Pentagon met with discredited figure from Iran-Contra scandal

Associated Press ^ | 08-08-03

[Brian S]

Pentagon officials met over a three-day period in late 2001 with a long-discredited Iranian who was a middleman in the Iran-Contra scandal, Defense Department officials said Friday.

Manucher Ghorbanifar sat in on a series of meetings in Europe between two defense officials and two other Iranians who the Bush administration had been told had information useful to the United States in its then-fledgling global war on terrorism, a senior defense official said on condition of anonymity. The meetings occurred not long after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said.

[mfulstone]

So...

What's yer point?

[Brian S]

What's yer point?

I'm not sure other than its screaming all over the AP wires this fine August evening.

Next weeks media hyped "scandal" perhaps???

[Burkeman1]

Those damn "left wingers" in the press huh? Geesh- the world wide left wing conspiracy is against Bush? Bush lied about WMD's and the Al Queda connection. Most Freepers have even admitted that. It is only going to get worse.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Bush lied about WMD's and the Al Queda connection. Most Freepers have even admitted that. It is only going to get worse.

Please explain that statement to this dense freeper.

[Burkeman1]

Well I can't really. I can post links to sites that you will just denounce as "Left wing" and "Anti American" as most freepers do. Why don't we let Mr. Kay lead us to the stockpiles of WMD's since he has said he is "close".

But then again I have quotes from Rumsfeld and Cheney saying they knew where the WMD's were in general? If you still want to believe that we went to war against Iraq because they "threatened us" or posed an "immediate danger" then I have a bridge to sell you. Even Wolfowitz, one of the architects of this war, has said that the reason for the Iraq war was Bureaucratic.

[MJY1288]

Rumsfeld said: "A meeting did take place, and the information was moved around the interagency process to all the departments and agencies," said the defense secretary. "There wasn't anything there that was of substance or of value that needed to be pursued further."

Rumsfeld said it was "absolutely not" the case that the meeting with Ghorbanifar was intended to be part of any other ongoing, unofficial talks with Iranians.

END OF STORY, these pathetic liberals in the press are grasping at straws

[Lloyd227]

"...discredited figure from Iran-Contra scandal

I saw this headline and assumed the article was about John Poindexter! :-)

[Billthedrill]

LOL! So did I!

[woofie]

Roll out the tin foil
I can see it now at DU ...The CIA(papa Bush) planned 911 to reshape the middle east, (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran) have to be reshaped to get the oil to Bush's friends...

[Burkeman1]

Rumsfeld tells the truth because he is a Republican!

[MJY1288]

"Roll out the tin foil
I can see it now at DU ...The CIA(papa Bush) planned 911 to reshape the middle east,"

LOL, just give it a few minutes, it's coming

[MJY1288]

Did I say that?

Do you tell the truth because you're an anti-war liberal?

[cyncooper]

Another mountain being made of a molehill?

Ho hum.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- how did you know? You read my post so clearly? I where a tin foil hat! Go away- even those who oppose me on this site don't want you here newbie.

[squidly]

What's yer point?

Well, since this fella was discredited during Iran/Contra, his opinion is utterly useless, he has no truthful information about anything, and he has no business talking to anyone in our defense establishment. Ever. For any reason whatsoever.

[Burkeman1]

No- You didn't say that. I retract. Sorry.

[squidly]

Bush lied about WMD's and the Al Queda connection.

This line is getting very, very, very tired. How is it that you know that Bush lied about WMD's? I haven't seen evidence of that. As for AQ, the funny thing is I hardly heard anything from Dubya about their relationship with Saddam prior to the war, but now I'm hearing a ton of stuff from the left about how he lied about it. Funny that I didn't hear him say much of anything about it. And if he did say there was a relationship, that's no lie because there was. What the relationship involved is still largely unknown.

However, I have no doubt that any of this will keep you from going along spouting "BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD AND AL QAEDA" in the ears of anyone who is unfortunate enough to hear you.

[MJY1288]

If this reporter thinks it's a scandal for the DOD to meet with a "Discredited Figure".... Then they need to bar Bill & Hillary Clinton from all meetings with DOD officials :-)

[nopardons]

You're doing " it " again. Stop it, calm down, take more than a few deep breaths, and read more carefully.

You are NOT ever going to get the truth /facts from LEFTY papers or magazines, or web sites. That's just for starters.

You're utterly clueless, as to the whys and wherefores, as stated by President Bush, why we went to Iraq. Besides the stated claims, this is 1) a continuation on the war on terror 2) a not too subtle message to the whole of the middle east AND others, that unlike Clinton, we are NOT going to turn a blind eye, nor buy them off. Both have worked splendidly. And YES, we'll be shown the WMDs ( some have already come out, but you refuse to acknowledge this fact )... when it's going to do the most good.

Unlike WW I, WW II, Korea ( which was as botched as Vietnem !), Nam, and what we have done/are still doing, ARE legitimate instances for American involvment.

[woofie]

Go away- even those who oppose me on this site don't want you here newbie.

woofie

Since Sep 4, 1998

[woofie]

Go away- even those who oppose me on this site don't want you here newbie.

woofie

Since Sep 4, 1998

[nopardons]

woolfie has been here far longer than you, I want this poster here, and you do NOT speack for the rest of us.

Now, pet, stop throwing temper tantrums, remove the tinfoil body suit, and shut up for a wee bit.

[Burkeman1]

Sorry- I and this site claimed that Clinton Lied on far less evidendence on numerous issues than we have on Bush. I suffered through 8 years of Clintonian hair splitting amd word parsing in the media to justify his crimes. I will be darned if I will act the same way as many democrat loyalists acted even when this nation killed people on Clinton's many diversionary foreign bombings.

[Howlin]

Bush lied about WMD's and the Al Queda connection.

We all know you're praying he did.

Most Freepers have even admitted that.

Name one.

[Burkeman1]

Oops! Sorry.

[Burkeman1]

Keep the Kay torch alive!

[smoothsailing]

Apologies should be accepted.

Unless the affront requires a more definitive response.

OK by you?

[Howlin]

LOL.......I've been here two months than you have......you troll!

[Howlin]

You know, Burkie, I'm glad I'm not you; it must be horrible to believe every person on the face of earth -- excluding yourself, of course -- is a liar.

[Burkeman1]

What do you propose?

[MJY1288]

I understand that you get your information from left wing & anti-war websites, and I'm sure you got this quote "Immediate Danger" from one of them. So I thought I should post a SNIP of what was actually said during the SOTU speech instead of the left wing drivel you post on thos forum, day in and day out...SEE BELOW

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." (Applause.)

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." (Applause.)

[Howlin]

Name one.

[woofie]

Wow, that was imminent

[Burkeman1]

Well sure, thanks for the undestanding, It is hard to be right about everything.

[Burkeman1]

One what?

[MJY1288]

You have to keep this in mind when conversing with Burkeman1,

From his FR homepage: "Live in Boston (the "Hub" of the world) and a most conservative city when compared to the so called "Bible belt" cities that allow all sort of sin in full view and to all hours of the night."

[Howlin]

You said

Most Freepers have even admitted that.

And I asked you to name a Freeper who has "admitted" Bush lied about WMD.

And you know damn well I do NOT mean a Bush hater.

[Howlin]

Is that the same Boston that still hasn't finished integrating its schools? :-)

[MJY1288]

LOL, It really is amazing that people here on FR just parrot everything they here from Chris Mathews or some other Liberal democrat hack. NEVER did GWB claim Saddam was an imminent threat

[Burkeman1]

Sorry- have you met a real threat? Bush has- it is called North Korea and we treat them with respect and even give them grain to help feed the people they oppress in horrible ways. Iraq was never a threat. Does a single Freeper think that?

[squidly]

Sorry- have you met a real threat? Bush has- it is called North Korea

Does this change of subject indicate an admission of defeat of your Iraq argument? I won't get into the situation with DPRK too much right now, just suffice it to say that THEY'VE GOT NUKES (or at least they very well might) and that changes everything with respect to how we approach them.

[woofie]

I was out of the country when this story broke ...It has taken a while to catch up, so thanks for such important tidbits as the one you posted.

The latest is that even if we find evidence of "weapons programs" we still did not find "weapons"(yet)...I think what has happened is that with so much lying during the 8 years of Clinton some people can no longer discern the truth

[MJY1288]

OK I'll take the bait..... What would you suggest we do with North Korea?

Should the President order a massive invasion?
Should he unlock the "football" and enter the launch codes?
Should he order our 38,000 troops on the DMZ to attack?
Or should he start off like we did with Iraq 12 years ago and try to apply diplomatic pressure through the U.N.?

Please enlighten us with the infinate wisdom you have acquired from those left wing websites you frequent.

[Burkeman1]

Not sure how to respond to that? Honestly.

[smoothsailing]

Strong Defense.

Kill the bad guys.(well , not the dems, we can take them out in the next election.)

[Howlin]

It has taken a while to catch up

I was out of town for ONE WEEK and then spent TWO WEEKS trying to find out what the hell "yellow cake" was.

Thank goodness Freepers are patient people.

[Burkeman1]

My suggestion with Korea? I would say pull all troops out or the South and let SK defend SK? Our troops are just tokens anyway. If we were to pull out I bet China would back South Korea over the North. Just a guess.

[nopardons]

Since, as long as I've known you, you;ve been correct about ONE thing and ONE thing only, you'd best rethink your positions. LOL

[MJY1288]

We have been in Iraq for 125 days or so and it took us until last week to find 30 Mig Fighters buried in the sand, yet somehow these pathetic anti-american, anti-war, brain-dead leftist want to claim there is no WMD's because we havn't uncovered them in a country the size of California after Saddam had 12 years to hide them.

It's almost scary how many people in this country will tow the liberal line and actually believe the nonsense they feed them. I guess it explains how people can let their fear of fighting allow them to be hearded on to boxcars to a certain death