• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraqi Docs Beginning to Surface [merged]

Christian

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
Hitchin - UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There alot of stuff yet to get out, so why the hell arent they putting out?

Who knows what sort of goldmines are in it:

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:32 p.m. EST (newsmax)
Declassified Iraq Documents Released

The Bush administration Wednesday night released the first declassified documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war, showing among other things that Saddam Hussein's regime was monitoring reports that Iraqis and Saudis were heading to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops.

The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic - with no English translation - including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.

Read the rest: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/15/233450.shtml?s=ic
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iraqi Docs Beginning to Surface

The newly-released trove of unexploited docs recovered in Iraq are beginning to show up. FreeRepublic.com has translated and published one interesting doc, as follows:

In the Name of God the Merciful


Presidency of the Republic

Intelligence Apparatus


To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

Subject: Information


Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.


Please view… Yours… With regards


Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001


Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission

Signature:………….

According to the author, jveritas, "This document is a letter written by a member of Saddam Intelligence apparatus (Al Mukabarat) on 9/15/2001 (shortly after 9/11/2001) where he addressed it to someone higher up and he wrote about a conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani Consul. In the conversation the Afghani Consul spoke of a relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11/2001, and that the United States was aware of such a relationship and that there is a potential of US strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan if the destructive operations in the US (most probably he is referring to 9/11 attacks) were proven to be connected to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban."

Note that the translation was provided by the 'jveritas' (the author of the article); the accuracy of said translation is not yet verified. --- edit: just examined another translation of this doc at 'Iraq the Model' blog: almost identical translations.

It would be a stretch to assert that this single doc provides definitive proof of anything, it is certainly highly suggestive of Iraqi/bin Laden cooperation.
 
Last edited:

Christian

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
Hitchin - UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Declassified Iraq Documents Released

An interesting development, though of course there is nothing concrete in here as you will see by the disclaimers underneath each item. However hopefully they will at least be translated in full, which may take a while, but may yield results yet.

--------------------------------------------
New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs (abc)

March 16, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

Read the rest here:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
 

Christian

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
Hitchin - UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
More:

Posted on 03/17/2006 7:44:21 AM PST by Calpernia
March 17, 2006: Documents confirm Saddam Hussein government knew Zarqawi headed Al Qaeda cell in Iraq in August 2002

Documents released Thursday by the US government show that less than a year after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Saddam Hussein’s government had identified at least one active Al Qaeda cell in his country.

Among the Iraqi documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war amd released Thursday is a document, released only in Arabic, which the US government describes as follows:

2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.

A translation of the document shows that the Al Qaeda terrorist that Saddam Hussein’s government had identified was none other than Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

The rest: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598144/posts
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Christian said:
2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.

A translation of the document shows that the Al Qaeda terrorist that Saddam Hussein’s government had identified was none other than Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

The rest: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598144/posts

:shock: NAH - gotta be BS, a lie, GOP :spin: ! EVERYONE, according to the Libs, knows that there was no connection bewteen Al Qaeda and Hussein! It's all a LIE, right Moon?! :roll: Besides, he PROMISED he wasn't talking to Al Qaeda! If you can't take the word of a dictator who rapes, tortures, and murders his own people, who can you trust?! :cool:
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
easyt65 said:
:shock: NAH - gotta be BS, a lie, GOP :spin: ! EVERYONE, according to the Libs, knows that there was no connection bewteen Al Qaeda and Hussein! It's all a LIE, right Moon?! :roll: Besides, he PROMISED he wasn't talking to Al Qaeda! If you can't take the word of a dictator who rapes, tortures, and murders his own people, who can you trust?! :cool:
Well, it's a link to a blog. The blog owner seems to read into what has actually been presented.
I've not looked into that much, the but the Laura Mansfield's take is at odds w/ what else has been presented in this thread.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
Well, it's a link to a blog. The blog owner seems to read into what has actually been presented.
I've not looked into that much, the but the Laura Mansfield's take is at odds w/ what else has been presented in this thread.

