Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

NYT confirms Iraq connection to Al Qaeda [ahem]

But I’ll bet they didn’t intend to. In their zeal to make the Republicans look bad right before the election, I doubt they meant to legitimize this.

Office of the Presidency Intelligence Service M5/3/9/2

The Honorable Mr. General Director Manager M5

Subject: Information

Our Afghani source numbered 11002 had provided us with the information on the denotation paper number -1- ) The Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahstani (the information on the denotation paper number (2)) had mentioned in front of him with the followings:

1. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan were in touch with the Iraqis and that group of the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden had visited Iraq.

2. The United States of America has evidence that the Iraqi government and Osama Bin Laden’s group expressed cooperation among themselves in bombing targets in American.

3. In case Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were proven to have been involved in carrying out these terrorist operations, it could be possible that the United Stated will attack both Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. The Afghani consul heard about the connection between the Iraqis and the Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. Upon what has been presented we suggest writing to the Intention Committee with the above information.

I would recommend to everyone’s attention Captain Ed’s series of posts exposing the content of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents.

Maybe Ed should run the New York Times. It would be in much better hands.

52 Replies to “NYT confirms Iraq connection to Al Qaeda [ahem]”

  1. Major John says:

    Pipeline! Oil Interests!  Kites!!!  YEARRGH!

  2. Gary says:

    Bush Daranement Syndrom run amok?

    Cuts the feet out from under the “NO WMD – NO WAR!” peacenik / defeatist slogan.

  3. BoZ says:

    targets in American

    If only they’d spelled it “Centre.”

    COWBOY HUBRIS

  4. Robert Schwartz says:

    Heck, the NYTimes would be in better hands if it were run by Mr. Ed, or even Mr. Ed’s hind end.

  5. monkyboy says:

    Yeah,

    I imagine if Captain Ed were running the Times…they wouldn’t have run a story that revealed Bush had put a guide to making nuclear devices online…

    Does that mean that the Republicans now have ties to al Qeada, too?

  6. ThePolisnNizel says:

    Oil for money!  Or wait, is it blood for money!  Oh shit, it has something to do with blood, money and/or oil!  I just know it!

  7. ahem says:

    monky: I’d seriously consider donating my brain to science. Clearly, it’s not doing you much good, and somebody ought to get some decent use out of it.

    I’ve got it: send it to Michael J. Fox.

  8. Mikey NTH says:

    The material is too sensitive to put out on the web, but it was just hunky-dory to leave it in the hands of Saddam Hussein?

    The NYT’s SpinMeister 2000 is redlining big time.

  9. TheGeezer says:

    and somebody ought to get some decent use out of it.

    I’ve got it: send it to Michael J. Fox.

    I thought you wanted it to go to some who would put it to good use. 

    Fox didn’t even bother to read the proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution – which enshrines human cloning as a perpetual and uncontestablely legal issue and practice in Missouri – before overdosing on his meds to manipulate public opinion.

    Michael J. Fox is intellectually and emotionally dishoest, not worthy of our attention.  And he certainly wouldn’t put mb’s brain to any good use.

    Has anyone else noticed that mb backwards is bm?

  10. ahem says:

    geeze: You’re right, but I’d settle for any use at all.

  11. monkyboy says:

    Are you guys forgetting the New York Times was Bush’s biggest propaganda outlet up until we learned Saddam didn’t actually have a nuclear weapons program?

    Why all the hate now?

    Because they pointed out the Republicans supplied al Qaeda with a nuclear weapon instruction manual?

  12. Because they pointed out the Republicans supplied al Qaeda with a nuclear weapon instruction manual?

    dOOD,

    If yer going to troll, the most effective results come about when your claims bear at least a *vague* resemblence of reality.

    As such, wake us when you’re finished.

  13. SGT Ted says:

    It’s so CUTE when Monkybutt pretends to care about national security.

  14. MarkD says:

    Where’s the telephone pole?  We need some intelligible blather.

  15. monkyboy says:

    You mean like this:

    The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

    http://tinyurl.com/udn3b

    Another glorious victory for the gang that couldn’t shoot straight!

  16. A fine scotch says:

    Monky,

    The gang who couldn’t shoot straight?  You mean the CIA who declassified these docs and then published them on the web?

    Because the Bush Administration weren’t the ones reading, translating, and posting these documents.  It was the spooks, and we all know how much the CIA LOOOOOVES the Bush Administration.

  17. monkyboy says:

    Um,

    The CIA was against the wingnuts putting these documents of the web in the first place, scotch.

    Nice try though.

  18. TheGeezer says:

    Has this thread been hijacked by mb’s valsalva maneuvers to change the subject to unsubstantiated nonsense?  MB had better be careful: straining too much can cause strokes.

  19. 6Gun says:

    It’s so CUTE when Monkybutt pretends to care about national security.

    Speaking of equipping tinpot freakshow dictators with nu-ku-ler teknologies, surely monkyspunk was down in DC in the nineties, protesting the Klinton Korean Konnection. 

    When he wasn’t down in NM, welding down the hatches at Los Alamos and wiring Berger’s fly shut.

    Monkyspunk.  Who are we to question his patriotism.

  20. McGehee says:

    Was that the same CIA that sent Joe Wilson to drink iced tea under the guise of “investigating” the yellowcake thing?

  21. Mikey NTH says:

    Ladies, gentlemen:  Please ignore the monkybot.  There is no there there with which to have a discussion.  It just flings allegations like the proverbial poo-flinger it is and then races off to another allegation.

    You are wasting your time answering an allegation that is never meant to be actually answered or debated.  You are wasting your time and this space.

    Please; the monkybot has nothing to add now; and nothing in its past performance indicates it will have anything to add in the future.

  22. A fine scotch says:

    Yep, MB, the CIA was against it.  But Congress overruled them and passed a bill requiring these docs, and all the others from Iraq, be translated and put online.

    Any guesses who’s doing that, MB?

    But, nice try, though.

  23. prozacula says:

    Yep, MB, the CIA was against it.  But Congress overruled them and passed a bill requiring these docs, and all the others from Iraq, be translated and put online.

    um, right – the REPUBLICAN controlled congress passed this bill, so therefore, the NYT is to blame.

    you wingers all try to make these claims about the media being to blame for this, the media being to blame for that.  It’s all just your attempt to deflect from the fact that YOUR party is to blame for everything that has happened in the last 6 years.  Not Clinton, not the NYT.  YOU RETHUGLICANS.

  24. Mikey NTH says:

    That’s the way to convince your audience, proctacula.  Insult them.

  25. mishu says:

    Prozacula trusts Saddam over the RETHUGLICANS!!! Don’t you know who the real enemy is? Hell, prozac trusts the Judean People’s Front over RETHUGLICANS!!!

  26. MMShillelagh says:

    I’m not sure about the facts in dispute because I haven’t had time to do much reading, but I think y’all have to admit that if the Congress did vote to release this info, there were at least some (and probably many) Republicans that facilitated that.  Protacula’s delivery was moronic at best, but I was thinking the very same point.

  27. Mikey NTH says:

    No, the point being made was that it was bad to release this information because it is very dangerous information.

    But it wasn’t bad for saddam Hussein to have this information.  It wouldn’t be dangerous in his hands.

    Just in the hands of others.

    Because saddam was in his box.  Contained.  And all that.

    See?  If Iranians or terrorists get it = dangerous.

    If Saddam’s Iraq has this = not dangerous.

  28. ThePolishNizel says:

    I agree with MMShillelagh.  If it was indeed OK’d by congress then of course it was done with SOME republican accommodation.  But for the prozac guy/girl to use the “rethuglican” moniker?  Oh my.  Somebody got their ass kicked at least one too many times in their life.

  29. RiverCocytus says:

    Prozacula: Whassa over there?

    Over here we’re jus’ thuggin’ it out, yo. Jus’ thuggin it out.

    ‘Cause that’s how we roll.

  30. MMShillelagh says:

    Word.

