Iraqi Officer Tied to Al Qaeda - 9/11 Commissioner

[DiscipleDOC]

Hmm...Looks like the left's going to have to come up with another excuse! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040620/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said on Sunday.
:lol2:

[EDWARD TIVRUSKY]

Discipledoc, please use something other than "left" to discribe these poor, (insert word here) people. It is hurtful and it ain't right. :ORDER: :spank:

Edit: You too, UDawg! If you want to help them, you need to treat them with more R E S P E C T ! I do agree with you alot of the time, however, it pains me to see conservitives BASH people! Please STOP! Me = cheesed :angel2:

[DiscipleDOC]

Gee...I don't know what else to call them that my way of life finds acceptable. :D

[EDWARD TIVRUSKY]

Seriously, it ain't funny. Try to think of something acceptable. You can't be that unoriginal! :angel2:

Edit: Ps. i am thankful that you posted this info! :)

[netviper13]

That proves the Iraqi government had intimate ties with Al Qaeda how? He was in the military. It's no different than if one of our soldiers suddenly turned out to be a member of Al Queda. I highly doubt anyone on the right would dare accuse our government of being in bed with Al Qaeda. It's called making a mountain out of a mole hill.

It also has not been proven, or even thoroughly investigated yet. As of now it has about the credibility of Faud's articles for TheInquirer:

Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true...

[UDawg]

Edit: You too, UDawg! If you want to help them, you need to treat them with more R E S P E C T ! I do agree with you alot of the time, however, it pains me to see conservitives BASH people! Please STOP! Me = cheesed :angel2:


How about "humanists" or "socialists" or "wack jobs" or "watermelons (green on the outside but pinko in the middle) :D)

Seriously as much as it pains me to say this you are right. I will refer to the left from now on as "those opposed to the war" BUT I will from here on out create a acronym for all conservatives to use, TOTTW "Those Opposed To The War". I do not want to type that phrase out every time. ;) So TOTTW it shall be. :0

BTW this article is huge. Good find DD.

[UDawg]

That proves the Iraqi government had intimate ties with Iraq how? He was in the military. It's no different than if one of our soldiers suddenly turned out to be a member of Al Queda. I highly doubt anyone on the right would dare accuse our government of being in bed with Al Qaeda. It's called making a mountain out of a mole hill.

It also has not been proven, or even thoroughly investigated yet. As of now it has about the credibility of Faud's articles for TheInquirer:


First off you might want to chage your first question. :D

That proves the Iraqi government had intimate ties with Iraq how?

Secondly your post is pure spin. This is from Reuters, a left leaning new agencies and a world wide repsected source. Give me a break, you just refuse to see the ties.

[EDWARD TIVRUSKY]

Thank you! I knew you had it in you. I search for good news stories alot, and sometimes i hit paydirt. :cool:

[DiscipleDOC]

Netviper: You may have had a valid point if I have gotten the news from foxnews, but this is from REUTERS!!! If you would've seen the opposite on reuters, you would've been bashing Bush everywhere.

Come on, try again.

[Drumphil]

An Al Qeada member member served as an officer in the iraqi millitia.. Well then, that prooves it..

prooves what exactly??.. I'd be willing to bet that there are Al Qeada members in the US military too.

And exactly what is all this bashing of different media outlets.. Shouldn't we be discussing what we hear and what it really means, rather than deciding that based on where it came from, without any other consideration?? And then using that as part of the argument.. This is a bit too silly.

[netviper13]

Ok you got me on the wording, I blame the prescription narcotics for that one ;)

But Reuters is not a left-leaning agency, it is one of the two main news-gathering sources in the world (the other being the Associated Press), and is used rather heavily by both CNN and Fox News. In fact both CNN and Fox have about 90% of their articles from Reuters and the AP, and only actually themselves write about 10% of them. Check it out for yourself.

[UDawg]

You are right about CNN and Fox using AP and Reuters. That is one reason why I frustrates me that people here poo poo when I post from Foxnews I make sure the source is AP or Reuters but that doesn't stop some from getting a wedgie.

Now Reuters does lean to the left. You may not think so but it actually does. It is not like the LA Times mind you but it is a little to the left of USA Today which is fairly up the middle.

[DiscipleDOC]

An Al Qeada member member served as an officer in the iraqi millitia.. Well then, that prooves it..

prooves what exactly??.. I'd be willing to bet that there are Al Qeada members in the US military too.

You get my vote for "The most asinine thing said on the internet"....

And exactly what is all this bashing of different media outlets.. Shouldn't we be discussing what we hear and what it really means, rather than deciding that based on where it came from, without any other consideration?? And then using that as part of the argument.. This is a bit too silly.
You're spinning so much, my head's hurting. The point is, that most of the 'liberals' on this forum denied the fact that Iraq and Al Qeada were related. Now you're trying to trivialize it. Nice try. NEXT!

[Drumphil]

You get my vote for "The most asinine thing said on the internet"....

what, you believe that the US military is impervious to infiltration by Al Qeada? Or is it just the bit about what the iraqi officer prooves for the bigger picture that you disagree with.. You could at least make sense if you are going to call my post asinine.

You're spinning so much, my head's hurting. The point is, that most of the 'liberals' on this forum denied the fact that Iraq and Al Qeada were related. Now you're trying to trivialize it. Nice try. NEXT!

my point there was that after every bit of new we get the first thing I hear here is.. Oh that came from such and such a media out let, and they are wildly biased to the right/left.. And thats before anyone even looks at exactly what the story said.

As for what this does proove, hey, I could be wrong, but finding out that a single officer in the militia was al qeada hardly prooves that Al Qeada was part of or working directly with the iraqi forces.. Now, maybee it is part of the evidence that does proove that, but by itself it doesn't.

You're spinning so much, my head's hurting. The point is, that most of the 'liberals' on this forum denied the fact that Iraq and Al Qeada were related. Now you're trying to trivialize it. Nice try. NEXT!

yeah, and you take any small connection between Iraq and Al Qeada as present it as if it prooves that they were actively working together. Sure, it looks like there were links, but then al qeada has links in just about every country where the rule of law is week.. (well, they have links everywhere, but the do most of their work in mainly lawless countries).. Wether or not they were just taking advantage of the situation, or directly working with saddam is still, I believe, unknown.

[Clay]

As for what this does proove, hey, I could be wrong,
:)

but finding out that a single officer in the militia was al qeada hardly prooves that Al Qeada was part of or working directly with the iraqi forces..Just as it equally does not disprove this possibility.

Now, maybee it is part of the evidence that does proove that, but by itself it doesn't.Doesn't that go without saying?

[Drumphil]

Doesn't that go without saying?



Hmm...Looks like the left's going to have to come up with another excuse!

unfortunately, around here, no. Simply the first sentence of this thread certainly clears up peoples motivation for posting.

[2fast4u]

heh, left leaning news organization. that stuff cracks me up every time.

trying to make the ultimate connection between al-quaida and saddam based on that tiny bit of information is just reaching for straws...

[DiscipleDOC]

heh, left leaning news organization. that stuff cracks me up every time.

trying to make the ultimate connection between al-quaida and saddam based on that tiny bit of information is just reaching for straws...

Not seeing a connection between al-quaida and saddam is reaching for straws...

[2fast4u]

no offense folks, but the reasoning here is downright pathetic. first of all claiming that reuters is a left leaning source is not a valid argument. this is a simple report of what has been made public, no more no less. second, here is a quote from this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said on Sunday.

Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq (news - web sites) and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

so far this is a claim that somone threw in the ring with no proof or anything behind it. second, case it is true .. what does that tell to you? that the quaida had one officer in saddams army. why, thats certainly a base for high level talks and close cooperation between the iraqi government and bin laden himself, isnt it? basically thats like saying there is one commie among 1000 americans, therefore mccarthy was right - there is a conspiracy :screwy:

is it just me or has the amount of "proof" for anything throughout this whole iraq issue always been this poor?

[UDawg]

heh, left leaning news organization. that stuff cracks me up every time.

trying to make the ultimate connection between al-quaida and saddam based on that tiny bit of information is just reaching for straws...


So you deny that news agencies have a bias and even a agenda?

[UDawg]

no offense folks, but the reasoning here is downright pathetic. first of all claiming that reuters is a left leaning source is not a valid argument.

You missed the point here. The fact that I brought up Reuter's political leanings was only to show those whom are skeptic of anything Foxnews would see a source likely friendly to their ideal.

[Sazar]

So you deny that news agencies have a bias and even a agenda?

some do... yes... there are some blatant left or right leaning organisations...

for the most part though the issue is one of sensationalism and ratings and unfortunately any bad news is good news for them.. remember when clinton was under impeachment hearings and ken starr was going after him? or OJ or michael jackson or the abu grahib pictures... all bad news == full time on television == higher ratings for news organisations...

if you sensationalize enough the dropping of the dung of a tortoise people will watch it... thats neither left nor right wing agenda... thats just plain ol corporate thinking... capitalism at its best :)

[DiscipleDOC]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marc.okunnujnr3/My%20Pictures/web_cartoon_1.jpg
:clap:

[Drumphil]

hehe, who is gunna post after that...

cough, oops..

oh well.. You may as well just post that at the start of every thread in the political forum.