Dude, you have to get outta this thread/off this board! Don't wait for someone to provide links for you! As G.I. Joe says, man, "Knowing is half the battle!" :lol: This story has been on CBS, NCB, CNN, and Fox! There are articles on the Net about it. Nothing personal against anyone on this board, but 1/3 the people are too lazy to do any research on any issue, and another 1/3 doesn't want to do any research because they might find some facts/info that goes against what they believe! I encourage EVERYONE who actually wants to learn what's going on to get off this board and hit Google or Donkeydo to gather some reading material!
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
easyt65 said:
Dude ... material!
Thanks for your generous advice. It will be appropriately appreciated.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Newly released document links Saddam to al-Qaida

Friday, March 17, 2006

TRAIL OF TERROR
Newly released document
links Saddam to al-Qaida
Indicates regime was cooperating with bin Laden group to strike U.S.


Saddam Hussein on Iraqi TV prior to the war
Among the pre-war documents posted online yesterday by the Pentagon is a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9-11 attacks.

The artivcle goes on. Read more here:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297
and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts?page=1,50
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Newly released document links Saddam to al-Qaida

Moderator's Warning:

9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

This appears to be the source:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
now merged. I don;t think you could have buried it any further if you had tried. :lol: It's cool.
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I suppose that's one of the irregular definitions of buried.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,612
Reaction score
2,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Sounds like it's time to point this out YET AGAIN:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm

There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News.
The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past.

But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies.

See the date on the article? That's from February of 2003; we knew three years ago that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were talking to each other, but their relationship failed after only a few weeks because they didn't like each other very well. So why are these documents, which are likely the documents on which this assessment was based, that big a deal now? More to the point, why do those who would support Bush in his quest to rule the world have such short memories?

Even more to the point, why wouldn't this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

....

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

be getting any play alongside these other "newly released" documents?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
See the date on the article? That's from February of 2003; we knew three years ago that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were talking to each other, but their relationship failed after only a few weeks because they didn't like each other very well. So why are these documents, which are likely the documents on which this assessment was based, that big a deal now? More to the point, why do those who would support Bush in his quest to rule the world have such short memories?

Why are they a "big deal" now? I can only speak for myself, but I will try to give you an appreciation of why I find these documents are not a 'big deal', as you characterize it, but certainly intriguing. The interest has a lot to do with the somewhat disappointing performance of the US intelligence community in the months and years prior to our move into Iraq. They got some things right, they got some things wrong.

Ostensibly, one of the things they got right was the conclusion of no 'operational or collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, similar to, if not substantially identical to that of the February 2003 British intelligence doc leaked to the BBC that you cited. Yet, there continue to be hints that perhaps that conclusion wasn't exactly correct either. These hints are mere hints because they are not definitive in the affirmative or in the negative and probably do more to excite conspiracy theorists more than anything else. But, the presence of this alleged 'mass' of documents there might, just might, be additional evidence that can push conclusions definitively in one direction or the other. But, in all likelihood, though, they will continue to provide interesting insights into how things really worked in Saddam's mind and in his regime - and not prove a darned thing.

ashurbanipal said:
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Thats a very interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. After reading it, I don't come away quite as 'scandalized' as you and the author seem to think a reader should. For one thing, I'm not quite sure it should come as a surprise that alternative plans for 'war and for Iraq's oil' were discussed and formulated before the 9/11 attacks", as the sub-head proclaims. Remember, it was the express policy of the US even under Clinton to push for regime change in Iraq. Isn't this the kind of contingency planning and envisioning of alternative scenarios that should have been done? Moreover, the fact that there were conflicting plans between so-called neo-cons and 'Big Oil' plus state department 'pragmatists' suggest the formulation of these plans involved a fairly broad range of interests in the US, thus giving voice to varied and perhaps conflicting interests. And this is all bad why? Frankly, I would be more scandalized if such plans and scenarios had not been floated and discussed, as it would have evidenced a very poor appreciation of the issues and range of interests involved.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,612
Reaction score
2,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Ostensibly, one of the things they got right was the conclusion of no 'operational or collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, similar to, if not substantially identical to that of the February 2003 British intelligence doc leaked to the BBC that you cited. Yet, there continue to be hints that perhaps that conclusion wasn't exactly correct either. These hints are mere hints because they are not definitive in the affirmative or in the negative and probably do more to excite conspiracy theorists more than anything else. But, the presence of this alleged 'mass' of documents there might, just might, be additional evidence that can push conclusions definitively in one direction or the other. But, in all likelihood, though, they will continue to provide interesting insights into how things really worked in Saddam's mind and in his regime - and not prove a darned thing.

Well, if new documents were to surface that gave us a real reason to suspect a link, I'd change my tune. But the actual text of the documents posted by the defense department indicate exactly what we knew back in February of 2003--that they had been talking to each other for a brief period, but that the relationship broke down and the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda had no working relationship after that. That's precisely the conclusion I would draw from this. The fact that some people (not you, obviously) on the right are trying to use this as a means to provide new justification for the war is nuts in my view; because they don't tell us anything we didn't already know.

Thats a very interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. After reading it, I don't come away quite as 'scandalized' as you and the author seem to think a reader should. For one thing, I'm not quite sure it should come as a surprise that alternative plans for 'war and for Iraq's oil' were discussed and formulated before the 9/11 attacks", as the sub-head proclaims. Remember, it was the express policy of the US even under Clinton to push for regime change in Iraq. Isn't this the kind of contingency planning and envisioning of alternative scenarios that should have been done?

It apparently wasn't contingency planning. The fact that this planning occurred prior to the military planning seems to indicate that military invasion of Iraq was a goal of Bush's administration prior to 9/11.

In general contingency planning is done in such a way that it's obviously contingency planning. That appears not to be the case here, but I'd want to view specifically what they obtained before saying for sure.

Moreover, the fact that there were conflicting plans between so-called neo-cons and 'Big Oil' plus state department 'pragmatists' suggest the formulation of these plans involved a fairly broad range of interests in the US, thus giving voice to varied and perhaps conflicting interests. And this is all bad why? Frankly, I would be more scandalized if such plans and scenarios had not been floated and discussed, as it would have evidenced a very poor appreciation of the issues and range of interests involved.

It's bad because it makes it appear that the reason we went to war in Iraq was for their oil--which surely is no secret by now anyway. It's one thing to start a war over a potential threat, or human rights violations, etc. Quite another to start a war because we want someone else's stuff. Now, again, I have to put a caveat to all this and say that I haven't (yet) seen the documents Palast and Newsnight obtained. They may be presenting a skewed view of them--but if they are not, then I stand by what I said.

That said, the point of my post was to show that the conservatives who have been harping on these documents, while totally ignoring the story that I posted about other documents appearing, are failing to consider both sides of the issue.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
asherburnipal said:
It apparently wasn't contingency planning. The fact that this planning occurred prior to the military planning seems to indicate that military invasion of Iraq was a goal of Bush's administration prior to 9/11.

In general contingency planning is done in such a way that it's obviously contingency planning. That appears not to be the case here, but I'd want to view specifically what they obtained before saying for sure

I feel quite certain that there had been ongoing military contingency planning continuously since way before Gulf War I in regards to the ME in general, and following Gulf War I, concerning Iraq specifically. Certainly, as Iraq moved closer to reality, those plans were moved more and more into the immediate operational sphere, but it would be quite strange indeed had not planning for various contingencies in Iraq (as well as other parts of the ME) been continuously updated - and continues to this day.


asherburnipal said:
It's bad because it makes it appear that the reason we went to war in Iraq was for their oil--which surely is no secret by now anyway.

What would have been bad would have been not considering how to deal with a commodity that is the principal means of support for the entire country of Iraq. What would have been bad would have been to not consider and plan for the handling of such an important commodity to the US and the entire world. Over the months and years following Gulf War I, as the Iraqi violations of UN sanctions and dissembling with regard to the WMD inspectors continued, how could any party to the imbroglio not consider how to best handle such an important part of a country's economic life (both theirs and ours) in the event of war?

asherburnipal said:
That said, the point of my post was to show that the conservatives who have been harping on these documents, while totally ignoring the story that I posted about other documents appearing, are failing to consider both sides of the issue.

