Indicted terrorist Moussaoui had Berg's email password...

[sjshaw]

I didn't see this posted yet.

Get the tinfoil hats ready....

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-166984c.html

The coincedence "explained":

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast...ter/index.html

[sjshaw]

FARK.com is in meltdown mode...

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comm...?IDLink=953934

[j25352857]

why the hell would you give your email password or anything of the sort to just some guy sitting on the bus with you?

[EagleFan]

That's just odd. Some stranger on a bus asks to use yout laptop and you not only let him, but decide to give him your email and password. Not to kick dirt on the guy's grave, but either he was an idiot or there is a lot more to this story.

[ice4277]

"Nicholas Berg died for the sins of [President] George Bush and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld," his father, Michael, told reporters. "This administration did this."

Good job on using his son's death to make a political statement

[clintl]

So while some are trying to conjure up terrorists connections that the FBI seems convinced do not exist, and others are complaining about his parents reaction, has it been missed that the Bush Administration has been caught redhanded telling another lie?

The family produced an E-mail yesterday that appeared to confirm Nick Berg was in U.S. custody when he fatefully missed his plane out of Iraq in March - even though officials insist he was held by Iraqis.

"I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe," Beth Payne, the U.S. consular officer in Iraq, wrote to the family April 1.

The State Department told the Daily News Payne was misinformed, but didn't learn until April 7, a day after Berg was freed, that he'd been in Iraqi custody.

A police chief in Mosul, however, said Berg was never arrested by Iraqi authorities and Berg's own E-mails home said U.S. soldiers had been guarding him.

[ice4277]

Or, it could just as easily have been a logistical mistake.

[nfg22]

Yeah I bet that the Bush administration purposly let Nick out to die. Just to ya know make the presidential race easier for them. and the woman that sent the letter, is she even part if the administratio or the military?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by nfg22

Yeah I bet that the Bush administration purposly let Nick out to die. Just to ya know make the presidential race easier for them. and the woman that sent the letter, is she even part if the administratio or the military?

Payne is obviously a State Department employee in Iraq. The US Consulate is a State Department diplomatic office. Plus, she does not appear to be the one who is lying, so what's your point?

I am not saying that the US tried to set up Nick Berg (I don't believe that is the case), just that they've been caught lying about the circumstances that led to him missing his flight out of Iraq.

[nfg22]

Lying is the wrong word, they did not have accurate information and then they corrected what they said earlier.

[clintl]

No, lying IS the correct word. They had accurate information to start with, relayed that to the family, and the fact that it was accurate is corroborated by other documentation (i.e. Berg's personal e-mails). It is only after his death, and the subsequent questioning by the family about the US role in detaining Berg, that the US government changed its story to place blame on the Iraqis and try to cover their asses.

Look at the chain of events:

Berg detained.
Berg sends e-mails saying he is being detained and guarded by US troops.
Payne confirms that Berg is being held by US troops.
Berg released, and captured by terrorists.
Berg executed.
State Department claims that Iraqis, not US, detained and held Berg.
Iraqis deny holding him.
Berg family releases e-mails from multiple independent sources corroborating the assertions that Berg was held by US troops, not Iraqi police.

[nfg22]

good work watson you have caught the government red handed with all these truthful accusations.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

No, lying IS the correct word. They had accurate information to start with, relayed that to the family, and the fact that it was accurate is corroborated by other documentation (i.e. Berg's personal e-mails). It is only after his death, and the subsequent questioning by the family about the US role in detaining Berg, that the US government changed its story to place blame on the Iraqis and try to cover their asses.

Look at the chain of events:

Berg detained.
Berg sends e-mails saying he is being detained and guarded by US troops.
Payne confirms that Berg is being held by US troops.
Berg released, and captured by terrorists.
Berg executed.
State Department claims that Iraqis, not US, detained and held Berg.
Iraqis deny holding him.
Berg family releases e-mails from multiple independent sources corroborating the assertions that Berg was held by US troops, not Iraqi police.

I wished you were this attentive and had this much faith in second-hand sources in 1996. Or perhaps I missed the point here?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

No, lying IS the correct word.

C'mon guys, didnt anybody read "Lies! All Lies! And the Lying Liars that tell them..." by Michael Moore besides me and clintl????

