CNN's "Dead Wrong." No one watched it?
 

One hour piece on the intelligence failure that lead to the Iraq war.

No one has seen it? Surprised there isn't discussion on it.

I thought it was pretty interesting.

Did they touch on Jamie Goerlick, her role in the 9-11 Commission cover-up of the Clinton failures?...Did they talk about Sandy Bergler's defrauding and making a mockery of the 9-11 Commission?

Let me answer that -- no they did not...That piece of propaganda is just reheated diarrhea masked as investigative reporting.

I knew the war was a f*cking sham BEFORE we went .

I don't need CNN to tell me years later.

Did you also know that Saddam had connections with Osama? Did you also know that Saddam had a deal to supply WMD to Osama?...Did you also know that the invasion of Iraq would centralize the diffuse war on terror, making dismantling of it that much easier?

If you agreed that something needed to be done, because of 9-11, than you must agree that the invasion of Iraq was a stroke of strategic brilliance.

so which pundit is claiming this, or did you make it up all on your own?

I was hunting for dingleberries and found it.

You are a sad bastard Mul, you really are.

But I agree " that something needed to be done, because of 9-11, than you must agree that the invasion of Iraq was a stroke of strategic brilliance."

Im just not sure we would agree on whose strategy was being executed.

the fun part is seeing Mulls rethoric morph over time
he constantly tinkers with his lies, trying to make them more "realistic"


the " the war was good , cause now we centralized all the terrorists in Iraq" is his latest invention... and it's just as much a lie as everything else he comes up with ... centralized terrorists... what a joke... how come there are still regular arrests all over the world?? what centralisation ??


it's like catching a 5 year old with chocolate crumbs on his mouth, next to the empty chocolate cookies jar

and then try to make him confess
every minute you keep grilling, you gonna get new lies, and nothing sticks...

"wasn't me"
"the crumbs are from soemthing else"
"i fell in a chocolate pie @ school"
" the cookie jar fell on me "
"it was little Timmy , he made me "

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=2

Mul, that myth has been debunked so many times I've lost count, but I guess you will believe what you want to believe, regardless of the truth.

The debunking was nothing more than disinformation. Nothing more than a lie...It never has been a secret that there were operational relations between Saddam and Osama...The propaganda has changed from the left media, as their agenda has changed.

Perhaps the forgotten words of Osama Bin Laden, as quoted by George Bush, could infiltrate your leftist programming...

"Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

yer so full of sjit

of course there is debate amongst the terrorists
they always argue over who get's to blow himself up next...
or who get's to take a dump on Mull's front porch , they almost fight over that duty...

I would like to see your definitive research on the subject.

BTW, When I disprove your erroneous conclusions, will you admit that you have been a tool and dupe for leftist brainwashing?

Is this your concession speech?...I suppose this is your way of saying that I didn't "tinker" with "lies" and "morph" them. I suppose this is your way of conceding that you are a fool and a liar?

*yawn*

That's your *proof* that us going to Iraq is bringing all the terrorists there?

You sure you aren't a defense dept analyst?

Are you suggesting that Iraq isn't the central front on terrorism?...That is just foolish ignorance, if that is your assertion.

That is what I thought...Now go make me a sandwich, beoooooth.

there is no such thing as a central front in guerrilla warfare .

Terrorisme is just yer basic urban guerilla warfare, on a global scale...anybody who thinks it is contained to Iraq , is an idiot...

Then why does your hero, George W. Bush, concede there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Care to provide the quote (in context please)?

So, where is al qaeda most active presently?...(your answer shall betray you, or you will lie and obfuscate)

For a complete discussion of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, see the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

As a pre-emptive strike to your calling this "leftist media propaganda," note that the article has links to all the claims it makes.

I must confess, I have not read the entire article. I don't think I need to. I know what it says:

"The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Even Aljazeera is reporting al-Qaeda's demise in Iraq. How telling it is that this story will run on Aljazeera but not the New York Times or the Washington Post. But they are quite active elsewhere in the world and the news media plays that down.

Neither have other important assertions been retracted, including those by CIA Director George Tenet. As journalist Stephen Hayes reiterated earlier this month, Tenet, on October 7, 2002, wrote a letter to Congress, which asserted:

-- Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

-- Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

-- We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

-- Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.