That indeed is a good question. A partial answer may lie in the fact that your cite, being circa 2003 and essentially identical to previous CIA conclusions, is considered by many to be 'old news', while to those anxiously awaiting these documents, the docs are 'new news' and offer the enticing possiblity of validation of one (at least one and maybe more) of their principal thesis (that the CIA and the opponents of the war were wrong - there was an 'operational and collaborative' relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam). Wishin' and hopin' and lack of pragmatism hasn't thus far made it so, but maybe some new docs will.

Whether these docs will contain enough new fodder to satiate remains to be seen. My guess is that both sides will be at least somewhat disappointed: new insights and details but not enough new 'old' info to vindicate, validate or dominate the principal arguments of either.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
History will show there was no connection between sadam and al queda, even if there was one.

just as history now shows Joseph McCarthy was a hate monger, instead of someone that was CORRECT about soviet spies in the U.S. government as PROVEN by Venona.

the leftist news media has a way of rewriting history.
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq

The dotmil translations are at odds w/ Tierney's interpretations and extrapolations on significant issues.

Who should I trust more? Paranoid, clairvoyant-dream guy from Coast-to-Coast AM or the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office?
 
Last edited:

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq

The dotmil translations are at odds w/ Tierney's interpretations and extrapolations on significant issues.

Who should I trust more? Paranoid, clairvoyant-dream guy from Coast-to-Coast AM or the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office?

Am I missing something here Simon W. Moon? Can I trust this “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime from your link:

“Presidential Office/ Special Office
The Secretary:
Re / Kuwaiti POW’s
Regarding the execution of Mr. President, Commander Saddam Hussein’s (God protect
him) orders, according to the decision of the Revolutionary Command Council on Friday,
March 4, 2003.
Transfer all Kuwaiti POW’s / a total of 448 captured Kuwaitis who are located at the Al-
Nida Al-Agher Prison and the Intelligence / General Center and Kazema Prison in Al-
Kazema, to make them human shields at all locations that are expected to be attacked by
the American aggressors. Put them in communication locations and essential ministries,
radio and television, Military Industrial Commissions, and all other locations expected to
be attacked by the criminal Anglo-American aggressors.
Transporting them should be in coordination with:
Intelligence Services Directorate
Republican Guard Chief of Staff
Under direct supervision of the Special Security Organization / Organization Security
[Signature]
Qusai Saddam Hussein
Supervisor
of the Republican Guard Secretariat
March 14, 2003”
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/CMPC-2003-012666-Translation.pdf


“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,”

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F67B4E35-E25B-4306-B68D-E99A58070ACC.htm
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DivineComedy said:
Am I missing something here Simon W. Moon? Can I trust this “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime from your link:
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Tierney made headlines and a bunch of noise w/ his presentation of the "Saddam Tapes." He offers his translations and extrapolations here (.ppt). The US Army FMSO offers their version of the same things. The two versions disagree with one another. [btw IIRC, I made a .pdf version if someone can't read .ppts]

Whose version should I take as the more authoritative while I search for further evidence is what I was asking?
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Tierney made headlines and a bunch of noise w/ his presentation of the "Saddam Tapes." He offers his translations and extrapolations here (.ppt). The US Army FMSO offers their version of the same things. The two versions disagree with one another. [btw IIRC, I made a .pdf version if someone can't read .ppts]

Whose version should I take as the more authoritative while I search for further evidence is what I was asking?
I could care less about the Tierney thing, or whether Al Quacka was in Iraq.

It seemed to me you were putting more trust in the “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office,” so the question must be should I trust what they have, the letter from Qusai Saddam Hussein March 14, 2003, about the POW‘s?

I don’t know anything, who should I believe?
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DivineComedy said:
I could care less about the Tierney thing, or whether Al Quacka was in Iraq.
It seemed to me you were putting more trust in the “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office,” so the question must be should I trust what they have, the letter from Qusai Saddam Hussein March 14, 2003, about the POW‘s?
I don’t know anything, who should I believe?
Are you talking about whether the info contained in the document is true?
Are you asking if the documents are what they are purported to be?
Are you asking about the quality of the transcription?
Are you talking about some implication(s) of what you're quoting?

While I'm sure you know what you're getting at, I don't.

But yes, I trust the FMSO's translations more than I do Tierney's.
 
Top Bottom