October Thread #2: Decision 2004

[Clicker]

You said the "reporter" stated that there were 600 copies and he saw "the only one left". While, it may have been on MSNBC (it would be tough to track that one down), it was not a reporter that stated it, rather a quote from the author.

Sorry Todd, But you are mistaken, My post states that the *list* was a list of 600, I never stated (nor did the paper) what the amount circulated was..

I figured out exactly where I found that info as well. I was reading news on the CNN site and hit a link and there it was.. here is the link to CNN that i pulled up just now (after searching) to find it again:

http://websearch.cnn.com/search/sear...am+List+of+600

The crack "reporter" was able to retain one copy.

OOPS! I was wrong, he wasn't a "reporter" He was a "Tennessee judge who believes he is in possession of documents linking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The judge is Gilbert S. Merritt, a federal appeals court judge invited to help Iraqis construct a legal system in postwar Iraq. He is, according to Reynolds, "a lifelong Democrat and a man of unimpeachable integrity."" My mistake, I just assumed it was a Reporter, as the initial article did not list his credentials.

This link tells you about a gag order and how the Author (Gilbert S. Merritt /Democratic federal appeals court Judge) said " this includes any article I may write, or verbal utterance I may speak, to any members of the press, including my hometown newspaper."
http://www.tennessean.com/nation-wor...35079430.shtml

and on this site:
http://www.freespeech.com/archives/000554.html
They reference the gag order and state an opinion: " I would say that it might have something to do with "national security". If it does prove to be a list of the top "henchmen", then the US government might not want them to know that we have a list or exactly whose names are on it. There are probably people on the list that don't know (or remember) they were on it, since the papers were actually picked up once Saddam found out about it (and fairly quickly), and there are certainly people in other countries who would like to know and don't right now (and maybe shouldn't)."

Just curious to see how many other people have viewed information like this and what their thoughts are....

[Todd Patten]

The stories I have read indicate that the papers were in circulation. Do you REALLY believe that those papers were all rounded up? Moreover, do you really believe, if this was legit, that Karl Rove would let it just slip by?!?

It's a bogus story with no merit. Having it get repeated as fact waters down the real facts that come out.

[Clicker]

Okay - lets start from scratch..

a large majority of Americans STILL believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11th attacks, and had intimate contact with Al Queda. Why? Because George Bush and his crew managed to convince the public of this without a single shred of true evidence. put all his energy towards a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-Queda.

Okay, forget about the paper that never existed, that was "bogus story with no merit", and "circulated from one source" What about these sources?
WeeklyStandard.com States : reports about a budding Hussein-bin Laden partnership were not limited to the foreign press. Newsweek magazine, in its January 11, 1999, issue, ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden." The subhead declared, "America's two enemies are courting." In fact, Time magazine, in an issue also out January 11, 1999, one-upped its competitor by quoting bin Laden himself on the Iraq issue. "There is no doubt that the treacherous attack has confirmed that Britain and America are acting on behalf of Israel and the Jews, paving the way for the Jews to divide the Muslim world once again, enslave it and loot the rest of its wealth. A great part of the force that carried out the attack came from certain Gulf countries that have lost their sovereignty. U.S. intelligence officials who have expressed skepticism about a Hussein-bin Laden relationship often point to religious differences as the reason for their doubts. Hussein was secular, they say, bin Laden a fundamentalist. True enough. But, as bin Laden's comments suggest, there were bigger concerns--that America and "the Jews" might "divide the Muslim world once again"--that would trump these differences and unite the two men against a common enemy. Eleven months before bin Laden spoke to Time, then-President Bill Clinton traveled to the Pentagon, where he gave a speech preparing the nation for war with Iraq. Clinton told the world that Saddam Hussein would work with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." His warning was stern:

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.

The timing, once again, is critical. Clinton's speech came on February 18, 1998. The next day, according to documents uncovered earlier this week in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein reached out to bin Laden. A document dated February 19, 1998, and labeled "Top Secret and Urgent" tells of a plan for an al Qaeda operative to travel from Sudan to Iraq for talks with Iraqi intelligence. The memo focused on Saudi Arabia, another common bin Laden and Hussein foe, and declared that the Mukhabarat would pick up "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document further explained that the message "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The document also held open the possibility that the al Qaeda representative could be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wqxma.asp?pg=2

Here's the thing, and it's been tested and proven for millenia, if you create an atmosphere of fear in your citizenry you can make them do anything. Some of the most ruthless leaders in history mastered the art of making the population feel threatened and using that fear to their advantage. Very rational and logical people will react in a collective illogical manner.

So (based on your quote above) you agree that :

these men are able to find every paper, in every house, in every car, in every office, in every airplane, in every trash can, throughout Baghdad and/or Iraq?!? were able to track down, in a country of millions

I don't know for a *fact* what size area it was circulated to...but the Democratic federal Judge said "Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it."which leads me to believe it was a Baghdad paper only.


It was supposedly the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper / November 14, 2002 issue.

Supposedly: Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. And that Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.
I Know his sons were both crazy, and not the brightest. So, do I doubt that Uday would print a list of 600? No, I don't doubt it.


So,

Do you REALLY believe

that there was no ties to Al-Queda?

I'm just searching for the truth, so I can make an educated decision when I place my vote, I'm not trying to close my eyes to either side, I am taking it all in, doing my research and trying to decide, as I said before, i only posted to get some views on the matter.

[Todd Patten]

WeeklyStandard.com States : reports about a budding Hussein-bin Laden partnership were not limited to the foreign press. Newsweek magazine, in its January 11, 1999, issue...
... The document also held open the possibility that the al Qaeda representative could be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wqxma.asp?pg=2

You are quoting articles from 5 years ago? And we have since had many different organizations and committees and intelligence agencies come out and say that there are no ties between Al Queda and Iraq. Don't you think that the people who were tasked with finding these links would have found them, particularly if it was as clear as these articles make it appear? I'm simply trying to use some logic here. We have people on the ground in Iraq with completely unfettered access, we have committees with virtually unlimited access to evidence, documents, and witnesses. People within the Bush administration are conceding that there is no link to be found. What else do you need to set aside the idea that Iraq and Al Queda were partnered. Just because they had a common enemy, does not mean they had a common cause. Why can't people grasp that?

I don't know for a *fact* what size area it was circulated to...but the Democratic federal Judge said "Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it."which leads me to believe it was a Baghdad paper only.

It was supposedly the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper / November 14, 2002 issue.

Supposedly: Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. And that Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.
I Know his sons were both crazy, and not the brightest. So, do I doubt that Uday would print a list of 600? No, I don't doubt it.

Democratic judge? And Zell Miller is a democratic senator. What does his political affiliation have to do with it?

Clicker. I want to use logic here. I seriously want you to think about the story passed on and it's gaping holes. The newspaper was in circulation for a few hours. It's sitting there on the newstand on the streets of Baghdad. This is a city that is buzzing with activity, not unlike a Boston or New York. How the heck do they know WHO bought the newspapers? Do you think they took down the names and addresses of anyone who picked up a newspaper? Seriously? Does that hold water for you?

Then, this judge manages to get a hold of the ONLY remaining copy. Moreover, other than the possible interpetation from a local, how does he know what it says?

The story has absolutley no credibility. None. Why would anyone hold on to it?

So, that there was no ties to Al-Queda?

I'm just searching for the truth, so I can make an educated decision when I place my vote, I'm not trying to close my eyes to either side, I am taking it all in, doing my research and trying to decide, as I said before, i only posted to get some views on the matter.

I respect that you are trying to find the truth. I question why you choose to ignore the conclusions of experts and instead choose to give validation to sources that have their own agenda's. You continue to return to periodicals like the Weekly Standard and authors such as Stephen Hayes. If you want the truth you don't seek it with biased sources.