Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and there was no Al Queda connection
foxbat3[SCO]    2/14/2007 6:33:03 PM
All there rest is just delusional bull conjured up by the same conspiracy theorists that couldn't accept the Warren commission finding cos they can't accept the official findings either. Which said there was no connection. Occam's razor folks Also the killer point the wars lost whether they did or whether they didn't makes no difference your going home in a greyhound bus.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
swhitebull    Dear Chris Wallace   2/21/2007 7:07:33 AM

All there rest is just delusional bull conjured up by the same conspiracy theorists that couldn't accept the Warren commission finding cos they can't accept the official findings either. Which said there was no connection. Occam's razor folks Also the killer point the wars lost whether they did or whether they didn't makes no difference your going home in a greyhound bus.

Aside from the fact that BOTH Co-chairs KEAN AND HAMILTON said there WERE Operational ties and links between AL and Iraq, you are correct. Occam's razor, indeed. Why do you think that Sunnis and Shiites would NOT cooperate against a common enemy? This has been rehashed so many times before, and just shows you have a limited concept of the middle east.
 
I presume you also ignore George Tenet's findings, or Doug Feith's?
 
A Word for Chris Wallace
By Douglas J. Feith
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 21, 2007

 

Here's the email I sent today to Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday:

Chris - On yesterday's show, you quoted my February 11 on-air statement that my former office did not claim an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaida.  You then read from a Weekly Standard article and implied it contradicted that statement.  I wish you had asked me about this matter before you aired it, because you wrongly attacked my credibility.

What you quoted from the Standard was not my words.  It was the magazine's interpretation of what it says was a document I sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee.  The Standard does not even claim to be quoting my document at that point, and yet you attribute the words to me.  That is not fair.

Your error occurs as part of a hot political debate about pre-Iraq-war intelligence.  Senator Levin and others have been asserting that there was no Iraq-al Qaida relationship at all.  They have attacked me on the grounds that I said there was one, while the CIA said there wasn't.  But that is not true.  The CIA clearly, repeatedly and even publicly said there was an Iraq-al Qaida relationship.  See, for example, George Tenet's Oct. 7, 2002, letter to Senator Graham, attached below.

As we discussed, my office objected to CIA analysts suppressing information that did not fit their favored theory that Saddam and his secularist regime would not cooperate with al Qaida religious extremists.  We highlighted CIA reports that appeared inconsistent with that theory and wanted their substance accounted for in documents given to policy makers.  We were right to ask for this.

The list from my office that was the subject of the Standard article was classified.  No one in the Pentagon has ever commented on whether the purported quotations are accurate because the list remains classified.  So I can comment on it only generally.

What was that list?  It was part of an answer to a question-for-the-record from Senators on the Intelligence Committee.  It identified a number of intelligence reports on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship.

The Senators had requested a list of those reports that Pentagon officials had said were being ignored or downplayed by CIA analysts.  The bulk of the list was not commentary by my office but summaries of CIA reports and quotations from them.  Once again, the sentence you read on the air was the Weekly Standard's interpretation of CIA reports it claims were cited and summarized in my office's list.  Without commenting on the accuracy of any particular phrase in the Standard article, I want you to know that some key words that appeared there - "operational" and "alliance," for example - represent not con
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       2/21/2007 4:13:33 PM



All there rest is just delusional bull conjured up by the same conspiracy theorists that couldn't accept the Warren commission finding cos they can't accept the official findings either. Which said there was no connection. Occam's razor folks Also the killer point the wars lost whether they did or whether they didn't makes no difference your going home in a greyhound bus.


Aside from the fact that BOTH Co-chairs KEAN AND HAMILTON said there WERE Operational ties and links between AL and Iraq, you are correct. Occam's razor, indeed. Why do you think that Sunnis and Shiites would NOT cooperate against a common enemy? This has been rehashed so many times before, and just shows you have a limited concept of the middle east.

 

I presume you also ignore George Tenet's findings, or Doug Feith's?

