A leading news outlet has published an Op-Ed Piece claiming
"Missing Links Found" connecting Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
New York Times
"Missing Links Found" connecting Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
New York Times
Conservative news outlet editorial claims Iraq may have helped finance the 9/11 attacks.
- Thread starter heartsurgeon
- Start date
Isn't this all related to the same memo that the Pentagon itself has said is unfounded and unverfiable?
None of the claims in that memo have been verified and many of them have been proven untrue.
None of the claims in that memo have been verified and many of them have been proven untrue.
HEADLINE:
"Heart surgeon has cerebral accident in desperate attempt to prove Bush Administration may have done ONE THING right. Now he spells New York Times as FOX."
Oh, ye sinners, repent before God smites thee with a copy of "None Dare Call It Treason" and brings you low like the unrepentent heart surgeon.
Bwuahahahaha!!
Oh, the foolishness continues.....
-Robert
"Heart surgeon has cerebral accident in desperate attempt to prove Bush Administration may have done ONE THING right. Now he spells New York Times as FOX."
Oh, ye sinners, repent before God smites thee with a copy of "None Dare Call It Treason" and brings you low like the unrepentent heart surgeon.
Bwuahahahaha!!
Oh, the foolishness continues.....
-Robert
Your title's misleading (not the conservative part); no news organization is claiming anything. A conservative op-ed columnist is making the claim based on alleged information, and I say alleged because no one, even those whose case it helps, including the government puts any credence to it. In fact people have said it's in essence bullshit, which doesn't seem to matter to William Safire, I mean why let fact get in the way of a good argument.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
HS:
It was a good ruse, yes. But, no, I didn't read it because I knew it had to be phony. When the Bushies get a good argument it will be all over the internet like MJ on a 12 year old.
-Robert
It was a good ruse, yes. But, no, I didn't read it because I knew it had to be phony. When the Bushies get a good argument it will be all over the internet like MJ on a 12 year old.
-Robert
proving yet again that libs don't rely on facts, they just "know" and "feel" what is right.
this New York Times op/ed piece
has links to the Weekly Standard article linky
which lays out information about the Al-Qaeda-Iraq relationship. Apparently this information was obtained at the request of
Sen. Jay Rockefeller.
If some of the people who dismiss this NYT's op/ed piece, and the Weekly Standard piece have links to publications that
refute these articles, i would enjoy reading them. Until you've actually read the articles, it baffles me how anyone can rationally debate the articles!
Answer me this: Why is this an Op/Ed piece if there's so much "factual evidence" of an Iraq-9/11 connection?
HINT: We've been over this issue before here at ATP&N.
HINT: We've been over this issue before here at ATP&N.
Heart, I've missed you. I haven't read the particular articles in question here but, as to how you can form an opinion without reading them, I've got some answers. When something comes in a Bandini bag, I figure it's bullshit. That's the walks like a duck, smells like bullshit test. Second, I don't give as much credence to the National Inquirer as I do the the Washington Post. I think most news sources are grinding a little metal off one side or the other of the ax. Finally, I compare what the article says (or, in your case, what the writer alleges the article says) to the total body of my knowledge. Thus, when I hear some babe testifying before Congress that the cruel Iraqi soldiers are dumping Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators in Kuwati hospitals, I aske myself; Would anybody I know do that? Sorry to disappoint, Heart, but I don't know anybody who isn't pathological who's willing to harm babies. And you (and your ilk) want me to believe we're going against a whole pathological army? Yeah, that makes sense.
Heart, people react pretty much the same the world over. Someone invades your country, you don't by flowers to throw.
Heart, people react pretty much the same the world over. Someone invades your country, you don't by flowers to throw.
I think we pretty much established in another thread that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. If I were you I'd read everything I could get my hands on. I'm not you (thank God) and I do it anyway. I find it saves me the embarrasment of having someone publicly correct my ignorance. YMMV.
I think we pretty much established in another thread that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. If I were you I'd read everything I could get my hands on. I'm not you (thank God) and I do it anyway. I find it saves me the embarrasment of having someone publicly correct my ignorance. YMMV.
do you believe the New York Times is a reputable publication?
do you believe the Times Editorial Board would allow a totally factless op/ed piece to be written?
can you provide me with some links to articles from publications you feel are reputable that specifically refute
the Weekly Standard piece?
if this was complete balderdash, what reason could you suggest for the New York Times running this piece of crap editorial that is completely without merit? Another Jason Blair episode in the offing?
finally, i'm afraid to ask....but what is a bandini bag?
MSNBC - Case Decidedly Not Closed
The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sort
Nov. 19 ? A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an ?operational relationship? between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?s former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago?and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
<snip...>
Also see, The Hill
and Washington Post
The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sort
Nov. 19 ? A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an ?operational relationship? between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?s former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago?and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
<snip...>
Also see, The Hill
and Washington Post
Bandini is (or at least to be) the leading brand of steer manure fertilizer.
Ultra, you're wrong about how much I know (there's a surprise). I was wrong in one thread because of multiple and unattributed quotes. And when I am wrong, I admit it. I don't look to be writing an apology to you soon! EDITED: By the way, nice double post.
Ultra, you're wrong about how much I know (there's a surprise). I was wrong in one thread because of multiple and unattributed quotes. And when I am wrong, I admit it. I don't look to be writing an apology to you soon! EDITED: By the way, nice double post.
You know what literally beats the hell out of me? We see Op/Ed material from the NYT that is negatively biased towards the current admin on these forums rather frequently. The defenders thereof rant, rave, swear and insult those who might dare argue said assertions.
However, when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, well...., you know what I mean.
MSNBC article:
the hill "article" is more of a editorial:.
their actually isn't a single comment in the washington post article stating the weekly standard article is false.
the only individual taking issue with the article is Rockefeller
the MSNBC article is the best written, and most interesting. it actually confirms some of the statements in the Weekly Standard article, while drawing different conclusions from them.
thanks for the links.
a careful read of the MSNBC article confirms that there were undisputed talks between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, and there is a undisputed statement by an Al-Qaeda operative that chemical and biological weapon training was offered to Al-Qaeda by Iraq.
the hill "article" is more of a editorial:.
sort of typical of the "article" as a whole.
their actually isn't a single comment in the washington post article stating the weekly standard article is false.
the only individual taking issue with the article is Rockefeller
some people would find Rockefeller to be reliable, others would disagree with that assessment
the MSNBC article is the best written, and most interesting. it actually confirms some of the statements in the Weekly Standard article, while drawing different conclusions from them.
thanks for the links.
this is a very tintillating piece. not so much safire's op-ed, which mashes everything together, but because of the info skimmed from the
various links within, plus the msnbc.com link below.
the info in toto - so far - does not establish a direct link between al-aqeda and saddam but it does irrefutably establish that saddam
was interested in establishing such ties (with al-qaeda) and that he worked with his foreign assignees to plot terrorist acts. saddam may
have succeeded in establishing such ties with al-qaeda people though not necessarily with bin laden. the evidence so far places us half-way
there.
from the slate link in safire's op-ed:
brilliant. salim is a reputable intel source. the details of his case are not in dispute. he hasn't waffled. he appears to understand the limits
of his knowledge and doesn't tease us with any qualifiers or guesses. he received his marching orders from saddam, failed to complete the
bombing mission, and defected. so short and sweet.
the links are peppered with numerous undisputed references that saddam certainly desired an alliance with the notorious osama but that
osama apparently refused for ideological reasons. the point is not that we're lacking a direct link - which speaks to a lack of human intel - but
to the fact that saddam did pursue such a relationship. this amounts to a confirmation of long standing suspicions.
fine. the story is osama said 'no, thanks, 'cause you're a dirty socialist, saddam'. but what cannistrato does not dispute is that the overture
took place. the writers use cannistraro's august credentials and placement to confirm and complete the 'story'. hijazi was sent by saddam but
hijazi, like salim, failed in his mission. this establishes, amazingly from this little amount of information, a pattern within the ba'ath heirarchy to
adopt the very means that many liberals claim saddam never resorted to. we know saddam had prior, open associations with various middle
eastern terrorrist groups (like the pkk - kurdish) but now we understand that logically he would not abide by any invisble line against doing
the same in the west, especially against his arch-nemesis, the united states.
exactly....if you take the information that is not disputed by anyone, it paints a very disturbing picture of al-qaeda and iraq investigating ways to cooperate..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter