Lies and more lies. Who Said What When

Quote from msfe:

The Biggest Threat To Peace

Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views

http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html
More...

Regarding the embedded link in Wild's above post:

Earlier this year TIMEeurope.com asked you: "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace? Iraq, North Korea or The United States."

"The voting was closed with the outbreak of military action. But before then we recorded nearly 700,000 repsonses. Another 200,000 were discounted by robot-protection software. You can see the results by clicking the button below."

I wonder if Baron could come up with some robot-protection software to keep Wild from posting the same european poll again, and again, and again, and again, and again.......
 
CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Tuesday June 10, 2003


The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.

The interrogation reports of two senior al-Qaida members, both in US custody, showed that the CIA had reason to doubt the allegations of a connection between Saddam's regime and the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

Such assertions, promoted vigorously by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, were used as an additional justification for war, after the central argument that Iraq's arsenal of banned weapons posed an imminent danger.

The charge of a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam was contentious even at the time, and yesterday's report in the New York Times that the two al-Qaida members, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, dismissed the idea deepened the impression that Americans had been deliberately misled to support the decision for war.

In recent days that impression has become sufficiently widespread to put officials on the defensive.

Yesterday Mr Bush predicted that US inspectors scouring Iraq would soon find evidence of a programme of weapons of mass destruction. He also reaffirmed that al-Qaida maintained a network in Baghdad.

"Intelligence throughout the decade shows they had a weapons programme," Mr Bush said. "I am absolutely convinced that with time, we'll find out they did have a weapons programme."

That assertion stops well short of Mr Bush's statement during a visit to Poland on May 31 that US troops had already found weapons of mass destruction: two trailers the US said at the time had been used as mobile biological labs.

With the White House fighting for its credibility, the New York Times reported that the two al-Qaida lieutenants had dismissed the notion of cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March last year, told his CIA interrogators that Bin Laden had considered and then rejected the idea of working with Saddam because he did not want to be in the Iraqi leader's debt.

His information was supported on the eve of war after Mohammed was arrested in Pakistan on March 1. Mohammed, who had been al-Qaida's chief of operations, told the CIA the group did not work with Saddam.

While the CIA shared its interrogation record of Zubaydah with other intelligence agencies, it did not release its conclusions to the public.

That omission could prove extremely damaging to the administration because it suggests that officials ignored intelligence that did not fit with their plans for Iraq.

"This gets to the serious question of to what extent did they try to align the facts with the conclusions that they wanted," an intelligence official told the New York Times.

"Things pointing in one direction were given a lot of weight, and other things were discounted."
 
Quote from msfe:

CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida
More...

lol CIA too?

Ahahaha FBI beat them to it:

FBI Admits: No Evidence Links 'Hijackers' to 9-11

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17886&highlight=FBI

and http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html




But this is even "funnier" From New York Times

By MAUREEN DOWD
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
June 4,2003

WASHINGTON - Before 9/11, the administration had too little intelligence on Al Qaeda, badly coordinated by clashing officials.

Before the Iraq invasion, the administration had too much intelligence on Saddam, torqued up by conspiring officials.

As Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to make his case for invading Iraq to the U.N. on Feb. 5, a friend of his told me, he had to throw out a couple of hours' worth of sketchy intelligence other Bush officials were trying to stuff into his speech.

U.S. News & World Report reveals this week that when Mr. Powell was rehearsing the case with two dozen officials, he became so frustrated by the dubious intelligence about Saddam that he tossed several pages in the air and declared: "I'm not reading this. This is $%&*#."

First America has no intelligence. Then it has $%&*# intelligence.

So this is progress?

For the first time in history, America is searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over.

As The Times's James Risen reports, a bedrock of the administration's weapons case — the National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nukes — is itself being reassessed. The document is at the center of a broad prewar-intelligence review, being conducted by the C.I.A. to see whether the weapons evidence was cooked.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04DOWD.html


man o man this needs to blow up really bad and take all them frigin thugs down:mad: :mad: :mad:

WMD's and intelligence manipulation is just the tip of the iceberg

And I don't give a rat's ass who's up there. We need a full f&^king independent investigation. The committee asked for 10million and the thugs will not even allow 3 million, on top of time constraints and censorship. Do you see a pattern there?
 
Do we see a pattern? Yes, clearly. The international Left, Democrats and discredited partisans like Mo Dowd all desperately want to taint President Bush. The same crowd was awfully quiet when President Charisma led us into a fool's errand in Kosovo, one that we are still mired in. But to root out a madman who controlled a third of the world's oil reserves and used it to build WMD for use on neighboring countries and his own populace, now that is something they find mighty suspicious.

