The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

What do US soldiers dying in Iraq have to do with finding bin Laden?

Good question. Too bad you didn't ask it before the war.

[theavonlady 2]

So in the US TBA set up The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service that cherry picked doubtful  rumors, innuendo, hearsay and down right lies from original intelligence source material to give an excuse for a needless war on Iraq.

So on and so forth.

Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay disagrees with you again:

Kay Blames Weak Intel in Iraq WMD Failure

Quote[/b] ]But Kay denied suggestions by Democrats that intelligence analysts felt pressured by the administration to shape intelligence to help President Bush make the case for war. He said he spoke to many analysts who prepared the intelligence and "not in a single case was the explanation that I was pressured to this."

Kay also said despite no evidence of weapons stockpiles, Iraqi documents, physical evidence and interviews with Iraqi scientists revealed that Iraq was engaged in weapons programs prohibited by U.N. resolutions.

You can make up all the cutsie stories you want but it just doesn't pass muster.

Not that Bush is brilliant or a saint but the main story here and back in 9/11 is that the US intelligence aparatus has failed miserably to do its job right and has lead to dire consequences.

I believe David Kay.

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

What you quote from Kay is hearsay, secondary source it is Kay says someone told him that...

I prefer primary source from the intelligence and millitary analysts in the white house to whit.http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article1.html

Could you clear something up for me. What job in the CIA or millitary intelligence does or did Kay hold? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I know it says he worked as a special adviser to CIA Director George Tenet but that is an external role. It would be nice if you could clear it up for us. Perhaps you can provide us with his biography.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

I prefer primary source from the intelligence and millitary analysts in the white house to whit.http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article1.html

What you prefer doesn't make it true or relevant or less opinionated than anyone else. It's clear which side of Karen Kwiatkowski's bread is buttered.

Browsing through that article by Karen Kwiatkowski, there are lots of things I agree with in general. But what part is relevant to the specific testimony of David Kay?

Quote[/b] ]Could you clear something up for me. What job in the CIA or millitary intelligence does or did Kay hold? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Looks like you have a problem then. Especially since it states in the article I linked to:

As special adviser to CIA Director George Tenet, Kay was chosen last year as the Iraq Survey Group leader......

Your linked article lists Karen Kwiatkowski as a former Pentagon insider. Like wow! How vague can you get!

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the U.S. Air Force. Her final posting was as an analyst at the Pentagon.

I think I gave you page three page of the article the links are in the top but here is the first page my profound apologies for not putting you on page 1

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

Her document is primary source that is to say things she did, saw and witnesed.

The story you quote from David Kay is secondary source something someone else witnessed (I am sure you played chinese whispers as a kid, like the rest of us, so you know why such evidence is of lesser value)

By the way I think you missed part of my pararagraph that you quoted like I said advising someone who works for the CIA is not the same as working for the CIA.

Anyway hope your having success finding David Kay's biography we all await your findings with great interest.

Kind Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

I´m happy to see former UNSCOM chief Kay on the paylist of CIA now.

Makes sense anyway:

Interview with Kay from 1999.

Pretty obviouse who´s side this man is on.

Interesting read though. Similarities wherever you look.

[walker 0]

I´m happy to see former UNSCOM chief Kay on the paylist of CIA now.

Makes sense anyway:

Interview with Kay from 1999.

Pretty obviouse who´s side this man is on.

Interesting read though. Similarities wherever you look.

Hi Balschoiw

Err? I think you may be making an assumption from Avon's post that may not be supported by the facts. To the best of my knowledge Dr. David Kay has never worked for the CIA.

Like I said before; working for someone who works for the CIA is not the same as working for the CIA.

Kind Regards Walker

[NavyEEL 0]

Walker

First of all let me say that I enjoy your posts. Although we have different views, you are always respectful and state your side in a clear, coherent, and mature manner. That makes this whole thing much more enjoyable.

Now, as for my last post... I certainly did not intend to give the impression that the intelligence community had failed for any reason. Far from it. Those guys out there are working their asses off. Sure they aren't perfect, and have made some mistakes, but who in the world hasn't? Their mistakes were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor the fact that bin Laden has not been captured yet. Obviously intelligence could always be better, but we must look at the situation realistically and realize that we can't know everything that is going on.

As far as catching bin Laden goes... Clinton could have easily made that happen, and probably should have. However, I won't dwell on what could have or should have been done, since it's over now and we have to make due with what we have got. The fact that we have not captured him yet is surprising, but at the same time it isn't. Consider how large the globe is, and how small one person is. Also consider how proficient bin Laden is at masking his identity. Though he may be an international terrorist, wanted across the globe, that does not mean he is stupid. We will find him eventually though, believe me.

I do not believe that the Operation: Iraqi Freedom was initiated to further Bush's reelection campaign. I will admit that catching Saddam Hussein and freeing a nation from his clutches won't hurt Bush's campaign at all, but I do not think that was his motive for starting the war. There is plenty of evidence (that can be found somewhere in the hundreds of pages of this topic... ) showing that Bush had plans prior to 9/11 to oust Saddam from power. And the War on Terrorism has not taken a back seat to the war in Iraq. We are still putting up quite a fight in Afghanistan in search of bin Laden, and we will continue to be in that fight for the long run... it just doesn't receive as much press as the War in Iraq, which is good for us. It allows us to do our job without the press releasing tons of information on our operations, and at the same time gives Al Qaeda a false sense of security, leading them to think that we have devoted our efforts entirely to Iraq, which is not the case. (Sneaky huh? )

Anyway, it is almost time for evening duties, so I had better go. I'm sure there will be plenty more posts for me to read and reply to whenever I get back... Peace out!

[denoir 0]

This is going to end up again with the CIA getting rogered again. They got unfairly accused for failing to predict the WTC attacks. They got unfairly accused of the Niger-Uranium lie of Bush's state of the union speech. They'll be unfairly accused of this as well.

There are plenty of indicators. For instance, when Kay started talking about no WMD, FOX ignored to report it. Now however when he blames the CIA and defends Bush, it's front page news.

Tenet would have been hung by his balls already, had he posessed a pair. Fortunately for Bush he's shown a remarkable willingness of getting rogered from behind and asking for seconds.

What we'll see is yet another mea culpa from Tenet and yet another statement from Bush how he has full confidence in Tenet.

NavyEEL:

Quote[/b] ]We are still putting up quite a fight in Afghanistan in search of bin Laden, and we will continue to be in that fight for the long run... it just doesn't receive as much press as the War in Iraq, which is good for us.  It allows us to do our job without the press releasing tons of information on our operations, and at the same time gives Al Qaeda a false sense of security, leading them to think that we have devoted our efforts entirely to Iraq, which is not the case.

I hope that this was sarcarsm on your part. Afghanistan has been more or less completely abandoned. There are about 9,000 US troops in the country and 16,000 NATO. They basically hold a part of Kabul and the airport there. The rest of the country is however in complete chaos, under the control of various war-lords. There are no plans of significantly increasing the US presence. On the contrary, the plan is to turn the whole thing over to NATO, and to completely withdraw from Afghanistan.

[bn880 5]

Yet I heard somewhere the US is preparing for larger operations in Afghanistan for springtime. To get em when the thaw out.

[ralphwiggum 6]

This is going to end up again with the CIA getting rogered again. They got unfairly accused for failing to predict the WTC attacks. They got unfairly accused of the Niger-Uranium lie of Bush's state of the union speech. They'll be unfairly accused of this as well.

duh. intelligence apparatus always gets pushed around, although they shouldn't be.

Quote[/b] ]Yet I heard somewhere the US is preparing for larger operations in Afghanistan for springtime. To get em when the thaw out.

yeah. nice idea to speak that to public . maybe it's disinformation?

anyways, as this thread reaches 300, i'm going to lock it and make Iraq thread part 3. comments about it are welcome.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]nice idea to speak that to public . maybe it's disinformation?

well its no secret ;)

U.S. Plans Spring Offensive in Afghanistan

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military is planning for a spring offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda guerrillas in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Wednesday. But they refused to comment on a report that the offensive might extend into bordering Pakistan.

