So, which is it?

[Yonivore]

1) The Bush administration planted the do ents or;

2) All of you who said there was no cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong?

New Do ents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Do ent dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service do ent saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani 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 Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the do ent is unclear.

[Mr. Peabody]

1) The Bush administration planted the do ents or;

2) All of you who said there was no cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong?

New Do ents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs

Why didn't you print the editor's note immediately following section you posted?

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this do ent clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the do ent — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this do ent is of limited evidentiary value.)

[FromWayDowntown]

Why didn't you print the editor's note immediately following section you posted?

Clearly, that note just articulates the hope of the main stream media.

[Yonivore]

Why didn't you print the editor's note immediately following section you posted?

Because it isn't relevant...and, it's a wrong characterization of the letter.

The letter is reporting back that the Afghanis have learned that Iraq is busted. Whether that's true or not doesn't change the fact that the author is reporting it back because it IS true.

The Iraqi author isn't questionable and, one more thing, I believe it will be corroborated.

[Yonivore]

bump this thread when that happens cowboy

I will! In a brokeback second.

[ChumpDumper]

So he says the US already had proof.

Ok, where is it? Is it the same low level bull you've been trying to pass off for the last three years?

Where's his map to the WMDs while you're at it?

[Yonivore]

So he says the US already had proof.

Ok, where is it? Is it the same low level bull you've been trying to pass off for the last three years?

Where's his map to the WMDs while you're at it?

Obviously, you miss the point...again.

[ChumpDumper]

Attack with what?

All those stockpiles of WMDs we found in Iraq?

Seriously, after three years this is all you have?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Too many "buts" and "ifs" to be considered conclusive. Nice try, Yawnie.

[FromWayDowntown]

Obviously, you miss the point...again.

What is the point, then?

The article you posted says:

That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America

What proof is that?

[Yonivore]

What is the point, then?

The article you posted says:



What proof is that?

The point is that Iraq's Afghani informant had information that the United States was on to them.

That's the point.

[ChumpDumper]

On to what?

If the US had proof that AQ and Iraq had an agreement to attack the US, wouldn't that have been released by now, since that was the main reason for going to Iraq -- no it was the WMDs -- no it was because Saddam killed some people when we liked him and gave him all kinds of aid.

You're telling me that the Afghans were in on it too now? Funny we haven't found anything there in the past three years either.

[Yonivore]

On to what?

If the US had proof that AQ and Iraq had an agreement to attack the US, wouldn't that have been released by now, since that was the main reason for going to Iraq -- no it was the WMDs -- no it was because Saddam killed some people when we liked him and gave him all kinds of aid.

You're telling me that the Afghans were in on it too now? Funny we haven't found anything there in the past three years either.

You're an idiot who can't read.

[gtownspur]

On to what?

If the US had proof that AQ and Iraq had an agreement to attack the US, wouldn't that have been released by now, since that was the main reason for going to Iraq -- no it was the WMDs -- no it was because Saddam killed some people when we liked him and gave him all kinds of aid.

You're telling me that the Afghans were in on it too now? Funny we haven't found anything there in the past three years either.

I'm now convinced you got your law degree from Pheonix Online. I've seen it all!

Your dumbass believes that once our troops got into iraq that there were gonna be big road side signs reading "WMD Exit 3 1/4 km", and maybe once they got to sadaams palace there was gonna be a big file cabinet with the hardcore evidence with another hey-look-at-how-big-of- twad-i am- ed up depiction of reality, label stamped reading "TOP SECRET 911 FILES".

Maybe the troops were also gonna find a big osama bin laden poster half naked on a beach with only a net and some mussels, on sadaams bedroom wall.

Geez, you're a big moron.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I believe Yonivore has been chumpdumped.

[SA210]

Maybe the troops were also gonna find a big osama bin laden poster half naked on a beach with only a net and some mussels, on sadaams bedroom wall.

Just keep it straight once and for all. Is it that difficult?

[Yonivore]

I believe Chumpy'll defend Saddam Hussein until he confesses.

[ChumpDumper]

Your dumbass believes that once our troops got into iraq that there were gonna be big road side signs reading "WMD Exit 3 1/4 km"

I believe that when our Secretary of Defense says he knows exactly where they are, they should be there.

You're an idiot who can't read.

I can read just fine. Your flight of fancy is just that. If the US had such proof four years ago, it would've come out by now.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe Chumpy'll defend Saddam Hussein until he confesses.

I know you'll be an idiot forever.

This has nothing to do with whether Saddam is a bad man. Of course he is. So drop the straw man and show me the proof that the US had four years ago.

[Extra Stout]

OK, I'll try to explain what I think Yoni's point is, and make comments:

The Afghani consul to Iraq told an Afghani informant that the U.S. had obtained proof that bin Laden and the Iraqi government had agreed to collaborate on attacks against the U.S.

As in, such collaboration were a preacknowledged fact between the two parties, only now the United States knew about it. Whether the United States actually had proof would not be relevant, since this do ent itself would represent rather damning evidence if accurate.

However,

The do ent also says that if it turned out the Taliban and Iraq were responsible, then the U.S. would attack Afghanistan and Iraq. This do ent does not say that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Nevertheless,

If Iraq indeed had agreed to collaborate with enemies of the United States to carry out attacks as this do ented conversation assumes, even if 9/11 was not one of those on which they collaborated, that is justification for war. It's sort of like the Zimmerman memo.

But as ABC News noted, the sourcing is sketchy. Also, it's translated from Arabic, so we have no guarantee about things like indicative or subjunctive mood in these statements.

[nkdlunch]

don't hold your breath for that proof

[ChumpDumper]

The Afghani consul to Iraq told an Afghani informant that the U.S. had obtained proof that bin Laden and the Iraqi government had agreed to collaborate on attacks against the U.S.

So you are taking fourth hand hearsay as gospel. OTOH it's probably better than the US intel about WMDs.

As in, such collaboration were a preacknowledged fact between the two parties, only now the United States knew about it. Whether the United States actually had proof would not be relevant, since this do ent itself would represent rather damning evidence if accurate.

So this AQ/Iraq agreement to attack the US was known in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan AND the US, AND the US had proof, yet not a peep from anyone in four years.

Forgive my skepticism.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Soooo......we have an Iraqi do ent retelling what an Afghan spy claims he heard a third party say about what 4th and 5th parties were planning to do in the US?

I'm sold.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yoni, what ever happened with the Nightline special a few weeks back that was supposed to finally reveal that Saddam had WMDs?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ight=nightline

Secret Saddam WMD Tapes Subject of ABC Nightline Special

I'll bet Syria is starting to sweat just a little.

What will all the Bush lied crowd do if there is irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, planned to use them, and then hid them in the days leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. I can't wait to hear the apologies...yeah...right.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yoni, what ever happened with the Nightline special a few weeks back that was supposed to finally reveal that Saddam had WMDs?

It was dubbed in French and aired on Spanish-language news channel with English sub les. Unfortunately, if you weren't in Germany, you had to buy it on PPV.