Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden (NY Times Documents Iraq/Al Qaeda on Page 1)
NY Times ^ | 6/25/2004 | THOM SHANKER

Posted on 06/24/2004 9:09:31 PM PDT by Southack

Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says

By THOM SHANKER

Published: June 25, 2004

 



WASHINGTON, June 24 — Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two.

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties.

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government last year. The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington.

Some of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited, although officials have called some of the documents it helped to obtain useful.

A translation of the new Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group in the spring, officials said. It included senior analysts from the military's Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specialized in counterterrorism issues, they said.

The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis.

It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity.

At the time of the contacts described in the Iraqi document, Mr. bin Laden was little known beyond the world of national security experts. It is now thought that his associates bombed a hotel in Yemen used by American troops bound for Somalia in 1992. Intelligence officials also believe he played a role in training Somali fighters who battled Army Rangers and Special Operations forces in Mogadishu during the "Black Hawk Down" battle of 1993.

Iraq during that period was struggling with its defeat by American-led forces in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when American troops used Saudi Arabia as the base for expelling Iraqi invaders from Kuwait.

The document details a time before any of the spectacular anti-American terrorist strikes attributed to Al Qaeda: the two American Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the strike on the destroyer Cole in Yemeni waters in 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed.

At the meeting, Mr. bin Laden requested that sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad.

Mr. bin Laden "also requested joint operations against foreign forces" based in Saudi Arabia, where the American presence has been a rallying cry for Islamic militants who oppose American troops in the land of the Muslim pilgrimage sites of Mecca and Medina.

But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons.

The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states.

Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

The heated public debate over links between Mr. bin Laden and the Hussein government fall basically into three categories: the extent of communications and contacts between the two, the level of actual cooperation, and any specific collaboration in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The document provides evidence of communications between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence, similar to that described in the Sept. 11 staff report released last week.

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime," the Sept. 11 commission report stated.

The Sudanese government, the commission report added, "arranged for contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan," it said, "finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."

The Sept. 11 commission statement said there were reports of further contacts with Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan after Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it added.

After the Sept. 11 commission released its staff reports last week, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney said they remained convinced that Mr. Hussein's government had a long history of ties to Al Qaeda.

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

It is not clear whether the commission knew of this document. After its report was released, Mr. Cheney said he might have been privy to more information than the commission had; it is not known whether any further information has changed hands.

A spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission declined to say whether it had seen the Iraqi document, saying its policy was not to discuss its sources.

The Iraqi document states that Mr. bin Laden's organization in Sudan was called "The Advice and Reform Commission." The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden in 1994 after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein, the leader's son, as well as the director of Iraqi intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

A former director of operations for Iraqi intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, the document states.




TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; alqaedaandiraq; arabworld; binladen; iraq; nytimes; osama; saudiarabia; southwestasia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2004 9:09:32 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Southack
A benign relationship, nothing for all those soccer Moms to worry their pretty little heads about.

On the other hand, they may want to consult with Nick Berg.

2 posted on 06/24/2004 9:13:12 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Gore.


3 posted on 06/24/2004 9:13:24 PM PDT by jbstrick (War is not fought for peace. War is fought for victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
... Mr. bin Laden's...

Death to Mr.Bin Laden!

4 posted on 06/24/2004 9:14:34 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Guess those of us who took them up on their "Show Us The Proof" editorial got a reaction. Here's what I got in my email today (names, email addresses, and his phone number redacted):


Dear X,

Mr. Okrent will be addressing the June 17th article “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie; Describes a Wider Plot for 9/11”, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17panel.html) and its headline in his column in the week in review section on Sunday.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

At 11:03 AM 6/18/2004, you wrote:
Dear Mr. Okrent,

This is a complaint about the reporting on the 9/11 commission
report in the Times yesterday. There are a number of clear distortions and
an appalling lack of backround research evident in the content of the
stories.

First, the headline itself reads "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie".
This headline is of course the most prominent thing in that day's edition
of the Times. All one needs to do is read the actual report from the
commission, which reads, in part:
"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his
time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin
Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi
Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly
persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts
between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly
made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin
is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.
There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also
occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not
appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin
Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al
Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Can you honestly tell me, after reading that paragraph of the
report, that the panel found no Iraq-Al Qaeda tie? Clearly, the person who
wrote that headline failed to read the report. This is a gross instance of
journalistic malpractice.