And am I the only one who finds it ironic that the Left is reduced to using anonymous CIA leaks. I thought the CIA was the root of all evil.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Do we see a pattern? Yes, clearly. The international Left, Democrats and discredited partisans like Mo Dowd all desperately want to taint President Bush. The same crowd was awfully quiet when President Charisma led us into a fool's errand in Kosovo, one that we are still mired in. But to root out a madman who controlled a third of the world's oil reserves and used it to build WMD for use on neighboring countries and his own populace, now that is something they find mighty suspicious.

And am I the only one who finds it ironic that the Left is reduced to using anonymous CIA leaks. I thought the CIA was the root of all evil.
More...

I don't stake much on such material: We have no way of assessing its truth value. A bureaucracy like the CIA or the DOD always produces a number of individuals who are ready and willing to provide useful quotes to receptive journalists who happen to be taking aim at rivals or superiors. If, however, the information is valid - if the statements were made as reported, and were themselves honest and accurate - then what's also interesting about it is that Zubaydah appears to confirm that there was active consideration of an alliance, and that AQ believed Saddam was interested.

If AQ rejected the alliance recently, who's to say that they wouldn't have changed their minds next year, after Saddam, with the help of his French and other allies, had emerged strengthened from a successful confrontation with the US? Saddam's willingness to work with AQ also lends support to the conclusion that other Islamist and other Middle Eastern terrorists who were variously caught or killed in Iraq didn't end up there just because they were taking Spring Break vacations on the banks of the Euphrates.

MSFE's contribution comes from a GUARDIAN writer, of course - with the usual sneaky, ideologically motivated statements: Notice how, for instance, it suggests that Rumsfeld unequivocally claimed a direct link between SH and 9/11. I doubt anyone will find evidence that Rumsfeld did so. The most he ever did, I believe, was report information suggesting that meetings may have taken place between Iraqi officials and AQ conspirators.
 
Wesley Clark Says Bush Officials Asked Him to Publicly
State 9/11 and Hussein are Connected

On Meet the Press, Wesley Clark Says Bush Officials Asked Him to Publicly
State 9/11 and Hussein are Connected


"GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do
something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11
that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror... there
was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11
to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. MR.

RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from
people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I
was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it but what's your
evidence?' And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had --
Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to
connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made."

transcripts from MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp?cp1=1


Keymar and the rest of your klan, I'll be waiting for your spin on this too. Sorry the above it's not from guardian....


IMPEACH them! throw them to jail! all of them!:mad: :mad:
 
Quote from trader556:


Keymar and the rest of your klan, I'll be waiting for your spin on this too. Sorry the above it's not from guardian....
More...

I'm still waiting for you to respond to any of the last several posts I put up in response to your usual material.
 
(CBS/AP) Attackers fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a U.S. military ambulance in Iraq on Thursday, killing one U.S. soldier and injuring two others, the military said.

It was the fourth attack in 24 hours on Americans in Iraq, and the third with deadly results either for Americans or Iraqis.

The Pentagon has been playing down the attacks, saying they don't indicate widespread resentment on the part of the Iraqi people. Now, reports CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Palmer, Iraq's first-ever public opinion poll seems to back that up.

Sixty-five percent of Iraqis polled in Baghdad claimed they want the U.S. military to stay until Iraq is stable and secure; only 17 percent want American soldiers out now.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/20/iraq/main559521.shtml
 
Bush is a nazi and nazism has always been historically linked (more than just a link I mean friends Hitler even declared that the arab culture was near the aryen culture of superior race) with arab terrorists so it can be more like a comedy of oposition like the one used by french socialist President Mitterand's tactic who faint in France to exacerb the extremist nationalist of Jean Marie Lepen in France and extremism gain huge voice not seen until then 20% and it was discovered that Mitterand has never been socialist but always a right extremist (so the same board than Lepen in fact). A socialist who was a famous writer who has been his friend at the beginning (he even participated in the core organisation of Mitterand 1st election) discovered that truth little by little and decided to write a book to reveal that. He was threatened to death and couldn't publish it during Mitterand's life so the book was out only after Mitterand's death. Nevertheless he continued to receive threat of death and one day he was really found dead on a beach near his bicycle. Not many french know that because the publisher of the book, although an important reputed publisher in france, has been harassed of course and the book could be rarely found. The book has been circulating secretly among elite intellectuals during Mitterand's reign but none of them dare say anything loudly: that's prove that democracy defense is weak really by the so called intellectual elites.

Times journalists have revealed in a book they wrote , and they wrote it before the 11th september so they didn't profit from any publicity, that Bush father and Saddam Hussein has shared business and profits for about 250 millions dollars so what is astonishing that they faint to be ennemies ? Bush father has also prevented for many years enquiry asked by a congressman on the terrorist BCCI bank who tried for example to undermine the dollar and also enquiry on the Ben Laden Family: why huh ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top