about why we're in Iraq... Let's see - why yes! WMDs!

Everything else - and gee, you sure went to a lot of trouble (have a cookie)
is just an attempt to excuse that whopper.


> [...]
 
In article <470C45A2.1E5B282B@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> > Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Smokescreen snipped.

> >
> > It was a smokescreen (one which you, my fine feathered friend,
> > unwittingly brought up) that explains how truly ignorant it is to call
> > bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda."
> >
> > That's not its name, any more than the U.S. Marines are called "Lejeune."

>
> Irrelvant. A new smokescreen by you. Congratulations.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagi
> > h.html
> >
> > In other words, "al-Qaeda" is the name of a computer disk, and a
> > compound of houses in Peshawar--it's NOT the name of bin Laden's group.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=peshawar+pakistan&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=1
> > 8&ll=33.999023,71.497693&spn=0.002624,0.006652&t=k
> >
> > "Al-Qaeda" is just for the kiddies. Something to hang their hat on. Bin
> > Laden has been careful not to give the West ANYTHING to hang its hat
> > on--no uniforms, no central base, no nation, no army, no "Nazi Party."
> > This absence of identity is central to any anarchist strategy--and his
> > use of futile terrorist acts certainly qualifies him as an
> > anarchist--even though anarchy is not his endgame.
> >
> > It was also a smokescreen that explains how a group of dispersed
> > jihadis, something less than 3,000 in number at best, could be
> > "responsible" for so many world wide attacks and ongoing insurgencies.
> >
> > A basic understanding of these key terms is necessary to keep you from
> > arguing what I'm not asserting.
> >
> > So far, you seem to be arguing what I'm not asserting.

>
> Sid9:
> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
>
> You:
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>
>
> Me:
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> ...
> But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
> evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
> carrying out any attacks against the United States.
> ...
>
> Hint: What is the subject line?
>
> > > [...]

> > I'm not sure you are grasp what I've asserted.

>
> Sid9:
> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
>
> You:
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> It's quite clear what you're asserting. It's also clear you're wrong.
>
> > > ...

> > http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg
> >
> > ...not withstanding.

>
> Oh well that proves it! A painting! LOL
>
> > The 9/11 Commission explains that there is a greater Global Jihad
> > Network. Best stated in the paragraph I extracted above. This is what
> > the United States is engaging around the world this afternoon, and with
> > this network, Saddam Hussein was intimately involved. This DEFINITELY
> > includes the greater network in which bin Laden was involved.

>
> Hint: What is the subject line?
>
> Something about why we're in Iraq... Let's see - why yes! WMDs!
>
> Everything else - and gee, you sure went to a lot of trouble (have a cookie)
> is just an attempt to excuse that whopper.
>
>
> > [...]


the U.S. is there for the control over the OIL. all else is a smoke
screen.

--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.
 
A Veteran wrote:
>
> In article <470C45A2.1E5B282B@hotmMOVEail.com>,
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Smokescreen snipped.
> > >
> > > It was a smokescreen (one which you, my fine feathered friend,
> > > unwittingly brought up) that explains how truly ignorant it is to call
> > > bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda."
> > >
> > > That's not its name, any more than the U.S. Marines are called "Lejeune."

> >
> > Irrelvant. A new smokescreen by you. Congratulations.
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagi
> > > h.html
> > >
> > > In other words, "al-Qaeda" is the name of a computer disk, and a
> > > compound of houses in Peshawar--it's NOT the name of bin Laden's group.
> > >
> > > http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=peshawar+pakistan&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=1
> > > 8&ll=33.999023,71.497693&spn=0.002624,0.006652&t=k
> > >
> > > "Al-Qaeda" is just for the kiddies. Something to hang their hat on. Bin
> > > Laden has been careful not to give the West ANYTHING to hang its hat
> > > on--no uniforms, no central base, no nation, no army, no "Nazi Party."
> > > This absence of identity is central to any anarchist strategy--and his
> > > use of futile terrorist acts certainly qualifies him as an
> > > anarchist--even though anarchy is not his endgame.
> > >
> > > It was also a smokescreen that explains how a group of dispersed
> > > jihadis, something less than 3,000 in number at best, could be
> > > "responsible" for so many world wide attacks and ongoing insurgencies.
> > >
> > > A basic understanding of these key terms is necessary to keep you from
> > > arguing what I'm not asserting.
> > >
> > > So far, you seem to be arguing what I'm not asserting.

> >
> > Sid9:
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> >
> > You:
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> >
> > Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> > Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
> >
> >
> > Me:
> > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> > ...
> > But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> > developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
> > evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
> > carrying out any attacks against the United States.
> > ...
> >
> > Hint: What is the subject line?
> >
> > > > [...]
> > > I'm not sure you are grasp what I've asserted.

> >
> > Sid9:
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> >
> > You:
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> >
> > It's quite clear what you're asserting. It's also clear you're wrong.
> >
> > > > ...
> > > http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg
> > >
> > > ...not withstanding.