Unfortunately, that is only the beginning of the distorted
coverage of the report. The major story on the commission's report itself
is on the right side of the front page, and is headlined "Challenges
Bush". We learn in the first paragraph that the alleged absence of a
"collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq "sharply
contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq
war, ...." This is quite an allegation, given that President Bush never
declared the existence of such a relationship to be even a part of the
reason for the war, and certainly not a "central justification".

What is the reason for these outrageous distortions and
misinformation on the front page of the New York Times? I will offer what
I believe to be the reason. Turn to page A28, and you will see the lead
editorial proclaim "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq
and Al-Qaeda". Given that a few minutes on Google turns up the 1998
indictment of Usama Bin Laden in the Untited States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (by the Clinton administration's Department
of Justice, no less), which states: "Additionally, the indictment states
that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the
regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq,
particularly in weapons development.", where do the individuals who wrote
that story get off calling themselves reporters? Iraq/AQ connections
abound if one does not deliberately blind onself to them: Salman Pak, Abu
Nidal, Atta in Prague, the pre-9/11 reports in official Iraqi press
predicting the attacks, Ramzi Yousef, Sudan connections, and so on.

If a person cannot do so much as look up a search term on the
Internet, which would lead them to many credible and substantiable sources
of information on the topic, they have no business calling themselves
reporters, to say nothing of getting their stories published on the front
page of the Times.

Occam's Razor (a general rule under which the simplest explanation
is considered the most probable) leads one to believe that the distortions
on the front page, viewed in the context of the clear agenda of the
editorial staff of the Times) were intended to support the predetermined
point of view of the editorial. In other words, the Times editors
deliberately lied to its loyal readers in order to launch yet another
attack on the President, facts be damned.

It leads one to wonder, at what point can the printing of the
Times be considered to be an illegal contribution to the Kerry campaign?
It also leads one to wonder how much farther the circulation of the Times
needs to drop before the business managers realize that the pattern of
deliberate distortion, which is plain as day to the objective reader, is
the reason why the Times and its cohorts in disinformation find their
circulation dropping regularly, while more objective sources such as the
Wall Street Journal and (it pains me to say it, but it's true) the NY Post
enjoy strong expansions of their readership?


5 posted on 06/24/2004 9:15:01 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

I am starting to think that Gore is the designated scapegoat, and that he's so starved for attention that he's willingly taking the job.


6 posted on 06/24/2004 9:16:08 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southack

9/11 comission = worthless dog and pony show!!!!


7 posted on 06/24/2004 9:16:10 PM PDT by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

Well WELLLL WELLLLLLL isn't THAT interesting :)


8 posted on 06/24/2004 9:16:32 PM PDT by Cheetah1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

Doesn't he have great timing? Didn't he give some wideyed publicized rant about global warming on the coldest day recorded in New York?


9 posted on 06/24/2004 9:16:54 PM PDT by metalcor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Admin: please replace link with this which does not include a tracking cookie.
10 posted on 06/24/2004 9:23:11 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
It leads one to wonder, at what point can the printing of the Times be considered to be an illegal contribution to the Kerry campaign?

And it leads me to wonder at what point can the lies of the New York Times become an actionable slander, even given that the target of the slander is a "public figure".

I beleive slander against a public figure is actionable if the slander is willful and malicious.

It looks to me like this qualifies.

11 posted on 06/24/2004 9:24:31 PM PDT by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I must me losing my mind. I gotta lay off the pipe, I think. LOL I just don't even know what to say. As ole Tree Hugger used to say, "What's UP is DOWN!! What's DOWN is UP!!"

I mean, how is the national media gonna deal with this? And when Al Gore's speech was announced, freepers were all a-titter about his awful timing. I don't know exactly what the other incidents were, but I got the jist of it. And then blammo...here is is. I gotta rub my eyes. is this real? is this really a page 1 story?

12 posted on 06/24/2004 9:25:02 PM PDT by Huck (Be nice to chubby rodents. You know, woodchucks, guinea pigs, beavers, marmots, porcupines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

good letter.


13 posted on 06/24/2004 9:25:05 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Crazy Al is the Wiley Coyote of politics! This is the teetering rock that follows him down to the bottom of the canyon. He's probably home right now putting on his roller skates with an Acme rocket on his back and some crazy map next to him!

Pray for W and our Awesome Troops

14 posted on 06/24/2004 9:25:52 PM PDT by bray (Let's win one more for the Gipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

ping


15 posted on 06/24/2004 9:27:30 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Al Gore is living proof that God not only exists but that he has a sense of humor as well. One man can simply not have such bad timing, luck and presence absent divine intervention. :-}


16 posted on 06/24/2004 9:27:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Cheers, kudos and "you da man," for your letter to Mr. Okrent at the NY Times. Thanks for touching on the circulation angle, which must surely sting given the news of yesterday. (If you hold the hammer, what do you do? Ans. Pound, pound, pound.)