 









A Word for Chris Wallace

By Douglas J. Feith
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 21, 2007

 


Here's the email I sent today to Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday:

Chris - On yesterday's show, you quoted my February 11 on-air statement that my former office did not claim an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaida.  You then read from a Weekly Standard article and implied it contradicted that statement.  I wish you had asked me about this matter before you aired it, because you wrongly attacked my credibility.

What you quoted from the Standard was not my words.  It was the magazine's interpretation of what it says was a document I sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee.  The Standard does not even claim to be quoting my document at that point, and yet you attribute the words to me.  That is not fair.

Your error occurs as part of a hot political debate about pre-Iraq-war intelligence.  Senator Levin and others have been asserting that there was no Iraq-al Qaida relationship at all.  They have attacked me on the grounds that I said there was one, while the CIA said there wasn't.  But that is not true.  The CIA clearly, repeatedly and even publicly said there was an Iraq-al Qaida relationship.  See, for example, George Tenet's Oct. 7, 2002, letter to Senator Graham, attached below.

As we discussed, my office objected to CIA analysts suppressing information that did not fit their favored theory that Saddam and his secularist regime would not cooperate with al Qaida religious extremists.  We highlighted CIA reports that appeared inconsistent with that theory and wanted their substance accounted for in documents given to policy makers.  We were right to ask for this.

The list from my office that was the subject of the Standard article was classified.  No one in the Pentagon has ever commented on whether the purported quotations are accurate because the list remains classified.  So I can comment on it only generally.

What was that list?  It was part of an answer to a question-for-the-record from Senators on the Intelligence Committee.  It identified a number of intelligence reports on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship.

The Senators had requested a list of those reports that Pentagon officials had said were being ignored or downplayed by CIA analysts.  The bulk of the list was not commentary by my office but summaries of CIA reports and quotations from t
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       2/21/2007 4:20:33 PM
This all old news and at this point quite meaningless, fact is there are definately Al Queda operating there now, We have no choice but to be victorious and anything short of that will be so costly it will take decades to recover from
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       2/22/2007 7:33:39 PM
This is the famous double-reverse backhand bait and switch.
 
There are no known Iraq-Al Queda operational or logistic 9-11 connections.  Absolutely none at all.  THAT is what was concluded in various reports, and THAT is the full context of every official "no connection" statement. 
 
To go to "no Iraq-Al Queda connections at all" from there is like saying since the #7 New York city subway line definitely, absolutely, does not go to the Bronx from Brooklyn, you cannot get to the Bronx from Brooklyn by subway.
 
It is well known that Saddam embraced terrorists when he could- Abu Abbas, for one.  Recognize the name, Foxbat?  Where do you think he had taken refuge?  He's dead now.  Guess why?  AND there was one of the '93 WTC bombers, given refuge in Iraq.  Not yet dead, as far as I know.  There's still work to be done.
 
It is also well known that while Saddam was considered secular, he was certainly up with playing the religious angle.  This was the guy who put "Allah Akhbar" on the Iraqi flag. 
 
To claim absolute knowledge of the entire scope of operations of his covert agencies is arrogance.  But of course, Foxbat doesn't suffer from that particular problem, does he?  Further, we now know that the money put into terrorist accounts- something Saddam did quite proudly- was rather fungible*- a nice dividend of the informal, underground nature of terrorist money transfer networks.
 
Being a clever bastard, he managed to fund both Kurdish terrorists, and terrorists attacking the Kurds. 
 
*Fungible, Foxbat.  Look it up.
 
I might also point out that in providing legitimization and even celebration of the 9-11 attacks, Saddam gave them tremendous psychological support, which is every bit as real and necessary as material support.   The Pen is mightier that the Sword, you know.  That's why every now and then, if you want to win, you have to kill the jerk with the pen.
 
SGTObvious
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       2/22/2007 10:24:06 PM

karl roves boys aye well when someone points out that a belief actually is delusional and you continue to spout that belief all you are doing is proving what they are saying. that you are delusional.

Top marks. you fell right into what i designed it to do.


I asked you before what you were smoking, I really have to try that S$it
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics