# ABC making things hard for MT!!!!!!!!!!!!!



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ira ... 490&page=2


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Nice work..


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

beautiful


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Proven MT 100% WRONG again!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. *The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda*


That is the last line of the article.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Gee guys, that really IS the bottom line, isn't it? :wink: 
Ron, maybe you should check to make sure your ammo is dry before shooting at a tiger. :lol: Burl


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda


This my friend is the spin from ABC, if you go to the first page of the report you will see this.

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting - on November 13, 1995 - terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq 
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan. 
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> This my friend is the spin from ABC, if you go to the first page of the report you will see this.


Wait... so the liberal media is spinning their own spin? What a joke.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I think that editor's note applied to that one single document, not the entire batch of documents researched, and was placed there to deminish the rest of the article.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Exactly GO.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Since the entire report was epilogued by that statement, it destroyed whatever credibility it may have put to the Iraqi / Al Qaeda link. If that's what it was meant to do, it worked. So quote something else that supports your point of view guys, this doesn't. If you think it does, you're just as spun by the spin as you say MT is. Burl


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

There's enough evidence already posted, he can believe whatever he wants.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Burl, that's the whole point. You print what is being accepted by some or many as a possible and credible link between the two and then try to destroy it with a 4 line editors note, which is just that....... a editors note with nothing to disprove the information. Does it work? Sure it does for those that can't see what the real objective of the editors published print was. One thing the editor can't discredit no matter how hard he/she tries and that is nothing..... again, that is nothing took place in Iraq during Saddams rule that Saddam didn't know about and if he knew about it, he approved of it.

No wet powder there and the ***** cat is still shot.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Oh I thought some of you nay sayers would see that little line, that is why I waited to post this up now! I had seen both pieces earlier and figured this would fit in well !

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU MARCH 23, 2006 13:11:09 ET XXXXX

ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED

**Exclusive**

A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

"If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained.

The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.

A friend of Green's at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News."

Developing...

See it is this type of thinking and position by people in their reporting that makes the editors opinion line devoid of any credibility. It makes the documents much, much, more credible when all of these things are put in proper perspective! Burl and MT you really need to pay attention to what is going on, there is a world happening and you guys are missing it!!!!!!!!! :rollin:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Oh I thought some of you nay sayers would see that little line, that is why I waited to post this up now! I had seen both pieces earlier and figured this would fit in well !
> 
> XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU MARCH 23, 2006 13:11:09 ET XXXXX
> 
> ...


AMEN!!! :beer:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Oh man this goof just slipped a big one. Yep there's no media bias at all.
 It'll be interesting to see how the libs try and spin this one.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I thought some of you nay sayers would see that little line, that is why I waited to post this up now! I had seen both pieces earlier and figured this would fit in well !
> ...


Nice Spin! How can anyone believe the liberal media is beyond me!

:beer:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Seems we repeatedly see posts from MT using what she "correctly" says are "MainStream Media" links ... Often links to MSNBC ...

Some how I have to keep remnding myself that "Main Stream Media" has little to do with impartiality ... this John Green episode is one sterling example

However I don't tend to take much homage in what I read ... I try to take stock in the realities I see around me ... "The Big Picture" doesn't change much because of someone's "Spin"


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

So how do you know whether or not I am a "naysayer" by my response? I stated no opinion other that the editors comment destroyed the report's credibility. It did. By posting the rest of the story, you showed that to be true. All you drew out is someone who recognizes that MT regularly puts more effort, research and intelligent thought (whether or not you agree with them) than so very many of those on this forum who contribute very little more than a pat on the back or :beer: or :eyeroll: or sometimes even uke: and even, AMEN!. Yeah, you certainly got me to recognize that half truths often have the appearance of facts. I guess when you are determined to hurt someone, any way you do it is okay. Huh?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> the editors comment destroyed the report's credibility. It did


