2
   

Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 07:04 am
BernardR wrote:
Two important points, Mr. Parados.

First, the source of the material on Al Samad II

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/...

THIS IS THE SAME SOURCE YOU USE.

HOW COULD IT BE WRONG FOR ME AND NOT WRONG FOR YOU?

Strike One-Mr.Parados.

OMG..

You did NOT use global security as a source when you claimed the Duelfer report had holes in it. In fact you gave NO LINK but you did cite where it came from

Quote:
What Charles Duelfer Missed
By Christopher S. Carson
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 21, 2005


FrontPageMagazine is not related to global security in any way.
Mr Carson made numerous errors of fact that I pointed out and gave a link to globalsecurity that showed those items to be errors. Your silly claim that you used globalsecurity for a source is just that, silly.

Your first post can be found here
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2081582#2081582

My response can be found here.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2085611#2085611

The only holes you are proving are the ones in Mr Carson's fantasy but you were far to interested in joining his little orgasmic circle to care about reality.

It's the bottom of the 9th and you are down by 200 runs at this point Bernie. Claiming I have a strike on me when the ball cleared the fence and the scoreboard in straight away centerfield doesn't make much sense.

Do you continue to think that that Al Samoud missile had a range of 600km? Or do you agree that Mr Carson was wrong in his claim? Globalsecurity says he is wrong.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 07:50 am
BernardR wrote:
I post the entire report from Hans Blix just thirteen days before the invasion and HIGHLIGHT CERTAIN SECTIONS AND

ASKED YOU

TO COMMENT ON THEM, MR. PARADOS.

YOU DID NOT. I wlll repeat the sections in which I challenged you, Mr. Parados.

THE KEY REMAINING DISARMAMENT TASKS?


WHILE DURING OUR MEETINGS IN BAGHDAD, THE IRAQI SIDE TRIED TO PERSUADE US THAT THE AL SAMOUD 2 MISSLES THEY HAVE DECLARED, THEY HAVE DECLARED, THEY HAVE DECLARED, FALL WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE RANGE SET BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL. THE CALCULATIONS OF AN INTERNATIONAL PANEL OF EXPERTS LED US TO THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.
Funny that you keep bringing this up. I said it travelled about 180 km, globalsecurity says it traveled about 151km, The UN says it travelled past the 150km range. NO ONE but you and Chris Carson have said it travels 600km. (Oh, and Bush when he lied in his speech in Cincinnati about Iraq's ability to hit Israel with missiles.)

Quote:

EVEN IF THE USE OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY COULD QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF ANTHRAX SAID TO HAVE BEEN DUMPED AT THE SITE. THE RESULTS WOULD STILL BE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION, OPEN TO INTERPRETATION, OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.
Open to interpretation. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the phrase and that is why you repeated it so many times. Were you trying to figure out its meaning? It means there is no evidence that they did or didn't dump the quantity they claimed. Lacking any evidence of anthrax being anywhere else, the claim seems to be valid and no longer open to interpretation.



Quote:

AS I NOTED ON 14 FEBRUARY, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITIES HAVE CLAIMED THAT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ARE MOVED AROUND IRAQ BY TRUCKS AND, IN PARTICULAR, THAT THERE ARE MOBILE PRODUCTION UNITS FOR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.
Which is followed by..
"The inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on the evidence which they can themselves examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise. "


Quote:

THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS, DENIED FROM THE IRAQI SIDE, THAT PROSCRIBED ACTIVITIES ARE CONDUCTED UNDERGROUND.

I SHOULD ADD THAT, BOTH FOR THE MONITORING OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION AND THE INSPECTION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, WE WOULD NEED TO INCREASE OUR STAFF IN IRAQ.

Followed by...
"In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far."

You can read what he says about the increased staff yourself but you left off a very important part of the paragraph.
Quote:

Now, the capitalized sections above are taken from Mr. Blix's final report just thirteen days before the invasion.
Interesting how all your capitalized portions are the first half of paragraphs and you fail to post the rest of the paragraphs that deal with your capitalized portions. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how the English language works Bernie. Normally the paragraph is laid out that the opening sentence lays out the problem and the closing sentence reaches the conclusion. If you were to read the entire paragraph you would find the answer to the first sentence. If you need tutoring help in the English language I am sure that you can find it in your local yellow pages.

