Printable View
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp
-I can post the article once Weekly Standard locks it out-
The article's long, but, basically it details the significant, comprehensive information that the US had regarding a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
I'm guessing it wasn't released because the knowledge compromises intelligence agents who are still (or were still) operating. Now that it's been leaked, though, it's nice to have, eh?
The Weekly Standard is biased garbage blah blah here's a news article from The Guardian to refute all that blah blah I know the USA better than you because I go to New York and Los Angeles once a year blah blah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
:lol:
Nearly sig worthy
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...1115-0642.html
Is a Defenselink post acknowledging the leak of this material.
The Defenselink post says "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."
Read the memo, think about it having being sent to the Director of the CIA, Cheney, A SENATE PANEL INVESTIGATING THE MISUSE OF INTELLIGENCE, and then ask yourself whether this material is actually inaccurate - or not.
The Defenselink post is a classic leak coverup that anyone ought to be able to see through.
How is it that the article in the Weekly Standard is from a future date, though?
Hrm. Haven't finished yet, but it seems like most of this thing is, "According to source," "The source said," "The report indicated," etc. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of this document or anything. Hopefully we'll see more.
I think that's because using a phrase like "our top-secret spy Tom Mullah, currently deep undercover in Afghanistan" instead of "source" is considered to be in bad taste amongst US intelligence officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Heh. I'm well aware of that, but why not pull said top-secret agent out and let the world know the source? If they already have the info needed, shouldn't they just be able to get the sources away and then reveal it? Keep in mind I'm clueless. ;)
No, dude, the top-secret agent is already in too deep for that. Giving out his identity would make him a permanent target of the forces of evil. Plus, what the hell do we care about letting the world know the source - they can't say shit about what we do, anyways. Fuck them. We can kick their asses. Go America!Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Because, in all seriousness, it's not moral to think like that nor to act in that manner. Nor is it really mature, either. And maybe you're presenting the attitude as a joke, but the people who do feel that way ought to rethink their opinion of the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
As for the agent, I would think that signing up for the job kind of guarantees you to be in harm's way when it comes to the enemy. If I had the balls to be a spy, I would accept the responsibility that goes with it - i.e. getting killed for ferreting out a link between Iraq & Al Qaeda.
Trying to say the Weekly Standard isn't biased is like trying to say Mother Jones isn't biased. Would you take an article they printed seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
And yes, the Department of Defense's website is biased as well.