I disagree. That certainly is the intent of the editor but even he knows only those who cannot see through the haze will be pulled into his camp. To the rest, only the editors credibility is destroyed. MT puts no thought what so ever into his posts but merely parrots what he constantly and feverishly searches and finds on the Internet in his continuos goal to be opposite of anything posted by others. Intelligent thought............... I don't think so.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I wonder if MT will put this latest development in his report for his gov. class.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

He/she (MT) is staying away from this thread, hahahahaha


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I'm sure Dan Blather will be excluded also.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

MT = Much Talk


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I disagree. That certainly is the intent of the editor but even he knows only those who cannot see through the haze will be pulled into his camp. To the rest, only the editors credibility is destroyed. MT puts no thought what so ever into his posts but merely parrots what he constantly and feverishly searches and finds on the Internet in his continuos goal to be opposite of anything posted by others. Intelligent thought............... I don't think so.


I see, so because the editor specifically pointed out that the document does not show proof of collaboration between Saddam and Osama this means that he is a liberal who is trying to throw the public off from the true facts. Is it not more likely that it is just an editor who is doing his job, editing, and ensuring that the reader doesn't take a document for more than it is worth?

The evidence of bias of the executive means absolutely nothing. He does not edit the news, he does not tell the writers how to write the news or the editors how to edit the news. You fellows will really latch onto anything to save yourself from the sinking ship that is this war. Had this executive had some sort of bias that he forced on his writers do you really think that the story would have been posted at all?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Burly1 you have missed the point of this little exercise. I like many take the time and effort to educate ourselves on issues. I do not walk lock step with a policy or position based on who has put it forth. The info I posted on the Iraqi documents have been all over the news sources the last week. I even took some time and looked at the link provided to the documents.

The piece on the Email was even talked about by the radio news services yesterday. I took the posting from Drudge because it was small and not filled with hyperbole.

I have no issue with a person not liking a sitting Pres, or our countries policy on an issue. It creates dialog and should cause people to think about things from both points of view. Having a different point of view does not always make one right or wrong. It should mean you have arrived at it from a different path.

MT is young, and I hope that getting set up and pinched like he did on this will encourage him to look at all info instead of only those that will support his current belief. I challenged him to do this a year ago. Look at a different path and analyze the info out there. I told him he would end up taking a different path in life of which he would be better off.

That path would be of independent thinking which will lend to him a asset in life that most likely will lead to greater success and fulfillment. It was not to take the path of Right Wing or Left Wing and follow it blindly. The earlier in life one learns that, the better ones life usually is.

In regards to Iraq, pre war, Saddam was a active threat and supporter of people and groups intent upon causing harm to the US. Given the info that the public has, it is clear that the Pres moved to invade based upon the belief that he controlled WMD's and would use them or provide them to people who would. Had 9/11 not happened it is likely that UN efforts would have been allowed to continue, but the risk to the citizens of the US from that possibility needed to be taken away!

He did not lie, he did make a decision based on information we have found since to be not as accurate as we all would hope Intel to be! The problem now is we are there. In my opinion we need to do what we can to allow this country to become a democratic nation, where its leaders are elected by the people and represented by the people. I am not of the belief that it will mirror our nation in religious freedoms, or even that it will have all the civil rights we have. But as long as the people can elect representation and have the ability to rise economically that country will more likely not be a threat to world peace or to our nation.

Case in point is France, we may not see eye to eye with them on a lot of things, but we do not have to fear that the French PM will order a nuke be sent against us. Nor do we need to fear that from Kuwait,Jordon,UAE, Germany, etc....

We do face that possibility from countries where the people do not have the ability to affect policy! China,N Korea, Iran, Syria and yes even Cuba!!!!!

I am not advocating invading and over throwing all of these countries, but one cannot ignore them. The sitting Pres reflects a persona to the world. GW has sent a message that the US will not sit back and take sucker punches without retaliation. Clinton sent the message that we where weak willed! Compassion in many of these nations is viewed as weakness and makes one vulnerable to attack. Our compassion as a nation is used against us more than many can understand.

So if this thread causes naysayers to seek out more info and broadens there knowledge and causes them to pause and think. It has done what I intended it to do!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Burly1 you have missed the point of this little exercise. I like many take the time and effort to educate ourselves on issues. I do not walk lock step with a policy or position based on who has put it forth. The info I posted on the Iraqi documents have been all over the news sources the last week. I even took some time and looked at the link provided to the documents.
> 
> The piece on the Email was even talked about by the radio news services yesterday. I took the posting from Drudge because it was small and not filled with hyperbole.
> 
> ...


AMEN!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> He does not edit the news


,

When a editor writes something to the effect that the opinions expressed are not necessarily the views of said paper or what ever, then he is being a editor. When he writes that the above report or column is not true or is false, then he has just edited the news and put his own slat on the matter. The editors goal was very transparent, he wanted to dispute the article and he should have written a separate article of his own.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> The evidence of bias of the executive means absolutely nothing. He does not edit the news, he does not tell the writers how to write the news or the editors how to edit the news. You fellows will really latch onto anything to save yourself from the sinking ship that is this war. Had this executive had some sort of bias that he forced on his writers do you really think that the story would have been posted at all?


There's your spin folks. It'll be interesting to see how closely the other liberal media outlets spin this. Are you going to include this in your report MT?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> When he writes that the above report or column is not true or is false, then he has just edited the news and put his own slat on the matter.


He didn't say that the article was true or false, he simply stated that the information proved one thing, and not another. It is amazing what you will force yourself to believe to justify this war.



> I am not advocating invading and over throwing all of these countries, but one cannot ignore them. The sitting Pres reflects a persona to the world. GW has sent a message that the US will not sit back and take sucker punches without retaliation.


We took no sucker punches from Iraq in Bush's administration. Bush has sent the message that the United States acts on impulse and recklessly. We have made the world more afraid and spiteful towards us.



> Compassion in many of these nations is viewed as weakness and makes one vulnerable to attack. Our compassion as a nation is used against us more than many can understand.


Compassion is viewed as weakness? So they aren't much better than wolves eh? Consider that "compassion", such as removing Saddam causes us to step on other peoples' toes. We are better off keeping our hands out of their buisness.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Ron, I find very little in your last post that goes against what I percieve as being the case in the Iraq war. I simply disagree with the way you got there. If snares are your game, you got your rabbit. But why? You last post stated everything that is truly relevant, without weaving an elaborate web to get there. I really see the post's title as a personal attack and that, to me at least, seems to contradict the rules of good conduct on this forum. The fact that you and many others disagree with MT is well documented. Stating irrefutable facts will do more to support your talking points than what you have done here. All you have accomplished here is to showcase the fact of media spin and bias. If you get your information from the media, all of it, not just TV and radio, the conservative viewpoint must be seen as containing no more unbiased truth than the liberal. If you think you're going to make MT go away with this type of behavior, you're wrong. He will leave when he gets bored, or when the one line parrots cause him to laugh so much that he spills RedBull on his CPU. I'm still laughing, though, because this 17 year old has got all you guys wound so tight, you're about to explode. Lighten up, Burl


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Burl,

I posted this on the wrong thread.

Oh and Burl I love all those little icons.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

The one line wonder aka zogman

And I have read enough of MT to beleive he is not 17 and there is a whole gagel of him that post under his name. It's also a complete waste of time to answer him. Because he doesn't read it and just keep's spinning :huh: :lost:  :dead: :idiot: :bop: :lame: :justanangel: :rollin: :thumb: :laugh:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Zoggy I'm flattered. You overestimate me, you really really overestimate me!


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Honestly Zogman,
I think much more of you than that. For instance, I know that you are capable of original thought. Others......who shall remain nameless.........not so much.
Burl


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> Are you going to include this in your report MT?


----------