17 posted on 06/24/2004 9:27:59 PM PDT by Socratic (Yes, there is method in the madness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime," the Sept. 11 commission report stated.

OK...the dems want to niggle, as does the times, that the relationship was not "collaborative." Goodness me. They hadn;t got to second base yet. For starters, see here that Iraq initiated. THEY were the instigator. It doesn't matter if they were rebuked by Osama or not. The FACT is Saddam sought to form an alliance with terrorists in the middle east. In my book, that makes him a menace and a threat. Let the dems run against it. Let em explain to America that yes, Iraq sent love letters to Osama, and tried to unite the jihadist terrorists in an alliance of islamic fascism. BUT....the relationship was not "collaborative", and therefore, Bush went too far. France likes me better. I'll raise your taxes. Great platform. LOL!

18 posted on 06/24/2004 9:31:52 PM PDT by Huck (Be nice to chubby rodents. You know, woodchucks, guinea pigs, beavers, marmots, porcupines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metalcor

Yeah, that's the sound of the crowd in the mosh pit parting ... right on schedule. Thanks, Al ... we really appreciate your help. Keep up the great work.


19 posted on 06/24/2004 9:36:52 PM PDT by timberlandko (Murphy was an optimist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I 100% agree. If the National Enquirer can be forced to pay up for its lies, then so should the New York Times.


20 posted on 06/24/2004 9:40:17 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

More.


21 posted on 06/24/2004 9:41:49 PM PDT by cgk (3000+ 9/11. Pearl, Fallujah, Berg, Jacobs, Scroggs, Johnson, Sun-il... Never forget. Never Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
One man can simply not have such bad timing, luck and presence absent divine intervention.

Love it.

22 posted on 06/24/2004 9:42:56 PM PDT by cgk (3000+ 9/11. Pearl, Fallujah, Berg, Jacobs, Scroggs, Johnson, Sun-il... Never forget. Never Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

LOL! Gore has been in a hole since 2000 and he's still digging.


23 posted on 06/24/2004 9:43:21 PM PDT by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Great job! Well-written and incisive. I'm guessing it hit home around the newsroom. Well, I can hope it did at least.


24 posted on 06/24/2004 10:29:06 PM PDT by JennysCool ("I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself." - RWR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

ditto


25 posted on 06/24/2004 10:33:35 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Excellent letter - a damning indictment of the bias that pervades the NY Times.


26 posted on 06/24/2004 10:37:50 PM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hobson
If I was a democrat, I'd hide my head in shame over the buffoonery of this demented assclown. Some responsible people in the DNC need to grab Algore as he teeters on edge of the abyss of madness and return him to his faux White House in Tennessee to seek professional help. I hope they don't, though. Watching Algore plumb the depths of dementia is the best reality TV imaginable.
27 posted on 06/24/2004 11:09:46 PM PDT by AF68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AF68

I am convinced Al Gore is doing what he's doing to make Kerry seem centrist. No, really. Imagine, Kerry is the perhaps the second most liberal Senator. The DNC says to Gore, go out and raise hell, and fake far left and our guy will seem reasonable by comparison. Do that, and when we have the presidency, we'll give you some sinecure, like ambassador to Aruba or something.


28 posted on 06/24/2004 11:15:59 PM PDT by caspera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

Amazing. It was predicted something like this would happen when Gore made his planned statement. LOL.


29 posted on 06/24/2004 11:17:52 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Fantastic and well written letter!

Nail their A****!


30 posted on 06/24/2004 11:40:52 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP

Thanks for the ping, Gore looks like a fool again!


31 posted on 06/24/2004 11:43:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Southack; thoughtomator
The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released.

You mean to tell me that the New York Times has been sitting on a document that links Saddam Hussein to Al Queda, while at the same time publishing irresponsible front-page headlines claiming no link?

Simply amazing.

I'm not convinced the Times' public editor will come out on our side, though.
32 posted on 06/25/2004 12:07:45 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

public@nytimes.com

Have at it - this could be an opportunity to bust up the Marxist cabal.


33 posted on 06/25/2004 12:22:06 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

You know, this also means they put out the "Show us the proof" editorial when they were sitting on it.


34 posted on 06/25/2004 12:51:50 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Southack
It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity.