    _

    _ / //

    \ //\ //

    \//__\//

    | |

    | |/|

    | |_/

    ______/

    WEST SIDE

  31. MMShillelagh says:

    Aw ghey!

    The site changed all the spacing.  Take word for it that all that was a “West Side” gang sign.

  32. ThomasD says:

    Run this by me again.

    The New York Times now wants to lecture our elected government on the dangers of releasing classified information to the public?

    But what about our right to know???

    Oh yeah only the Times knows best.

  33. BJTexs says:

    Guys, I think the point is that the CIA has to vet the process of translating and picking the documents to be released. I don’t think that any members of congress were reviewing the documents page by page. Some CIA flunky screwed up. *or* *on purpose?*

    Nah! Then I sound like chimp-anus. The Al Qaeda connection was always misrepresented by most of the MSM. They were establishing an expectation of operational plans in motion with Saddam’s nicotine stained fingerprints all over the 9/11 attack. No one was saying that Saddam had operational connections to bin laden (well, at least no one with half a brain) but there were plenty of instances of contacts and conversations, held somewhat in check by binladen’s utter contempt for Saddama as an apostate and a blowhard. Still, it was enough of a concern to be included in the calculations.

    These documents, along with the audio tapes translated so far, show that there were discussions towards building an operational alliance. Despite the real hatred that existed as expressed above, there is no way in hell that bin laden or any of his ilk would have turned down an opportunity to use the apostate to acquire uranium, chemical weapons or smallpox infused anthrax if given an opportunity.

    ThomasD Wow, that irony just rolled right past me. As my liberal friend once said, they call her the gray lady because she’s senile.

  34. actus says:

    Fox didn’t even bother to read the proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution – which enshrines human cloning as a perpetual and uncontestablely legal issue and practice in Missouri – before overdosing on his meds to manipulate public opinion

    Two things:

    #1 why does he need to read that?

    #2 Overdose? Is that the new trial baloon after ‘didn’t take the meds’ didn’t work?

  35. Mikey NTH says:

    BJ; the word is ‘proxy’.  Saddam was looking for someone to carry out attacks for him, someone who could not be traced directly to him.  His idol was Joseph Stalin, and the Soviets had any number of proxies making war on the west back in the 1960s through the 1980s.  (See: Red Brigade groups; Red Army groups, etc.)

    Just to find a group that would carry out attacks on the US, but not use his name.  That was the ticket!

  36. ahem says:

    #1 why does he need to read that?

    That’s a tricky one. Let me see… I guess I’d want to know precisely what I was lending my name and prestige to? For all Fox knew, the amendment called for pig embryos to be injected with Swiss cheese.

    Oh, in a later interview Fox himself claimed to have ‘overdosed’.

  37. lee says:

    It’s all just your attempt to deflect from the fact that YOUR party is to blame for everything that has happened in the last 6 years.

    I KNEW IT!!!

    OBL, 9/11, global warming, Katrina, Islamofascists hate of the west, terrorism, Christianists, my cold…EVERYTHING IS BUSHES FAULT!!!

  38. acttus says:

    ahem – I am scared of the idea that someone ought to know something about a subject in order to comment on it.

  39. lee says:

    ahem – I am scared of the idea that someone ought to know something about a subject in order to comment on it.

    Wow

    This may be the most sincere statement ever uttered by actus.

    Of course, there’s a difference between commenting on something, and staring in a nationally televised commercial about it.

  40. McGehee says:

    I am scared of the idea that someone ought to know something about a subject in order to comment on it.

    It isn’t that he can’t comment on what he doesn’t know anything about.

    It’s that if he does comment on something he doesn’t know anything about, Rush Limbaugh will say mean things about him.

  41. McGehee says:

    …like, that he’s commenting on something he doesn’t know anything about.

  42. The_Real_JeffS says:

    This may be the most sincere statement ever uttered by actus.

    I hate to break it to you, lee, but acttus is who made that claim. Not the Talking Telephone Pole™.  Put yer mouse over the “acttus” and “actus” links, and compare e-mails.

    So actus remains insincere.  Which should come of no surprise to the rational segment of the universe.

