TealVeal

That is certainly possible. Though why they left papers fluttering around and did not take posession of them for later scrutiny I do not know.

TealVeal

So the Telegraph is basically the New York Post of Britain? I wonder how much trust leonarde puts in the Post.

Happy Wonderer

And how a five-year old incriminating document that makes a scoop of a story for a tabloid journalist just happens to be on top, not under the decades worth of memos about the whereabouts of Saddam's enemies, lists of people to kill, dirty jokes about Clinton and Bush, where they hid the WMDs etc.

Yeah. Almost like the divine hand of providence was involved, dontcha think?

hw

leonarde

Yes, I 'get' that the one meeting that we have an OFFICIAL IRAQI DOCUMENT FOR was held five years ago. That DOES NOT in and of itself prove that there were no subsequent meetings/third party communications/coordination/collaboration.

Just because someone wasn't on a most wanted list is of no significance: al Qaeda was active for far longer than 5 or 6 years ago and by "active" I mean planning terroristic attacks.
Bin Laden has been hating the US since Desert SHIELD (note: not Desert STORM) because it violates his sense of sacred Saudi ground (ie the home of Mecca)

For the second time there is NO RECORD of any association between Bin Laden and the CIA.

The funny thing is that the article in the Guardian which you link
cites "Western intelligence officials" as the source of the thrust of the idea that there were no further links after the one of 5 years ago. That MAY be true but it ill behooves those who FOR MONTHS have been trashing "Western intelligence" reports of Iraqi WMDs
and Iraqi ties with OTHER TERRORISTIC ORGANIZATIONS to suddenly take (unnamed!) Western intelligence sources at face value just because:

1) what they indicate THIS TIME comports with what YOU would like to believe.

2) it appears in the Guardian.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Hey sir-drinks-a-lot - that proof that I have showing that Iraq and al Qaeda have nothing to do with each other was already posted in that other thread.

It came from Congressman DeFazio, a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.

I wouldn't expect you to have actually read it, of course, with that drink in your hand .

Koyaanisqatsi

Oooh, an "OFFICIAL IRAQI DOCUMENT!" Wow! IPU knows it would be impossible to say, forge such a document and even get captured Iraqi "officials" to sign it, right?

If only there were some corrobative evidence that either our government or say, the British intelligence community, had forged documents in the past, or even had a history of distributing misleading information specifically regarding Iraq...? You know, like the evidence I presented on page one of this thread?

Nor does it prove that there were. In fact, it doesn't prove a goddamned thing.

So did Saddam Hussein and his ruling party, who was arguably responsible for bringing more American infestation to the region.

And you know this, how? Are you CIA?

Oh, wait, let me employ sir-drinks-a-lot's lack of reasoning and ask you to provide proof that there is "NO RECORD" of any association between Bin Laden and the CIA. Good luck, considering the top secret quality to such alleged evidence.

Or better yet, let's employ your own brand of reasoning and erroneously point out that just because no record yet exists, doesn't mean there isn't one, right? I'm sure sir-drinks-a-lot would concur with that line of reasoning, if you bought him a drink.

Nice strawman. You're getting better and better. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten the evidence that our government presented forged documents regarding nuclear weapons capabilities to Congress that subsequently was a deciding factor in at least one vote (Rockefellers) to go to war and that "western intelligence" reports found no link between Saddam and 9/11, eventhough that was likewise conveniently absent from official government dogma.

So the really "funny" (read: horrific) thing is that anybody can ever trust anything this administration ever says again.

Don't blame us! It's their fault. We just reveal the truth.

Oh, and the reason the Guardian is significant is it's an easily marginallized source. It's the same twisted reasoning that apologists use the fact that the authors of the NT have women being the first witnesses at the tomb. That since women were of such low status, it would have to be the truth, since, if it were a lie, they would never have said it were women as witnesses.

You see, the name of the game is "popular belief," not "scholarly integrity." If it were planted, then it would be planted to an easily marginallized source so that actual, intelligent scrutiny is not possible; merely faith that it is true on some level.

Had a reporter from the New York Times found the document, you would be assured of careful scrutiny; thereby revealing the fraud. A reporter from a rag like the Guardian (equivalent in "news" circles to the National Inquirer), you're assured of affirming in the public's mind (i.e., no scrutiny) of something that couldn't otherwise withstand serious scrutiny.

But why let thousands of years of the art of propaganda or Poli Sci 101 tactics concern you, right? If the Guardian says it's true, then it must be true, regardless of all the other evidence that shows no links and/or reveals a history of deliberate frauds and forgeries direclty concerning public opinion about Iraq?

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
A reporter from a rag like the Guardian (equivalent in "news" circles to the National Inquirer) ...

Now now. It was the Daily Torygraph. The Guardian is a good paper.

But you're right. The sidebar about the reporter and his intrepid sidekick Amir "sweet-talking" their way past U.S. military personnel reads like something right off of Page 3.

PHWOAAR!

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by leonarde
... you aren't going to get a "gun" any "smokinger" than that.....

You may be right.

leonarde

Partial post by unretired Koy:Sorry but I've conveniently forgotten NOTHING: it isn't just THIS Administration (remember that in early 1998 the CLINTON Administration sent M Albright and Secy of Defense Cohen on the road to Columbus Ohio to drum up support for a war with Iraq FOR THE SAME BASIC REASONS-----minus most of the terrorist connections). It isn't even just US intelligence services that claimed that Iraq still had a WMD program after YEARS of inspections:

1) the French intelligence community was telling its government essentially the same thing.

2) the German intelligence community was telling ITS government the same thing.

3) the BRITISHT intelligence community......(but you get the general idea: the CONSENSUS of virtually ALL WESTERN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES since before Bush was inaugurated was: Iraq is still working on these programs.

Discrediting one measly document (ie the forged one) is hardly going to change anyone's mind (Rockefeller notwithstanding).

Cheers!

Happy Wonderer

I'm never really sure if LeonardE is serious. Here we are in a thread discussing the (in)validity of a document proporting to show Iraq's ties to Bin Laden and he comes up with this as support:

And
So which forgery are we talking about? The nuclear forgery or the Al-Queida one?

hw