Translation: Being a member of the democrat propaganda machine, we want you to have doubts about the credibility of this report, despite the fact that we have absolutely no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

35 posted on 06/25/2004 3:43:16 AM PDT by InfraRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
First identify the bias:

"The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration. "

"The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

"The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago"

This thing is ONLY 10 weeks OLD! THEY KNEW!

"Some of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited, although officials have called some of the documents it helped to obtain useful."

"It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity. "

"But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons. "

"Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence."

"It is not clear whether the commission knew of this document. After its report was released, Mr. Cheney said he might have been privy to more information than the commission had; it is not known whether any further information has changed hands. "

This thing is ONLY 10 weeks OLD! THEY KNEW!
36 posted on 06/25/2004 4:13:31 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The damage to Bush is already done on this. No way are the Wash Post, LATimes, Seattle Times, Detroit News etc. gonna go back and retract their erroneous bold headlines...
37 posted on 06/25/2004 4:27:50 AM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

For later.


38 posted on 06/25/2004 4:29:21 AM PDT by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization.

I am curious exactly when the Slimes thinks Al Qaeda 'became' a 'full-fledged' terrorist organization. Are they OK with Saddam trying to work with a half-fledged terrorist organization?

39 posted on 06/25/2004 4:51:40 AM PDT by blanknoone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Al Gore ... worst ... timing ... ever.

(or as the brilliant James Taranto puts it ... Al Gore "jumps the shark" yet again)

LOL!

40 posted on 06/25/2004 5:00:02 AM PDT by The G Man (John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Very impressive letter which obviously caught someone's attention.

The unintended consequence of the partisan press all printing the identical lie is that the resounding response by the President, Vice-President and others has reinforced the fact, for those who hadn't been paying close attention, that there WERE ties between Iraq and bin Laden.

It has also kept the topic in the news much longer than it would have been. Yesterday, the "All Stars" were still discussing it on Brit's show. Mara and Juan were parsing the word "collaborative" and Brit, more irritated with them than I've ever seen him, put them firmly in their place. :-)


41 posted on 06/25/2004 5:05:57 AM PDT by RottiBiz (Help end Freepathons -- become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub; LindaSOG; Radix; Kathy in Alaska; MoJo2001; LaDivaLoca; Fawnn; ...
Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says

This article was on page A-5 in the Austin Pravda. Anyone see it on the front page of your paper? It is not in the Austin Pravda electronic edition yet, and I don't expect it to ever show up. It should have been on A-1 above the fold, but that would have been pro Bush.

The article on A-1 above the fold, in one of the largest print sizes I've seen was

Over 100 Killed In String Of Attcks In Iraq

Anyone reading just the headlines, would think the dead were all Americans.

42 posted on 06/25/2004 5:06:11 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (It is not Bush's fault... it is the media's fault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Page one? Where did they put the Abu Ghraib pictures?

Thanks for posting, Southack. Very interesting article.


43 posted on 06/25/2004 5:11:46 AM PDT by RottiBiz (Help end Freepathons -- become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Funny how, after weeks floating around the Times office, this comes out on a Friday.

Done in hopes that by Monday, and the start of a new broadcast week for talk radio, this story will be old news.


44 posted on 06/25/2004 5:12:43 AM PDT by Gefreiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

bump


45 posted on 06/25/2004 5:15:15 AM PDT by sanchmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sanchmo

bump


46 posted on 06/25/2004 5:37:40 AM PDT by bitt (a proud member of the AlmostSilenced Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: hobson
"LOL! Gore has been in a hole since 2000 and he's still digging."

Bogie Number 429,999 and still swinging. One more divot and he'll strike lava.

47 posted on 06/25/2004 5:57:02 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
Are they OK with Saddam trying to work with a half-fledged terrorist organization?

Well that depends. Are they working collaboratively? Or just meeting to talk shop? If they did meet, is their a signed affadavit from Saddam and Osama detailing the exact agreements?

48 posted on 06/25/2004 6:15:07 AM PDT by Huck (Be nice to chubby rodents. You know, woodchucks, guinea pigs, beavers, marmots, porcupines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: caspera
we'll give you some sinecure, like ambassador to Aruba or something.

Please, don't send him to Aruba. It's my favorite vacation spot.
Sheeeesh!!! :)

49 posted on 06/25/2004 7:52:54 AM PDT by arbee4bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
It is on page A-1, at the fold of New York's Pravda. No four-column banner headline above the fold, but it's at least a start.
50 posted on 06/25/2004 7:57:51 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson