Is this the same kind of intelligence that started the invasion regarding the threat of WMD?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Is that the only rebuttal you have heelstone? I know you can find better than that?

Its simply a new route to justify the invasion in light of missing WMD evidence. This time with even more of the same type intelligence reports. You shooting off links to this stuff feels exactly like what was fed to me by neocons throughout the previous year.

This all comes from the CIA, DIA, NSA or whatever. Who are controlled by the president. Documents can be planted. It means nothing.

TheManWithThePlan.......
The ONE link, otherwise great link.........disproves all the evidences given in ALL those I provided?
Yes...seems like it is a "brother-brother relationship!

regards
seekerof

heelstone.......
You said:
"Its simply a new route to justify the invasion in light of missing WMD evidence"

Huh? I don't think so! I presented this...not Bush. I'm saying the case is closed...I'm not sitting here using this as a excuse for the supposed WMD you assert have not been found. Thats another issue and is certainly debateable and "case is not closed on that."

I'm suggesting, and have always done so, that Saddam and Al-Qa'ida/Osama are connected and linked....straight and simple....no WMD here in this discussion, no excuses....the facts, and the facts speak literally for themselves!

TheManWithThePlan.......
You said:
"This all comes from the CIA, DIA, NSA or whatever. Who are controlled by the president. Documents can be planted. It means nothing."

You speak truth in what you say but lets put this to the test shal we............
Cannot the same be said for the "conspiracy" theorys that revolve around 9/11, and everything related to it? I mean hey, you guys can swallow that stuff "hook-line-sinker" but you have a hard time swallowing something that is not so far fetched, per se'?! OoooooKkk!



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 15-11-2003 by Seekerof]

Knowing Feith's position, a Feith report is self-serving and of no consequence.

Pick out the 5 or 6 articles that you think are the most conclusive evidence of actual support of Al Qaeda by Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and I would be very pleased to review them.

I think others should as well, without dismissing them. There are probably some good grounds to believe that certain meetings have taken place over time, in the same way that the CIA had purposes for Bin Laden. To what extent they were in support of common objectives of terrorism and terrorism training is key.

I would not know where to start on the above otherwise.

I never once mentioned Bush. I said "neocons", like yourself, Seekerof.

[Edited on 15-11-2003 by heelstone]

Every link you gave tells the same story of one top secret report that was released by the CIA. I am sure I can find at least a few hundred of statements by both parties involving each other.

Osama Bin Laden was too much of a variable for him to finance. He killed people that were like Osama. Any revolutionary that he could get his hands on

On the other hand, Osama bin Laden doesn't want a secular Mid East. He dispises "whores" that do not where the viel. Yes, he refers the them as such.

Originally posted by heelstone
I never once mentioned Bush. I said "neocons", like yourself, Seekerof.

[Edited on 15-11-2003 by heelstone]

Neocon? Me?

You wouldn't know a Neocon if he said hello to you.
Try again....you have yet to rebuke the issue I have presented. You are dancing around this all the while targeting me.....no problem...I'm a big boy and can take it.

Neocon......try again...please...


regards
seekerof

The only people that can still support or see something for justification for the invasion are neocons. They're the only ones left. I don't really know what you are, but you really do read like one.

Originally posted by TheManWithThePlan
Every link you gave tells the same story of one top secret report that was released by the CIA.

Is that really true? I would be disapponted if that is the case. It would not be Seekerof's general practice to overstate evidence by spamming a large number of links to the same body of information to make it look like there is more evidence than there is.

That would be a disinformation strategy. It can't be right in these circumstances, surely. Can it? I wonder if all the links have been conveniently provided in the one place elsewhere for this purpose. Please tell me it's not true...

Yes....oh gosh...thats right....I presenting disinformation...spamming.....bad, bad.....

In such, each provides a bit of information that the others doesn't.
If you have a greivance with the number of links......well, perhaps a mod can delete a few, if he/she so determines such.
The links provide:
1) the number of folks reporting this
2) that each report on and wirte on different aspects of
3) though they have simularity, there are differences
4) all inforamtion must be discerned to gather just one bit of important information
5) And as par............this or anything that is presented that you don't agree with is labeled "disinformation"......


Neocon? Disinformationist? You think and believe as you wish.......makes no difference to me.
You attacks make no difference to me.......
Carry one.....


regards
seekerof

I glanced through around 5 of them. They all talked about this particular report. They all provide some additional unique information, but revolve around one report at its center.

The fact is, we would have never known about the "mess-up" in the state of the union address-the one with niger and nukes- if one brave soul did not investigate it and come personal out to the press. Never! Likewise, we will never know if these are faked. Because it is likely that nobody else would be that brave. Plus, CIA won't ever send an agent out to review forged documents that someone else in the major departments planted. I'm sure they had their reasons to take a risk like that. Maybe pressure from somebody not tied into it but never-the-less high up.

As with just about anything from the mouth of the US govornment, I believe this connection as much as i believe n the tooth fairy.

The evidence itself listed is pretty biased, and because the govornment has repeatedly lied and lied again, its a little late for trust now.

Bin Laden, as well s most of the Arab world, continually denounced Saddam even while he was sanctioned because of his persecution of clerics and "godless" socialism. There are few things that would convince me of this link.

One of those would be collected inteligence from other NON US friendly or puppet states that shows this link. I distrust US sources on this subject for obvious reasons.

Believe me, if such an indisputable and real link could be proven, and prove all my ideas wrong about this war, and that we truly were in the right, id gladly accept being wrong, for to do so, i might again have my faith in american goodness restored to my pre army levels. Unfortunately, more and more I look, the darker and nastier it gets, and my own countrys credibility has been shot to hell, and this includes any sources of info from it.

Everything you say in mocking lefties I throw back in your faces.

If the US falls kiss you ass goodbye!