> >
> > Oh well that proves it! A painting! LOL
> >
> > > The 9/11 Commission explains that there is a greater Global Jihad
> > > Network. Best stated in the paragraph I extracted above. This is what
> > > the United States is engaging around the world this afternoon, and with
> > > this network, Saddam Hussein was intimately involved. This DEFINITELY
> > > includes the greater network in which bin Laden was involved.

> >
> > Hint: What is the subject line?
> >
> > Something about why we're in Iraq... Let's see - why yes! WMDs!
> >
> > Everything else - and gee, you sure went to a lot of trouble (have a cookie)
> > is just an attempt to excuse that whopper.
> >
> > > [...]

>
> the U.S. is there for the control over the OIL. all else is a smoke
> screen.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm
Australia 'has Iraq oil interest'

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing
oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops
in Iraq.

He said maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a
priority.

But PM John Howard has played down the comments, saying it was
"stretching it a bit" to conclude that Australia's Iraq involvement
was motivated by oil.

The remarks are causing heated debate as the US-led Iraq coalition has
avoided linking the war and oil.
...

Too late for that now.

RT
 
In article <470C45A2.1E5B282B@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> > Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Smokescreen snipped.

> >
> > It was a smokescreen (one which you, my fine feathered friend,
> > unwittingly brought up) that explains how truly ignorant it is to call
> > bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda."
> >
> > That's not its name, any more than the U.S. Marines are called "Lejeune."

>
> Irrelvant. A new smokescreen by you. Congratulations.


You haven't established how or why it's irrelevant, nor how it qualifies
as a "smokescreen."

You may think when you type words on your keyboard that you're some sort
of magician or something--but saying something is "irrelevant" or a
"smokescreen" doesn't automatically make it so.

You may not be aware that definition of terms is always in order in a
logical discussion. Especially when these terms are central to the
subject of the discussion.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagi
> > h.html
> >
> > In other words, "al-Qaeda" is the name of a computer disk, and a
> > compound of houses in Peshawar--it's NOT the name of bin Laden's group.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=peshawar+pakistan&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=1
> > 8&ll=33.999023,71.497693&spn=0.002624,0.006652&t=k
> >
> > "Al-Qaeda" is just for the kiddies. Something to hang their hat on. Bin
> > Laden has been careful not to give the West ANYTHING to hang its hat
> > on--no uniforms, no central base, no nation, no army, no "Nazi Party."
> > This absence of identity is central to any anarchist strategy--and his
> > use of futile terrorist acts certainly qualifies him as an
> > anarchist--even though anarchy is not his endgame.
> >
> > It was also a smokescreen that explains how a group of dispersed
> > jihadis, something less than 3,000 in number at best, could be
> > "responsible" for so many world wide attacks and ongoing insurgencies.
> >
> > A basic understanding of these key terms is necessary to keep you from
> > arguing what I'm not asserting.
> >
> > So far, you seem to be arguing what I'm not asserting.

>
> Sid9:
> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
>
> You:
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>
>
> Me:
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> ...
> But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
> evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
> carrying out any attacks against the United States.
> ...
>
> Hint: What is the subject line?


9-11 Commission says, in the quote you just provided us: "to date, we
have seen no evidence..."

The date the report refers to is, of course, August 2004.

Hint: this is October of 2007.

The report does not forbid the possibility that there was evidence it
hadn't seen or considered. Nor does it anywhere preclude that such
evidence might not surface after August of 2004.
>
> > > [...]

> > I'm not sure you are grasp what I've asserted.

>
> Sid9:
> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
>
> You:
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> It's quite clear what you're asserting. It's also clear you're wrong.


Well, if it is, you haven't presented any evidence to establish this.

You've merely relied on a study which is now three years old. And it's
already noted not to be a definitive authority on the activities inside
Ba'athist Iraq as they related to the Global Jihad.

If there's some reason you have for depending on this aging study as an
unassailable and final authority in this matter, you've yet to present
it.
>
> > > ...

> > http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg
> >
> > ...not withstanding.

>
> Oh well that proves it! A painting! LOL


You "lol" at the strangest things, if you don't mind my pointing it out.
>
> > The 9/11 Commission explains that there is a greater Global Jihad
> > Network. Best stated in the paragraph I extracted above. This is what
> > the United States is engaging around the world this afternoon, and with
> > this network, Saddam Hussein was intimately involved. This DEFINITELY
> > includes the greater network in which bin Laden was involved.

>
> Hint: What is the subject line?


Do you have a problem with logic?
>
> Something about why we're in Iraq... Let's see - why yes! WMDs!


The discussion is not about WMD's.
>
> Everything else - and gee, you sure went to a lot of trouble (have a cookie)
> is just an attempt to excuse that whopper.


Since you can't deal with the evidence presented, one wonders what you
hoped to accomplish by sticking your oar in here?

--
NeoLibertarian

"The people that once bestowed commands, consulships,
legions, and all else, now concerns itself no more,
and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and
circuses"
---Juvenal
 
Neolibertarian wrote:
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hint - what was Osama Been Forgotten's outfit?
> > > >
> > > > Smokescreen snipped.
> > >
> > > It was a smokescreen (one which you, my fine feathered friend,
> > > unwittingly brought up) that explains how truly ignorant it is to call
> > > bin Laden's group "al-Qaeda."
> > >
> > > That's not its name, any more than the U.S. Marines are called "Lejeune."

> >
> > Irrelvant. A new smokescreen by you. Congratulations.

>
> You haven't established how or why it's irrelevant, nor how it qualifies
> as a "smokescreen."
>
> You may think when you type words on your keyboard that you're some sort
> of magician or something--but saying something is "irrelevant" or a
> "smokescreen" doesn't automatically make it so.
>
> You may not be aware that definition of terms is always in order in a
> logical discussion. Especially when these terms are central to the
> subject of the discussion.


QUICK! You must hurry to Washington and reopen the 911 commission! Chapter 2 has
to be rewritten!

2.3 THE RISE OF BIN LADIN AND AL QAEDA (1988-1992)

> > > [...]
> > >
> > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagi
> > > h.html
> > >
> > > In other words, "al-Qaeda" is the name of a computer disk, and a
> > > compound of houses in Peshawar--it's NOT the name of bin Laden's group.
> > >
> > > http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=peshawar+pakistan&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=1
> > > 8&ll=33.999023,71.497693&spn=0.002624,0.006652&t=k
> > >
> > > "Al-Qaeda" is just for the kiddies. Something to hang their hat on. Bin
> > > Laden has been careful not to give the West ANYTHING to hang its hat
> > > on--no uniforms, no central base, no nation, no army, no "Nazi Party."
> > > This absence of identity is central to any anarchist strategy--and his
> > > use of futile terrorist acts certainly qualifies him as an
> > > anarchist--even though anarchy is not his endgame.
> > >
> > > It was also a smokescreen that explains how a group of dispersed
> > > jihadis, something less than 3,000 in number at best, could be
> > > "responsible" for so many world wide attacks and ongoing insurgencies.
> > >
> > > A basic understanding of these key terms is necessary to keep you from
> > > arguing what I'm not asserting.
> > >
> > > So far, you seem to be arguing what I'm not asserting.

> >
> > Sid9:
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> > You:
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> >
> > Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> > Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
> >
> > Me:
> > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> > ...
> > But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> > developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
> > evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
> > carrying out any attacks against the United States.
> > ...
> >
> > Hint: What is the subject line?

>
> 9-11 Commission says, in the quote you just provided us: "to date, we
> have seen no evidence..."
>
> The date the report refers to is, of course, August 2004.
>
> Hint: this is October of 2007.
>
> The report does not forbid the possibility that there was evidence it
> hadn't seen or considered. Nor does it anywhere preclude that such
> evidence might not surface after August of 2004.


HINT - what is the subject line????

> > > > [...]
> > > I'm not sure you are grasp what I've asserted.

> >
> > Sid9:
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> > You:
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> >
> > It's quite clear what you're asserting. It's also clear you're wrong.

>
> Well, if it is, you haven't presented any evidence to establish this.
>
> You've merely relied on a study which is now three years old. And it's
> already noted not to be a definitive authority on the activities inside
> Ba'athist Iraq as they related to the Global Jihad.
>
> If there's some reason you have for depending on this aging study as an
> unassailable and final authority in this matter, you've yet to present
> it.


And the evidence you've presented "linking Hussein to al-Qaeda" ->

> > > > ...
> > > http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg
> > >
> > > ...not withstanding.

> >
> > Oh well that proves it! A painting! LOL

>
> You "lol" at the strangest things, if you don't mind my pointing it out.


You post the strangest things as proof, if you don't mind my pointing it out.

> > > The 9/11 Commission explains that there is a greater Global Jihad
> > > Network. Best stated in the paragraph I extracted above. This is what
> > > the United States is engaging around the world this afternoon, and with
> > > this network, Saddam Hussein was intimately involved. This DEFINITELY
> > > includes the greater network in which bin Laden was involved.

> >
> > Hint: What is the subject line?

>
> Do you have a problem with logic?


Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

> > Something about why we're in Iraq... Let's see - why yes! WMDs!

>
> The discussion is not about WMD's.


Hint - subject line...

> > Everything else - and gee, you sure went to a lot of trouble (have a cookie)
> > is just an attempt to excuse that whopper.

>
> Since you can't deal with the evidence presented, one wonders what you
> hoped to accomplish by sticking your oar in here?


Since you can't present pertinent evidence, one wonders what you
hoped to accomplish by sticking your oar in here?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html
...
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about
and it is about."
...
 
Back
Top