Originally Posted By DlandDug Bush's National Guard record has been disputed since he first ran for office in Texas. No one has ever produced hard evidence to support the various extravagent claims made by his detractors. The obviously forged memos that CBS presented pretty much cemented the doubts that many already held. Further, there has never been any connection shown between the Bush campaign and the individuals and groups who disputed John Kerry's war record. Karl Rove's fingerprints (and fingers) have never been conclusively connected to any of it. (And yes, none of it matters anymore.) Back on topic, since the link to Fox News is causing so much heartburn for the usual suspects, how about ABC? <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Internat ional/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1</a> >>Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan? Iraq Archive Document Alleges Russian Official Described Locations, Troops, Tanks and Other Forces Before Operation Iraqi Freedom Began March 23, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of seven documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which the U.S. government has released. The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more. The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: <a href="http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm" target="_blank">http://fmso.leavenworth.army.m il/products-docex.htm</a>. << EXCERPTS: >>Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq" A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio.<< >>"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" Document dated Sept. 15, 2001 An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: -- That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq -- That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America. -- That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan. -- That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.<< >>"Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq" Document dated August 2002 A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.<< I do recommend reading the entire link, as it includes ABC's analysis, which is mostly dismissive. The point, though, is that Fox is not alone in covering this story. There just isn't much interest in the rather tedious work being done, at least until something actually sensational emerges. Then all bets are off.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Thanks DlandDug for restoring my sanity - I knew I had already read about all this a few months back and wondered why it was not appearing here until June! Could it be that after a few initial exposures of this story, it was deep sixed because it didn't present the sort of message that the predominating media outlets wanted to present? This sort of reminds me of the Soviet documents released in the '90s which more or less proved that all the supposed communist agents in the US that McCarthy had accused, had turned out to really have been communist agents after all. How about that. Funny how that report never went anywhere in the media either.
Originally Posted By DlandDug "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." --The Man Who SHot Liberty Valance
Originally Posted By Dave >>>Do I see "Fox News" in that link?!<<< I even fixed the link for you Dean so you wouldnt have to cut and paste
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Thanks DlandDug for restoring my sanity - I knew I had already read about all this a few months back and wondered why it was not appearing here until June! Could it be that after a few initial exposures of this story, it was deep sixed because it didn't present the sort of message that the predominating media outlets wanted to present?> I think it's more likely because, at least as of yet, there's not a lot of "there there." If there was, certainly outlets like the Washington Times, WSJ editorial page, and Murdoch's papers would be all over it. So far I see fairly low-level links (certainly lower than between Al Qaeda and other countries in the region we did not invade), and informants and sources whose veracity seems to be in question and whose reliability cannot be verified (remember the assurances we got from the likes of "curveball" that turned out to be bogus)? There may or may not be more in these documents, but if it's all along these lines, it's not very compelling.
Originally Posted By woody >>So far I see fairly low-level links (certainly lower than between Al Qaeda and other countries in the region we did not invade), and informants and sources whose veracity seems to be in question and whose reliability cannot be verified (remember the assurances we got from the likes of "curveball" that turned out to be bogus)?<< LOL!!! Would you say the same about low-level involvement with the Abu Graib scandal? Double standard.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>LOL!!! Would you say the same about low-level involvement with the Abu Graib scandal? Double standard.<< You're accusing people of having a double standard based on a hypothetical example. That particular scandal came complete with photographic evidence.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <LOL!!! Would you say the same about low-level involvement with the Abu Graib scandal? Double standard.> Huh?? Abu Graib had photos galore. Various people in charge of that prison did bad things - the only question is how far up the chain of command did it go. On the other hand, these informants may or may not be reliable. It's not a "double standard" if the two situations are not in any way comparable.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...the only question is how far up the chain of command did it go.<< And that's the issue that was raised. Succinctly: If Saddam is clear on the basis that it was underlings made the contacts with alQuaeda, then Bush is clear on the basis that it was underlings are responsible for Abu Gahraib. Not saying I necessarilly agree, just that I understand the point, and feel it is well taken.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...the only question is how far up the chain of command did it go.<< And that's the issue that was raised. Succinctly: If Saddam is clear on the basis that it was underlings made the contacts with alQuaeda, then Bush is clear on the basis that it was underlings are responsible for Abu Gahraib. Not saying I necessarilly agree, just that I understand the point, and feel it is well taken.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Ah, okay, I guess I get what woody was getting at now, tortured though it was. I thought he was comparing the reliability of what happened at Abu Ghraib with the reliability of these informants. Thanks, Dug. Of course, no one called for an invasion of the Pentagon or white house based on Abu Ghraib. And I'm not saying Saddam was "in the clear" - just that essentially every country in that region had contacts with Al Qaeda as high as the ones shown for Iraq, and several had demonstrably higher ones, yet we didn't invade them. Also, I've never been one that held Bush responsible for Abu Ghraib, FWIW. I think there are those higher in the military that probably should be held accountable that won't be, but I don't expect Bush to be setting military policy on that level.
Originally Posted By woody Yes, that was what I was getting at. I realized that my post probably did not refer to Dabob's quote in the right places.
