Michael Moore just said ME....

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And just why should the Kerry voters be any less inclined to do that than the Bush voters ? After all, most of them seem to think there is a link between Saddam and Al Queda, just like ol' Dubya told 'em

Valid point and not one I'll argue with. Any voter should take the time to get a clear factual understanding of the issues and form their opinions from there.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
No, I don't.

Do you refute that there is no connection (before the war) between AQ and SH?

I don't, the facts - and the 9-11 commission - do. "No collaborative relationship" means "no links"...unless, of course, you want to play "6 degrees of seperation" to forge a "link" where none really exists.

Of course, I haven't seen all of Dick Cheney's secret evidence that he is hiding from the commission, so what do I know

 

[Kim&Chris]

Originally posted by wvrevy
What's this ?!? Actual facts ?!? But...but...How will the right be able to blindly slander Michael Moore if it turns out he was RIGHT about this ?

 

[Teejay32]

Michael Moore is sounding more and more like a shill for various opposition groups in the Middle East. I still don't see a problem with the Saudis owning part of Eurodisney, so who cares if he's right.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
But...but...How will the right be able to blindly slander Michael Moore if it turns out he was RIGHT about this ?

Mighty big IF in that question. Considering Mr. Moore's track record on the truth, I wouldn't wager anything on his being right this time -- except in his own mind.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I don't, the facts - and the 9-11 commission - do. "No collaborative relationship" means "no links"...unless, of course, you want to play "6 degrees of separation" to forge a "link" where none really exists.

It's true that the 9-11 commission said there was no link between SH/AQ and 9-11. But there's been numerous findings that prove the SH and AQ had other connections.

 

[jrydberg]

Moore isn't correct if he's saying the Saudi's wrote a check for $300 some million to Michael Eisner. They wrote that check to *invest* in EuroDisney. There is an element of truth to it, but if the original post accurately reflects Moore's portrayal, then Moore is misrepresenting things.

But it isn't disputed that this Saudi prince is the largest individual investor in EuroDisney.

I didn't hear the bit on the radio, so I can't give anything more conclusive than that.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
It's true that the 9-11 commission said there was no link between SH/AQ and 9-11. But there's been numerous findings that prove the SH and AQ had other connections.

Really ? Name one.

 

[Sirius]

I wouldn't care if the al-Saud family owned 100% of Disney.

I think MM was illustrating a point. A large share of one of Disney's biggest money losers could be a sensitive issue when trying to decide whether or not to release a movie that is critical of that large share holder.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Kim&Chris
There are so many versions going back and forth that you don't know what to believe. The best you can do is to read as much as you can and simply try to judge who is telling us the truth and who is lying.

Which might be difficult to do since most everyone involved has been accused of lying (and some have been proved to be liars).

Such a dilemma.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Here's one:

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry 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 letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.

-----

And although it's yet to be determined if the threats were al Qaeda linked, last week Bad Vlad Putin said that Russia had become aware of specific Iraqi plans to attack the US at home and abroad.

Why are you not outraged that Gore, Clinton, and Kerry all claimed Iraq had WMDs and must be dealt with. Kerry voted for the war, that he says anything bad about it is just like the rapper... Ludacris.

 

[dennis99ss]

Yep...Including W.


And no, I do not refute that there is no connection.

But, there is some evidence, that was heard by the commission, which indicates that SH actually disliked AQ, and that, while they did have discussions, that the two were not bedfellows, and in fact, did not want to act together. Aditionally, there is evidence, again from the comission, that AQ was much closer to Iran and Pakistan than it ever was to Iraq. And, of course, the meeting that became the basis for most of the discussion between AQ and SH and 911, did not happen, as Atta was in Fl and his contact was not in Prague where the meeting was supposedly held. Of course, Dick says there is more, but he failed to provide that to the comissions, instead, saying a sort of silent F You to them, which, hehe, is apparently his way of responding to criticism that hits close to him.

With regards to the documents, I believe that was already known, and has been discounted as being SH's ploy to play both sides, acting like an ally to AQ, but actually acting against them. There is evidence of meetings, however, what is lacking, and what is lacking in this "earth shattering" memo you woute, is whether anything ever came of this relationship. Nothing ever did. How do I know that, because if there had been a long standing relationship, etc. which we were told did exist, we would have by now been provided with evidence of such, and further, W would not be backtracking on the justificatuion of the war, now saying that SH was a bad guy, and thats why we attacked.

I do like the Sirius comment.....Gives another look into motivation of the release of the film, or the attempts to block it

 

[wvrevy]

So, because Iraq possibly met with an un-named bin Ladin ally before bin Ladin ever became an official enemy of the US (before he ever showed up on the Most Wanted list, in other words) and despite the fact that no collaborative relationship developed from this alleged meeting and that there is no proof that bin Ladin ever spoke to Hussein or condoned any such meeting..had, in fact, endorsed Saddam's overthrow by fundamentalists in Iraq.....Despite ALL of that, you think this is some sort of justification for saying that Iraq and Al Queda are "linked" ?

In a court of law, you couldn't even come CLOSE to getting a conviction on "evidence" that flimsy. For that matter, you'd probably never even get an indictment, let alone a conviction.

 

[JimB.]

Really ? Name one.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29949

Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence has helped train both Arafat's shock troops and bin Laden's Islamists for suicide operations utilizing weapons of mass destruction.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...nection.html+Hussein++"Al+Queda"++links&hl=en

"Italian security sources have reported that Iraq made use of it's embassy in Rome to foster & cultivate Iraq's partnership with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, I don't need it when it comes to national security. If we have good reason to believe that someone is going to strike us, we should strike them. That's the bottom line.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Sirius
I think MM was illustrating a point. A large share of one of Disney's biggest money losers could be a sensitive issue when trying to decide whether or not to release a movie that is critical of that large share holder.

If Disney was in the business of releasing political documentaries critical of other people, I'd think it was a good point. But it's not.

FWIW, I'm satisfied that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, but I'm equally satisfied that there are links between Saddam and al-qaida.

 

[wvrevy]

See, this is the problem crap like this gets into the media, people see it, then when it's disproven it doesn't get the same kind of top headline press, so people go on beliving it.

Originally posted by JimB.
"Italian security sources have reported that Iraq made use of it's embassy in Rome to foster & cultivate Iraq's partnership with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda"

For example. in this same article, it cites the same sources as saying that two of the hijackers allegedly met with Iraqi intelligence, a report we now know for a fact to be false. Yet people still cite it as "proof" of a link between Saddam and bin Ladin.

The other two articles are pure speculation, with not a shred of evidence (including the tripe from the "Weekly Standard" about "well, Clinton thought it first !"

as for "needing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt"...Why on earth would you want to hold to that standard now ? I mean, we're just talking about a war in which hundreds of soldiers have died, not to mention the thousands injured and the thousands of Iraqis that have been killed. You're ABSOLUTELY right...mere suspicion should be good enough in that case...

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Teejay32
FWIW, I'm satisfied that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, but I'm equally satisfied that there are links between Saddam and al-qaida.

ITA

Richard

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power from within or without. I have met with the Iraqi resistance, and I have invited them to meet with me again next month – when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.
We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "
Al Gore May 2000

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by jocon
.......ME was paid 323 Million by the Saudi Royal Family and that they own 32% of Euro Disney. Moore said this on Stern's Show this morning!

That's a little dubious. The Sauds invested in the company called Eurodisney which is owned by the corporation called Disney that was then chaired by ME. The Sauds didn't write ME a check.

I'm not much of a ME apologist, but that accusation is a little over the top.

 

[4greatboys]

Im not a fan of Michael Moore but if he gives you something to think about thats great. Just make sure you look at all sides of the issue and not just MM's. Its not unheard of for someone trying to promote their own agenda not give all the details--only the ones that help further their point.