Iraq & al Qaeda
From NRO
Inconvenient Facts
The staff's back-of-the-hand summary also strangely elides mention of another significant matter — but one that did not escape the attention of Commissioner Fred Fielding, who raised it with a panel of law-enforcement witnesses right after noting the staff's conclusion that there was "no credible evidence" of cooperation. It is the little-discussed original indictment of bin Laden, obtained by the Justice Department in spring 1998 — several weeks before the embassy bombings and at a time when the government thought it would be prudent to have charges filed in the event an opportunity arose overseas to apprehend bin Laden. Paragraph 4 of that very short indictment reads:
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
(Emphasis added.) This allegation has always been inconvenient for the "absolutely no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda" club. (Richard Clarke, a charter member, handles the problem in his book by limiting the 1998 indictment to a fleeting mention and assiduously avoiding any description of what the indictment actually says.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
God you're getting desperate.....quoting an indictment as some sort of proof.
The federal courts require that a jury be instructed that an indictment is not evidence. Indictment can be based on unlimited layers of hearsay and aren't even invalidated by perjurious testimony. Remember the old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
Carry on scraping the bottom of that barrel why don't you.
Hilarious!
Guess you missed Putin's interview today then.
" State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters he did not know anything about the information that Putin said Russia passed on. No such information was communicated from Russia through the State Department, he said.
"Everybody's scratching their heads," said one State Department official, who asked not to be named."
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460305
Of course these allegations might have been true....it's just Bush forgot to mention them in the build up to the war. After all, having all that reliable info from Chalabi to use, he probably wouldn't be bothered using evidence that Saddam was planning attacks on US soil. That seems likely to me....LOL.
The bottom of that barrel must be getting very shiny by now.
Keep it up.....I like a good laugh.
Seems Reuters is changing its' story now.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5457972&pageNumber=0
So have the State Department stoped scratching their heads? Reuters have dropped he reference....wow.....so have the State Department now said they've found the letter from the Kremlin? Had it fallen down the back of he mantelpiece? I must have missed that bit of the report.
Have you any answer as to why, if this is true, Bush "forgot" to use it in his desparate attempts to justify the war last year?
Post a Comment