  43. Mikey NTH says:

    Well, duh.  Actus is just an improved version of monkybot.  Nothing to get excited over.  Version 2.0 versus version 1.56.

    Again, nothing to get excited about.

  44. lee says:

    acttus is who made that claim.

    Ahhhh, thanks Jeff, my world has stopped reeling…

  45. lee says:

    Attus, that was a sneaky trick.

    You could give a guy a shock that way you know.

  46. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Version 2.0 versus version 1.56.

    actus and monkeyboy aren’t in the development stage?  I woulda thought v0.37 versus v0.07 myself.

  47. actus says:

    That’s a tricky one. Let me see… I guess I’d want to know precisely what I was lending my name and prestige to?

    But his ad wasn’t for the initiative. It was for the senate candidate. Or did he do other stuff for the initiative?

    Oh, in a later interview Fox himself claimed to have ‘overdosed’.

    Looks like this baloon will fly. Good one. Sing it.

  48. BJTexs says:

    Actus: his entire televised statement supporting McCaskill was based on her support for unlimited stem cell research and her support for the Missouri intiative, both of which were the foundation of his remarks.

    To claim later that he hadn’t read the initiative and was therefore ignorant of the entire expected result of the law is both unconscionable and idiotic. Of course, you will support Fox for this little exercise is so very similar to your own dissembling style.

    Birds of a feather…

    Mikey NTH: Thanks! The word Proxy was missing from my rant. This was clear on the audio tapes where Saddam is talking about a nuclear attack on America being “inevitable” but emphasizing that Iraq would not be the one “directly” doing the dirty deed. Saddam was a lot of things, but he was not dumb. Not that it served him in the end.

    It’s all just your attempt to deflect from the fact that YOUR party is to blame for everything that has happened in the last 6 years.

    Wait…Wait…This means…

    that we were responsible for the Red Sox winning the world series in 2004…..

    WHOOOOOOOOOWEEEEEREEE!

    Rove, you magnificent bastard!!

  49. Mikey NTH says:

    actus and monkeyboy aren’t in the development stage?  I woulda thought v0.37 versus v0.07 myself.

    Both were shipped before sufficient testing was done and tend to crash just after loading.

  50. actus says:

    Actus: his entire televised statement supporting McCaskill was based on her support for unlimited stem cell research and her support for the Missouri intiative, both of which were the foundation of his remarks.

    He didn’t mention the initiative in the ad. He also mentioned that talent wants to criminalize stem cell research. He mentions she supports stem cells, and that this is not ‘local.’ Its an ad for a senate race, not an ad for a local initiative. Not a mixed ad either.

    Did he say elsewhere that the initiative was the foundation? because i’m not seeing it in the ad.

    To claim later that he hadn’t read the initiative and was therefore ignorant of the entire expected result of the law is both unconscionable and idiotic.

    Theres a lot of laws i dont read but which I support or oppose. I suppose its the same way with our congresspeople.

    But I’d still like to know how you know that he’s supposed to have read that initiaive. Fox also made ads in MD, and has in the past made them in PA. There the foundation was simply the candidates—was it? Why is Missouri so different?

  51. B Moe says:

    #2 Overdose? Is that the new trial baloon after ‘didn’t take the meds’ didn’t work?

    That is what Fox said happened.  Aren’t you the least bit suspicious of how Fox problems seem relatively minor on his other TV appearances, but when he testifies before Congress or shoots a TV ad suddenly he is shaking like Don Knotts with an expresso enema?

  52. actus says:

    Aren’t you the least bit suspicious of how Fox problems seem relatively minor on his other TV appearances, but when he testifies before Congress or shoots a TV ad suddenly he is shaking like Don Knotts with an expresso enema?

    Or acting like rush.

    But no, i’m not that curious. After people accused him of ‘faking’ i did some searching and found out that the shaking does come and go and is not controlled. So I wasn’t that curious why sometimes he might be more still than others. Why, as Rush put it, he managed to look at the camera and stay in frame.

    But like I said, sing it. At least this one has the benefit of being correct.

Comments are closed.