NationalReview

There was no terrorism in Iraq, except for Saddam terrorising his own people, until we started a war there and invited all the terrorists in.

From the link...

Instead, it suggested that fighters were being weakened by US raids and propaganda, and proposed ways to counter this - for example by infiltrating Iraq's armed forces, recruiting new members and making more weapons.

But I thought Murtha said we were losing in Iraq?...I thought it was time to give up, cut-and-run, and retreat in typical democrat style?....Go figure...We are winning, as Bush said, afterall.

Then how did they set up shop and become accepted and sheltered so easily in a country they obviously want to tyrannize and a country where they murder innocents on a daily basis?...Foreigners don't just enter a foreign country and set up terrorism unless they have some pre-established infrastructure.

Whether they were there or not, pre-invasion, they are there now...This requires our presence as it would be irresponsible and incompetent to retreat.

they are terrorists mull, they lie, deceive and use propaganda, to get their twisted views accepted... a bit like you


they do actually , especially if the target country has been destabilized by a foreign invader, one who failed to establish control, left the populace without law, order, food , medicine and as a result chaos became a fertile breedingground for "mujahedin"...


it's easier to go unnoticed and do yer dirty business in the rubble ,remnants and afthermath chaos of a war , then under a totalitarian regime such as that of Sadam

i bet Al Qaeda sent a thank you note to the White House for that oen

mul:

No matter what you personally think about AARP, their current issue has a lengthy interview with Colin Powell. You might want to read it before you make irrational, unsubstantiated statements. I believe Powell is credible and his accounts of the activities in the White House leading up to the Iraq invasion are very interesting.

I do not think the general public wants to see a retreat. However, I also feel that the Iraqui leaders would, if not "threatened" with a withdrawal, continue to allow coalition troops to carry the heavy load ad infinitum rather than step up to the plate. Therefore, setting an ultamatum may not be a bad idea. The date could always be changed leter if circumstances change.

Translated captured Iraqi documents show plans for Saddam's chemists to train 'Arab Fedayeens' in the construction of IEDs as far back as 1999. Another document from early April 2003 showed Saddam authorized payment to the "Arab Fedayeen" volunteers--i.e., terrorists--just as he paid members of Iraq's own military. Most of the terrorist organization was already operating within Iraq when the war started.

Easy, we removed the government and didn't provide a replacement.

Sure they do, especially since we removed all traces of law and order

It's been concluded that they were not there pre-invasion. Yes, they are there now. This discussion is not about retreat. But what you are saying is "We broke Iraq, now we have to stay and fix it." There is some truth to the statement "it would be irresponsible to retreat." But I wish we hadn't broken it in the first place. On the other hand, we opened the door to the terrorists, and now we can kill them there instead of here. We've just made innocent Iraqi civilians the "collateral damage" instead of our own innocent civilians.

In response to the topic of the thread, "No, it was on CNN, don't watch CNN anymore"

It seems to me that we are much more vigorously opposed in Iraq than in Afghanistan, it makes me wonder why that should be. If the US and the leader of Al Queda both say that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, what makes you guys say, "Nah, don't think so"

As far as WMD's go, he had them, he used them, and a lot of them are unaccounted for, they must be somewhere. IF he had disposed of them, he would have done it on camera with a big smile, to end sanctions(though he was making out pretty good during the sanctions, he could bleed his people dry, and point the finger at the West) I am betting that some went to Syria, some are in containers buried in the sand

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that if we didn't go into Iraq, we would be killing them here.......

Nope, he wanted Iran, Isreal, etc, to think he had them so they wouldn't attack his country, with his military weakened by years of sanctions.

Good point.

psst.....Indonesia

I agree, however they were already 15 years old with a ten year shelf life and just a few semi's full. All made with the aid of Reagan era US technology and supplies.

CNN's "Dead Wrong." ...........I saw most of it late last night, said so in an earlier thread. Although I missed the last 15 minutes of it, it looked pretty tame compared to what I would of put together. They just skimmed over the Downing Street Memos, then I lost interest.

Wow! There's some brilliant liberal logic. That's like trying to prove that if we didn't go into WWII we would be speaking German. Kind of hard proving something that never happened.