Quote:

Then Mr. Parados wrote:

No need to comment on a preliminary report by Blix when the final report speaks for itself.


My quotes in caps above are quotes from the final report which, Mr. Parados says speaks for itself.

It doesn't speak- It shouts--and anyone, anyone with two ounces of brains who reads the final report will say that the Report is not definitive and finalized and that it raises more questions than it answers.
The average human brain weighs 48 ounces. I am sorry to hear that yours weighs only two since you think the report is not finalized.

Quote:
Speaks for itself indeed----International Panel reaches opposite conclusion from Iraqi on Samoud II( see above)
Yes, the same conclusion I stated earlier and you had problems reading. Then you forgot who you originally cited as your source for why the report had holes. My mother in law has problems remembering things and was diagnosed with dementia. They were able to conduct some rather conclusive testing to determine she had it. It is amazing the research they can do these days. I am sure there is a facility near you that can do the same tests.

Quote:
Speaks for itself indeed- Results on amount of Anthrax said to have been dumped open to interpretation( see above).


Speaks for itself indeed-Intelligence Sources are saying "WMD's being moved around Iraq by trucks"
Actually it does speak to that and it doesn't say what you just said. Let me quote it for you..
"Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and, in some cases, the presence of other items, conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction. "


Quote:
Speaks for itself indeed- "Proscribed activities being conducted underground"
More attempts by you to change what was really said.
Quote:

Speaks for itself indeed-To monitor, we would need to increase our staff"
Fails to address the REST of the paragraph.
Quote:

Speaks for itself indeed-THE KEY REMAINING DISARMAMENT TASKS-

REMAINING????
The remaining ones before the war. You do realize that the Duelfer report came out 18 month after the war, don't you? The key task remaining had to do with answering questions. They had nothing to do with specific WMDs that were known to exist. I didn't realize you are time challenged as well as English deficient. I would have thought you were old enough to have been taught time with "the big hand is on the 6 and the little hand is on the 3 then it is 3:30." I may be wrong.

Quote:

__________

Anyone who would label Hans Blix's final report as definitive and one that answered all of the questions still out there IN THE FACE OF HANS BLIX'S OWN ADMISSION THAT NOT ALL OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AND THAT THERE ARE OTHER CLAIMS ABOUT WMD'S STILL IN PLAY JUST THIRTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE INVASION, is either a fanatic partisan or someone who just doesn't understand what a definitive report is supposed to say.
Reports are done to answer questions. The questions are raised then the report is done to answer those questions. Anyone that has spent any time in the corporate world would understand this. I guess McDonald's fry cooks might not but even a receptionist or an admin at any business would know it.
Quote:

If you can't explain why Hans Blix made all of those "reservations" in his final report, Mr. Parados, I am very much afraid that I will have to say:

Strike Two!

One more strike and you are out, sir!!!
Your flailing around is quite funny. Strikes? Standing off by yourself spinning in circles without a bat doesn't equate to strikes but it does tend to build up pity for you and hope that you can find help somewhere.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 10:51 am
This now coming out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199586,00.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 10:24 pm
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 11:51 pm
Mr. Parados- You dismiss Mr. Carson's article but you do not show how and why he was wrong---

Please respond to the vital parts of his article.

Do you deny that Mr. Duelfer decided to leave Iraq, as Mr. Carson said, and had to 'CUT SHORT" its concluding look at the transfer of WMD material to Syria?--SURE, MR. PARADOS--A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION--
That investigation was not complete nor was it thorough.

Do you deny NINE Iraqi scientists questioned by ISG were murdered and that 50 fled the country? Do you deny that Mr. Duelfer told the Congress that he was struck by the extreme reluctance of Iraq's managers and scientists to speak freely? Congressman Buyer( Ind. R) reports that is what Duelfer told the Congress.

Yes, Mr. Parados, the ISG really got a lot of information from the Iraqis!!!!


Mr. Carson reports that American Soldiers found purchase orders dated Aug. 21, 200 and Sept. 6, 2000 for 5 KILOGRAMS OF Mustard Gas and 3 Ampules of Anthrax.

Do you deny this, Mr. Parados? I guess Duelfer didn't look hard enough!!!



David Kay( Duelfer's predecessor) said that Saddam had sent agents to North Korea to buy parts for the NO DONG missle which has a range of about 1,500 Km.