The Chicago Tribune reported that an offensive was being planned that would involve thousands of American troops and which would go after refuges in Pakistan used by fugitive Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

EDIT: 4.arrogance

[ralphwiggum 6]

yes, i know. but saying "we are gonna start going after you in xxxxx date" is either 1)leak, 2)disinformation, 3)stupidity.

i don't know which yet though.

[Balschoiw 0]

All these US guys must have a third eye and some prophet genes:

We get Bin Laden this year !

Election gossip if you ask me.

[NavyEEL 0]

All these US guys must have a third eye and some prophet genes:

We get Bin Laden this year !

Election gossip if you ask me.

It's called remaining positive and optimistic. It's something you must do in war if you want to accomplish your objectives. If you don't think you can do something, then it won't happen.

Don't start trying to put the blame on US soldiers.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Don't start trying to put the blame on US soldiers.

Well I do that.Why ?

Because the US soldiers are dug in in Afghanistan. They don´t move an inch without heavy armoury, helos and gunships. They kill more civillians than taliban fighters and destroy the efforts of ISAF to rebuild the country and bring peace to the people. I do it yes and I have a reason for it.

ISAF troops have to pay the price the US cause.

There was no real interest in finding Bin Laden. That is on top of my list of critic.

Quote[/b] ]US/Pakistan Agree NOT to Capture Bin Laden

In a suprise move, the US and Pakistan agreed not to continue the Hunt for Osama Bin Laden widely blamed for the WTC Bombings.

Source: The New Yorker, 2003-08-25 00:00:00.000

Candidate: President George Bush

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the

US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in

Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian.

The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three

elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in

diameter in northern Pakistan.

The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an

American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better

than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence

agencies.

Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US

authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora

Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.

The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a

deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in

Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western

targets across the world.

"There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the

longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date

when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian.

The Americans, according to Ijaz, accepted the argument, not least

because of the shift in focus to the impending war in Iraq.

So the months that followed were centred on taking down not Bin Laden

but the "retaliation infrastructure" of al-Qaeda.

It meant that Musharraf frequently put out conflicting accounts of the

status of Bin Laden, while the US administration barely mentioned his

name.

In January last year Musharraf said he believed Bin Laden was probably

dead. A year later he said he was alive and moving either in Afghanistan

or perhaps in the Pakistani tribal areas.

"Yet Western diplomats say they believe the Pakistani authorities are

committed to the hunt for Bin Laden, although they admit that frequently

the official accounts of the timing and location of successful arrests

do not square with reality," the report stated.

"Pakistan must now end the charade and get Bin Laden... With so much of

the retaliation infrastructure gone or unsustainable, Bin Laden's

martyrdom does not pose nearly the threat it did a year ago," Ijaz told

the paper.

According to Ijaz, Bin Laden is hiding in the "northern tribal areas",

part of the long belt of seven deeply conservative tribal agencies which

stretch down the length of the mountain ranges that mark Pakistan's

winding border with Afghanistan.

The paper said that Ijaz, who recently visited Pakistan, believed that

Bin Laden was protected by an elaborate security cordon of three

concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a ring of tribesmen,

whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani troops or US Special

Forces.

Inside them is a tighter ring, around 19 km in diameter, made up of

tribal elders who would warn if the outer ring were breached.

At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself, protected by one or

two of his closest relatives and advisers.

Bin Laden has reportedly agreed with the elders' argument that he will

use no electronic communications but handwritten notes, and will move

only at night and between specified places within a limited radius.

Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told the daily: "We have

been getting reports of his presence across the border inside

Afghanistan and along the border area also.

"Not all reports have been credible at times. If others were credible,

we would certainly have been able to get near to him but certainly that

has not been the position so far."

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I

think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now

increasing."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll....w?msid=

144096

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1028044,00.html

Also, remember this story came out right after we invaded Afghanistan:

In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by

American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate

American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to

retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were

Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were

fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban's

staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war

against the Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier

defeats at Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and

Pul-i-Khumri, to the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of

retreat, was blocked and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz

offered safety from the bombs and a chance to negotiate painless

surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often do.

Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration

heatedly-and successfully-opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern

Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al

Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, "We're smoking them

out. They're running, and now we're going to bring them to justice."

Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports

appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern

Alliance officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into

Kunduz to evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani

officials refused to confirm the reports.

On November 16th, when journalists asked Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld about the reports of rescue aircraft, he was dismissive. "Well,

if we see them, we shoot them down," he said. Five days later, Rumsfeld

declared, "Any idea that those people should be let loose on any basis

at all to leave that country and to go bring terror to other countries

and destabilize other countries is unacceptable."

At a Pentagon news conference on Monday, November 26th, the day after

Kunduz fell, General Richard B. Myers, of the Air Force, who is the

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the reports. The

General did not directly answer the question but stated, "The runway

there is not usable. I mean, there are segments of it that are usable.

They're too short for your standard transport aircraft. So we're not

sure where the reports are coming from."

Pakistani officials also debunked the rescue reports, and continued to

insist, as they had throughout the Afghanistan war, that no Pakistani

military personnel were in the country. Anwar Mehmood, the government

spokesman, told newsmen at the time that reports of a Pakistani airlift

were "total rubbish. Hogwash."

In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking

military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a

series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush

Administration.

The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited

evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended

consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed

to join in the exodus. "Dirt got through the screen," a senior

intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld

did not respond to a request for comment.

[Balschoiw 0]

And here are the best quotes on Iraq and WMD´s. It´s a funny world we live in.

Quote[/b] ]US President George W Bush:

State of the Union address, 29 January 2003:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...

Statement to UN, 7 February 2003:

The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons.

State of the Union address, 21 January 2004:

We are seeking all the facts - already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programmes would continue to this day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Kay, chief US arms investigator in Iraq:

BBC interview, October 2003:

We've found a strong body of evidence with regard to the intentions of Saddam Hussein to continue to attempt to acquire WMD... No one doubts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction pre-1991. But 13 years of UN activity, including Dr Blix, was unable to confirm that the Iraqis had actually gotten rid of all those weapons as they claim.

US National Public Radio interview, 25 January 2004:

I don't think they [iraqi WMD] exist... I actually think the intelligence community owes the president [an apology], rather than the president owing the American people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair:

Foreword to UK Government assessment of Iraqi WMD, 24 September 2002:

What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.

Radio speech to the Iraqi people, 10 April 2003:

We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act.

Interview in the Observer newspaper, 25 January 2004:

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the intelligence was genuine... It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

News conference, 12 March 2003:

He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods.

Report to US Senate Armed Services Committee, July 2003:

The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11

[bn880 5]

All these US guys must have a third eye and some prophet genes:

We get Bin Laden this year !

Election gossip if you ask me.

It's called remaining positive and optimistic. It's something you must do in war if you want to accomplish your objectives. If you don't think you can do something, then it won't happen.

Don't start trying to put the blame on US soldiers.

Not really, actually some intel suggests they know _basically_ where OBL is, all they need is the authorization of certain key parties to go and run some spec ops there if not carpet bomb like in Afgh.

OBL is probably feeling very complacant now that the heat has been completely off where he is, when a major operation is launched to capture him he will likely be killed or captured.

EDIT: So yeah, they will be timing this kind of operation, agrees well with above document from Bals. If I were OBL I'd be getting my ass out of the area completely long before November... as in very soon.

[Balschoiw 0]

If that hasn´t bee clear enough. I don´t have problems with the US troops down there, but I have a problem with the way they are ordered to act or not act.

If they stand besides massacres and tell different afterwards or break basic human rights repeatedly they will not rise trust in the afghans. You know Afghanistan is a really hilly country and a guy who lives in a mountain village with no TV and strong islamistic ideals and believe will not react to the theater we play at Kabul. He´s not impressed. He sees foreign intruders and makes his decision. Don´t blame everything on Bin Laden or the talibans. For sure these guys have a bigger reputation among those people. It takes little genius to know that. But they are afghans and if they don´t want Kazai, the american dreamboy , run their country it´s their right ! It´s their land ! We don´t have to select governments for them. If I lived there and had grown up there with the soviets slamming in the door, warlords in power (today again !), drugbarons troops and such I would also stand up and fight the intruders. By tradition !

You can´t understand such. They had war from day 1 of their lives. And they see that villages are destroyed, people killed and the US are working together with the former warlords troops.

HELLO ! I would fight them of course !

There were several chnaces to get Osama. But at that time he was CIA friend. Now he´s the enemy and they don´t get him...for such a long time...come on...

If there was real interest to get this guy he could be caught by the minute. Everybody has his price.

[bn880 5]

Well yeah, I agree with all of the above...

[r1c0cH3T 0]

A post in the OFP.INFO FORUM by Lt. HuNTeR:

Quote[/b] ]

The reason the French opposed war:

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.

French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Source: Washington Times

[toadlife 3]

<s>I couldn't find that story on the Washignton times website. Do you have an actuall link?</s>

EDIT: I found it now.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm

Here is a similar story I found:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040128-094456-2550r.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Illegal oil sales are being probed

By Jamal Halaby

ASSOCIATED PRESS

AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan and Bulgaria announced Wednesday they are investigating charges of prominent citizens being part of a scam involving illicit sales of Iraqi oil in exchange for political support of Saddam Hussein while he was Iraq's leader.

And in Egypt, activist Mamdouh el-Sheik said he would ask his country's prosecutor-general to reopen an investigation on the involvement of Egyptians after reports about kickbacks.

An Iraqi newspaper, one of dozens of new dailies that have begun publishing in that country since Saddam's ouster last April, reported the bribes this week.

Members of the new provisional Iraqi Governing Council and opponents of Saddam have since distributed a list of the accused, based on documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

About 270 former Cabinet officials, legislators, political activists and journalists from more than 46 countries are on the list. They are suspected of profiting from Iraqi oil sales that Saddam offered them in exchange for cultivating political and popular support in their countries.

The list gives the names of 14 Amman-based firms and Jordanian citizens, including former government officials and legislators.

"The issue is under follow-up, and we are seeking to verify if some people have acquired [iraqi] graft," Mohammad al-Halaiqa, a deputy prime minister and minister of trade and industry, told Jordan's parliament in response to calls for an inquiry by deputy Saad Hayel Srour on the reported bribes. Mr. Srour demanded an immediate government investigation.

The Baghdad list also says the Bulgarian Socialist Party had sold 12 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov said the charge that his Socialist Party received money from Iraq was "ill-advised black humor," but he ordered an inquiry into the accusation, his office said Wednesday.

Eleven Egyptians or Egyptian companies are also on the Baghdad list, including the son of a former Egyptian president, businessmen, members of parliament and journalists.

In Iraq yesterday, a suicide bomber blew up a van disguised as an ambulance in front of a hotel. It sped through a security barrier in the heart of Baghdad, killing three persons — including a South African — and injuring 17.

Also, in the southern city of Nasiriyah, about 10,000 followers of a radical Shi'ite Muslim cleric forced the coalition-appointed provincial governor to vacate his office, insisting they would recognize only elected leaders.

"No to Israel. No to imperialism. No to America," the crowd chanted. Coalition officials said the governor left his office to defuse tension but did not resign.

The bombing at the Shaheen — a hotel frequented by Westerners — confirmed intelligence warnings that insurgents might use ambulances to evade security checks.

[denoir 0]

LMAO, the claims are by the al-Mada news paper. The same one that claim that Israeli agents keep sabotaging the water grid in Baghdad.

They are about as credible as the Weekly World News article saying that the French are hiding Saddam's nukes under the Eiffel tower...

[r1c0cH3T 0]

You can't just deny something, possibly the truth, just because a questionable news source brought it up. What if it was the truth? Would everyone just push it aside and say it is insufficent evidence?

[Badgerboy 0]

You can't just deny something, possibly the truth, just because a questionable news source brought it up. What if it was the truth? Would everyone just push it aside and say it is insufficent evidence?

No, but he's saying treat it with some scepticism.