Do you deny this, Mr. Parados?

Duelfer wrote that the ISG cannot be certain whether Samddan maintained his government's work on weaponization of Smallpox up to MARCH 2003. THAT IS WHAT WE LIKE, MR. PARADOS--CERTAINTY!!!
BUT DUELFER'S PEOPLE WERE NOT CERTAIN.

Do you deny this. Mr. Parados?


Mr. Carson indicated that Duelfer's technical advisors felt that the Iraqis could have Smallpox stores concealed from the public.

Do you deny this, Mr. Parados?

THE ISG SEEM TO HAVE BEEN A BUNCH OF BLUNDERING IDIOTS WHO NEEDED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE CRITICAL QUESTION OF WHETHER IRAQI MATERIALS WERE SENT TO SYRIA.


Apparently , Duelfer had a close call, having a bomb detonate close to him and hightailed it out of Iraq.

SURE, MR. PARADOS--A THOROUGH AND COMPLETE SEARCH OF IRAQ--ALL 168,000 square miles of it------AND SADDAM HAD FOUR YEARS TO HIDE OR SEND AWAY HIS WMD'S.


Mr. Carson challenged the Duelfer Report. I challenge it. If you wish to defend it, you will have to meet the questions above.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2006 12:09 am
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 07:19 am
Was Saddam Regime a Broker for Terror Alliances?
Monday, June 26, 2006
Ray Robison

Prologue:

Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad.

Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit the hundreds of captured documents and materials of Saddam's regime.

This is the final installment in a three-part series concerning a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent called Khaled Abd El Majid, and covers events taking place in 1999. The translation is provided by Robison's associate, known here as "Sammi."

The first two translations from this notebook detailed an agreement between members of the Saddam regime and the Taliban to establish diplomatic and intelligence based cooperation. This final translation further advances the link between the Saddam regime and world-wide Islamic Jihad terrorism.

The relationship between the Taliban and Saddam appears to have been mediated by a Pakistani named Maulana Fazlur Rahman. Another document captured in Afghanistan and written by an Al Qaeda operative confirms the relationship between the Maulana and Saddam. The translation provided here includes an early 1999 meeting between the director of the IIS and the Maulana.

Another notebook entry records a meeting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani Islamic Jihadist and leader of the Islamic Party in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar made news recently with the BBC article Afghan Rebel's pledge to al-Qaeda that reports on a video statement from Hekmatyar in which he states he will fight alongside A Qaeda. In this translation, Hekmatyar makes specific requests for a "center" in Baghdad and/or Tajikistan.

A third meeting involves an Islamist representing Bangladesh that we believe to be Fazlur Rahman Khalil. Another page of the notebook indicates Khalil is coming or came to Iraq. Khalil is a Taliban/Al Qaeda associate who signed the 1998 fatwa from Usama bin Laden declaring war on the United States.

Editor's notes: "Sammi" puts translation clarifications in parenthesis. Robison (RR) uses parenthesis for clarification and bold-face type for emphasis.

Translation:

Translation for ISGP-2003-0001412 follows (PDF):

Page 70, Left Side:

Saturday 3/20 at 11:45

Met with him Mr. MS4 (translator's note: MS4 is the code name for the high ranking IIS official).

1. Intelligence and security cooperation.

2. Mr. MS4 informed him that the Iraqi president and Iraqi leadership are interested in him.

3. "We are ready to help you in any country and against your enemies". (translator's note: most probably this is MS4)

4. Fadlul Haq - The governor of Peshawar that was assassinated.

(translator's note: points 5 and 6 are direct quotes from the Afghani)

5. "We are facing a vicious international plot against the Islamic Party and cannot find any country to help us at the time being".

6. "Iran helped us at the beginning and we brought 2,000 fighters but things changed at the time being. Also the Russians called to help but we do not trust them. Moscow and Iran want the war to drag on." (RR: this is probably the Taliban vs. Northern Alliance conflict). This is why he is coming to Baghdad for help. Asked Baghdad to help open a center in Tajikistan or in Baghdad and they will bring them (translator's note: not clear what them refers to) in through Iran or Northern Iraq.

He asked for help in printing Afghani money in Baghdad or help in printing it in Moscow.

Page 69, Right Side:

Stinger missiles have a range of 5 kilometers. (translator's note: there is only this one sentence on this page)

Page 69, Left Side:

Meeting of MS4 with 6951 on 4/10 at 8 p.m. in room 710.

He (6951) inquired about our relation with Usama (bin Laden).

(translator's note: The Iraqi answer is not reported.).

He (6951) proposed to the Taliban to form a front with Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

He met some of them in Hajj (Translator's note: Pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, it is one of the five pillars of Islam) and he came to the conclusion that they do not know anything about Foreign Relations.

The Taliban defense minister is Abdul Razzak (unclear) Association of Muslim Clerics.

They openly claim that they are against America.

He said that he was ready to build relations between the Taliban and Iraq.

(translator's note: meeting continues on both sides of page 68/76, with questions about Pakistani politics and the other Islamic parties.) The Iraqi official says, "I suggest that the parties come closer together because that means power to Islam against the American and Zionist policies".

Page 39, Left Side:

Meeting with an Islamist leader from Bangladesh. He promises support to Iraq. He says: "Let them know that I made Bangladesh a second country to Mr. President and we have 125 million (people)." (RR: Although no name is given for this meeting, it is important to note Fazlur Rahman Khalil, noted for meeting with Iraqi officials in the previous article, signed the 1998 fatwa as "Fazlur Rahman, Amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh". This is a strong indication that this meeting is with Khalil or his representative.)

Page 27, Left side:

(translator's note: contains notes with information on prior meetings recorded in the notebook.)

The mentioned person (Translator's note: Fazlur Rahman) arrived to the country on 11/27/1999 and he was hosted in Al Rachid Hotel suite number 526. He will leave on 12/1/1999.

(translator's comment: note No. 1 in a list of notes.)

He visited Iraq on the beginning of April 1999 and the ex-director of the intelligence, may God rest his soul, instructed him to mediate between the Taliban and the leader of the Afghani Islamic party, Hekmatyar following the request for mediation done by Hekmatyar to the leadership of Iraq during a visit when they met us on 3/19/1999.

End Translation

Analysis:

Because Arabic writing is right to left, the pages in this notebook go in reverse chronological order. The note on page 27 indicates that Hekmatyar met with the IIS on March 19, 1999. The translation of page 70 is dated March 20 and it refers to someone from the Islamic Party, which is Hekmatyar's group. Therefore it makes sense that the meeting on page 70 is with Hekmatyar.

The note on page 27 also says the meeting was with the director if the IIS, so we believe MS4 is his code-name. It appears that Hekmatyar, a jihadist leader warring with the Taliban for control of Afghanistan at the time, asked Baghdad "to help open a center in Tajikistan or in Baghdad and they will bring them (translator's note: not clear what them refers to) in through Iran or Northern Iraq." There is a strong indication that this requested "center" is a jihadist training camp.

From a US Department of State report Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1996:

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar … maintained training and indoctrination facilities in Afghanistan, mainly for non-Afghans. They continue to provide logistic support and training facilities to Islamic extremists despite military losses in the past year. Individuals who trained in these camps were involved in insurgencies in … Tajikistan…

It looks very much like Hekmatyar, a long-time jihad leader and recently self-identified Al Qaeda associate, is asking the Saddam regime for a jihad training camp in Tajikistan and/or Baghdad.

Page 27 tells us that the Maulana Fazlur Rahman was meeting with the IIS Director in early April. The meeting on page 69 fits the time frame, has the code for the IIS director, and the guest speaks for the Taliban indicating that "6951" is the Maulana. According to these notes, the Maulana "proposed to the Taliban to form a front with Iraq, Libya and Sudan." He also enquires about the IIS relationship to Usama bin Laden.

In researching the Maulana, a third document has been found that demonstrated the relationship between Saddam and the Maulana. The document which appears to be an IIS memo also mentions a relationship with Hekmatyar. There is no government authentication of the document. Because this document matches closely with what we find in the IIS agent notebook we will reference it so that the reader may decide.

The article entitled Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD's, Had Extensive Terror Ties states:

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

The CNS report includes a translation of a memo from the IIS to Saddam. The memo is dated January 25, 1993. The subject is IIS influence with two groups: the JUI, led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman; and, the Afghani Islamic Party led by Hekmatyar. These are the same two men meeting with the IIS in Baghdad in 1999, according to the notebook.

The document states that the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) depended upon Pakistani support as well as foreign help from Iraq and Libya. It also mentions that the secretary general of the JUI has had a good relationship with the IIS since 1981, and that he is "ready for any mission".

The IIS document reported on by CNS News also states that the Islamic Party of Hekmatyar relies on Iraqi funding. It says the relationship has existed since 1989 and has improved under Hekmatyar's leadership. Although this document has not yet been validated by the U.S, government, we can see very specific information, not publicly available before 2004, that matches what we find in the IIS notebook. It indicates a long history of Saddam regime support to Islamic jihad groups, and that the IIS considers them organizations that will take on missions for Iraq's interests.

Epilogue:

Let's review what we have learned from the IIS notebook.

• We learned that in 1999 the IIS met with three significant leaders of Islamic jhad from Afghanistan: a warlord and Islamic jihadist; an Al Qaeda leader; and, a man known as the "Father of the Taliban."

• The Saddam regime and Taliban leadership agreed to diplomatic ties and a secret intelligence service relationship. They discussed security cooperation with Hekmatyar's Islamic Jihad group. The Taliban representative also agreed to support the Saddam regime in Pakistan's North-West Frontier, a region sympathetic to and actively involved with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the world-wide Islamic jihad movement. An Islamist, most likely the Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliated Fazlur Rahman Khalil, promised the support of Bangladesh.

• We see a request to the Saddam regime for a training center in Baghdad or Tajikistan from a jihad leader accused by the U.S. State Department during the Clinton Administration of running Islamic extremist training camps.

• There is a discussion about transporting something into these centers, including a discussion that appears to mention surface-to-air missiles.

• And, we have numerous statements of Islamic fidelity between Afghani jihad leaders and the Saddam regime, with many statements of mutual animosity towards the United States and intent to cooperate.

This notebook thus provides significant evidence that the Saddam regime collaborated with and supported Islamic jihad elements in Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were attacking United States citizens and their interests and plotting the 9/11 attacks.

In this notebook, we see a Saddam Hussein actively seeking to expand his sphere of influence in a region at the heart of the world-wide Islamic jihad movement.

This now-public relationship between Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Saddam Hussein deserves great scrutiny.

As we researched the Maulana, a picture came into focus that our team was not looking to find: The Maulana is a senior leader of an affiliation of Pakistani groups supportive of Islamic jihad. These groups include the JUI and the Jamaat Islami (JI). The JUI provided direct support to both the planner and paymaster of the 9/11 attacks. The Pakistani government accused the JI of working with Al Qaeda. The Maulana mediated an intelligence pact between the IIS and the Taliban.

Clearly, this evidence indicates that the Maulana was in a position to procure assistance from Iraq for the 9/11 attacks.

Dr. Laurie Mylroie, an expert on Iraq, testified in front of the 9/11 commission in 2003:

After al Qaeda moved to Afghanistan, Iraqi intelligence became deeply involved with it, probably, with the full agreement of Usama bin Ladin. Al Qaeda provided the ideology, foot soldiers, and a cover for the terrorist attacks; Iraqi intelligence provided the direction, training, and expertise…

This notebook demonstrates that Islamic jihad leaders in Afghanistan were seeking IIS assistance and Saddam was giving them that assistance.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 07:52 am
Bernard,
I see you failed to address my posts point by point. Such failure as we both know means you capitulate and my statement stands.

Reposting Podhoretz for the 14th time only increases the likelyhood you will be banned for repetitive posting. It doesn't address my dealing with Podhoretz on a different thread.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 10:20 pm
It is notable, Mr. Parados, that both Mr. McGentrix and I posted evidence that showed that you are egregiously mistaken and you just blubber something about your statement. Why don't you just admit that you are incapable of debating correctly?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 01:16 am
More on Saddam Hussein Al Qaeda links:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 02:45 am
It is notable, Mr. Parados, that both Mr. McGentrix and I posted evidence that showed that you are egregiously mistaken and you just blubber something about your statement. Why don't you just admit that you are incapable of debating correctly?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 11:41 am
Heres where we stand now. Evidence shows that not only did Saddam Hussein have WMD, he tried to hide it from inspectors for years upon years, and he had programs either working quietly or waiting in the wings to pick up where they left off whenever inspections weren't being done. He also had a relationship with Al Qaeda, and of course other terrorist organizations. Some evidence suggests more recent WMD was moved out of country shortly before the war. Bottom line, Saddam Hussein was not to be trusted, and he was unable to show proof of no WMD programs before we went to war. Remember here, the burden of proof was on the guilty, Saddam Hussein, not on George W. Bush.

And let us remember also that WMD was but only one of several reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein. All of these reasons were agreed upon by Congress, and even the press at the time to a large degree. So just wondering, where is Congress, and where are the Democrats on this now? Where is the press? Who has always been consistent and someone we could trust? answer George W. Bush. In contrast, who do we never know what they believe or what they think, and who we cannot trust? Who are the spineless ones? answer Democrats.

When you trust ruthless dictators, what is the result? Another example, the guy in North Korea. Clinton and Madeline Allbright pride themselves in having a dialogue with this guy, and in exchange for his agreement not to develop weapons, we gave him technology to build nuclear facilities. Surprise, he uses the technology to build weapons. Now, people like Allbright are held out as experts on North Korea. Again, it shows liberals are either stupid or naive, or both, and the press even believes them.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 07:36 pm
Evidence that Iraq helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 09:52 pm
Evidence?
The article states in the first paragraph..
Quote:
An Arab regime, possibly Iraq, supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.


"possibly Iraq" suddenly becomes for sure Iraq? There are more Arab regimes than just Iraq. Bin Laden isn't Iraqi. None of the 19 Arabs on 9/11 were of Iraqi origin.
The translation goes on to say no country is mentioned at all.

I see Fox continues to leave off the warnings from intelligence services that the authenticity of these papers cannot be confirmed.

Quote:
The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available. The ODNI press release and public affairs contact information is available at http://www.odni.gov/

http://70.168.46.200/
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 02:36 am
Mr. Parados' pathetic attempt to block evidence by prattling something about repetitive posting is rendered ridiculous by the fact that the post completely destroyed his argument and he seems not to have EVEN NOTICED IT. Here it is,.Mr. Parados and it is repetitive because you apparently didn't read it or read it and couldn't handle it.

I can wait------------



l.; Tenet says WMD case a slam dunk...HE gave President Bush the assurances

2. All fifteen agencies involved in gathering evidence for the USA said Saddam was expanding its biological, nuclear and missle programs- EXPLAIN THAT --MR. PARADOS

3. The Intelligence Agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China. Israel and France all agreed with the above judgment- DON'T DODGE THIS, MR. PARADOS--EXPLAIN IT!

4. Hans Blix noted that several thousands of chemical rockets were unaccounted for--Was Hans Blix lying, Mr. Parados?

5. The British, the French and the Germans all signed on in advance to Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he offered to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. How can the British,French and Germans be so stupid, Mr. Parados--Please explain why they signed on.

6. Why did Laurence Wilkerson say that everyone, even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. agree with Powell's interpretation of the satellite photos? Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?

7. Why did Kenneth Pollack, formerly with the NSA under Clinton, indicate that a meeting of UNESCOM--FROM THE UN--NOT THE USA-agree that Iraq was operating as secret centrifuge plant? Please explain that, Mr. Parados

8. Why did Clinton think that Saddam had WMD's--1998

9. Why did Madeline Albright think that Saddam had WMD's--1998

10. Why did Sandy Berger, Clinton's NSA, think Saddam had WMD's-1998

11. Why was Cohen, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, so sure that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's that he REMAINED 'ABSOLUTELY CONVNCED OF IT EVEN AFTER OUR FAILURE TO FIND THEM IN THE WAKE OF THE INVASION?? Explain that- Mr. Parados--Or, maybe, you had access to better intelligence than the Secretary of Defense????

12. Why did Pelosi think Saddam had WMD'S?

13. Why did Senators headed by Bob Graham give a letter to President Bush saying-THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS REINViGORATED HIS WEAPONS PROGRAM--PLEASE EXPLAIN MR. PARADOS?

14. Why did Hilllary Rodham Clinton, in October 2002, tell the country that--In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock? Explain that please, Mr. Parados.

15. Why did Al Gore, in September 2002, say that we know that Saddam has STORED SECRET SUPPLIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS THROUGHOUT HIS COUNTRY? Why, Mr. Parados

16. Why did the Democratic Candidate for President in 2004, John Kerry, indicate that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?

17. Can you tell us why the conscience of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, who is rarely wrong, said that We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction?
Can you tell us why he said that, Mr.Parados?

18. Can you explain why, Mr. Parados, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ATTEMPTED TO COERCE, INFLUENCE OR PRESSURE ANALYISTS TO CHANGE THEIR JUDGEMENTS RELATED TO IRAQ'S WMD CAPABILITIES?

Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 03:41 pm
?BernardR wrote:
Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?


No, I can't explain why you are going from thread to thread attacking me.
Why do you think you are doing it?

Nor can I explain your obsession about repeating the same posts over and over even after they have been answered. Why do you think you do that instead of dealing with the responses?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 01:54 am
BECAUSE YOU DO NOT RESPOND, MR PARADOS!!

I think you are able to read- I asked you a series of questions relating to this discussion. YOU IGNORED THEM AS IF THEY HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED--SO---

Here are the questions again----



l.; Tenet says WMD case a slam dunk...HE gave President Bush the assurances

2. All fifteen agencies involved in gathering evidence for the USA said Saddam was expanding its biological, nuclear and missle programs- EXPLAIN THAT --MR. PARADOS

3. The Intelligence Agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China. Israel and France all agreed with the above judgment- DON'T DODGE THIS, MR. PARADOS--EXPLAIN IT!

4. Hans Blix noted that several thousands of chemical rockets were unaccounted for--Was Hans Blix lying, Mr. Parados?

5. The British, the French and the Germans all signed on in advance to Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he offered to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. How can the British,French and Germans be so stupid, Mr. Parados--Please explain why they signed on.

6. Why did Laurence Wilkerson say that everyone, even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. agree with Powell's interpretation of the satellite photos? Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?

7. Why did Kenneth Pollack, formerly with the NSA under Clinton, indicate that a meeting of UNESCOM--FROM THE UN--NOT THE USA-agree that Iraq was operating as secret centrifuge plant? Please explain that, Mr. Parados

8. Why did Clinton think that Saddam had WMD's--1998

9. Why did Madeline Albright think that Saddam had WMD's--1998

10. Why did Sandy Berger, Clinton's NSA, think Saddam had WMD's-1998

11. Why was Cohen, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, so sure that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's that he REMAINED 'ABSOLUTELY CONVNCED OF IT EVEN AFTER OUR FAILURE TO FIND THEM IN THE WAKE OF THE INVASION?? Explain that- Mr. Parados--Or, maybe, you had access to better intelligence than the Secretary of Defense????

12. Why did Pelosi think Saddam had WMD'S?

13. Why did Senators headed by Bob Graham give a letter to President Bush saying-THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS REINViGORATED HIS WEAPONS PROGRAM--PLEASE EXPLAIN MR. PARADOS?

14. Why did Hilllary Rodham Clinton, in October 2002, tell the country that--In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock? Explain that please, Mr. Parados.

15. Why did Al Gore, in September 2002, say that we know that Saddam has STORED SECRET SUPPLIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS THROUGHOUT HIS COUNTRY? Why, Mr. Parados

16. Why did the Democratic Candidate for President in 2004, John Kerry, indicate that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?

17. Can you tell us why the conscience of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, who is rarely wrong, said that We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction?
Can you tell us why he said that, Mr.Parados?

18. Can you explain why, Mr. Parados, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ATTEMPTED TO COERCE, INFLUENCE OR PRESSURE ANALYISTS TO CHANGE THEIR JUDGEMENTS RELATED TO IRAQ'S WMD CAPABILITIES?

Can you explain that, Mr. Parados?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 08:22 am
Why do you continually post the same thing over and over that has nothing to do with the thread Bernard?

I see no reason to be a party to your attempt to derail this thread.

If you want something dealt with, start a new thread. If people are interested they will come.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 11:44 pm
You have a point, Mr. Parados. But, please be informed. If you are ever on a thread in which you make any kind of allusion to whether President Bush or his administration was lying about WMD's I will, of course, ask you the same questions below.

I hope I have made that clear.

And, if you were so confident you could rebut my post on that subject, I am sure, cogency or no cogency, you would have rebutted my post.

Of course, you are unable to do so!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2006 01:31 pm
I see you can't resist continuing to derail the thread Bernard.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2019 at 02:28:15