[molson]

I don't understand what the U.S. has to hide here. They can't be held responsible for every civilian that voluntarily enters Iraq for reasons known only to themselves. Who cares whether the U.S. held him at some point or not? I would imagine someone running around working on communication towers without any sort of government contract certainly falls under the realm of "suspicious activities". Unless I'm mistaken, U.S. citizen travel into Iraq without such a government contract or journalism crudentials is illegal - they could have detained him as long as they wanted.

[Ragone]

Its a sad and tragic loss of life for sure.. but my real question is... What the hell was he doing over there in the first place? turning down military guard.. He never should have been in the situation to begin with..

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I wished you were this attentive and had this much faith in second-hand sources in 1996. Or perhaps I missed the point here?

E-mails from those directly involved are first-hand sources. I'm not sure what you're referring to that happened in 1996, maybe you can be a little clearer?

Originally Posted by molson

I don't understand what the U.S. has to hide here. They can't be held responsible for every civilian that voluntarily enters Iraq for reasons known only to themselves. Who cares whether the U.S. held him at some point or not?

As far as whether the US military had the right to detain him, not what I'm criticizing them for. They certainly have the right to detain people they regard as security risks. I'm criticizing for lying about it after things went wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

E-mails from those directly involved are first-hand sources. I'm not sure what you're referring to that happened in 1996, maybe you can be a little clearer?



As far as whether the US military had the right to detain him, not what I'm criticizing them for. They certainly have the right to detain people they regard as security risks. I'm criticizing for lying about it after things went wrong.

Those Lying Liars! Down with Bush! Rock the Vote! Michael Moore Rules! Bring back Stalin!!! [Howard Dean]YEEEEAAAHHHH!!!![/Howard Dean]

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by clintl

... I'm criticizing for lying about it after things went wrong.

I think you have to HAVE the facts before you can lie about them. I mean if Beth Payne copied the president on her email to his family, then you have a point. Otherwise you have unequivocally proven that a member of the state department knew the Government had detained Berg in Iraq, and that some Bush administration source said otherwise. Just because you say something that isn't actually correct, doesn't mean you are lying. Have you ever been wrong before? How about mistaken?

[clintl]

That argument would have more validity if the Administration had corrected itself after being presented with Payne's e-mail and doing a little investigation. What they did instead was try to discredit Payne's e-mail, and when further presented with Berg's corroborating e-mails, they seem to have decided to just ignore the whole matter. They have yet to admit they were wrong. So I'm sticking to considering a lie.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by clintl

That argument would have more validity if the Administration had corrected itself after being presented with Payne's e-mail and doing a little investigation. What they did instead was try to discredit Payne's e-mail, and when further presented with Berg's corroborating e-mails, they seem to have decided to just ignore the whole matter. They have yet to admit they were wrong. So I'm sticking to considering a lie.

OK by me. I give the administration more credit than that. It is the failure to admit error that gets me riled up about the Bush Administration. I mean have they really come out and said they were going to even reevaluate how intelligence is weighted in the aftermath of Iraq? Colin Powell has said the intel was wrong, but has anyone really mentioned doing anything about it?

By the way...what has the administration done to discredit the email? I read that the State Department had initially said that Payne was mistaken or had sent the email in error. Are you saying that was the administration's doing?

[sjshaw]

You guys are totally missing the point. It's fairly obvious that this guy was anything but "a USA civilian" in Iraq. This guy was either a spook, Mossad agent, or A-Q sympathizer/member.

[clintl]

Shaw, that may well be the case, and might explain the mystifying way the controversy about who detained Berg has been handled.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

Shaw, that may well be the case, and might explain the mystifying way the controversy about who detained Berg has been handled.

Then why the instant criticism?

Would you have been very critical of FDR for Operation Fortitude if he was your political enemy? Diplomacy is the civilized act of lying, deceiving and misinformation - esp. when one has enemies.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by nfg22

Lying is the wrong word, they did not have accurate information and then they corrected what they said earlier.

The Bush administration seems to have inaccurate information on a lot of things, such as WMDs and the Iraq-Osama connection

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

The Bush administration seems to have inaccurate information on a lot of things, such as WMDs and the Iraq-Osama connection

Correction. The Bush administration rely on intelligence that seems to have inaccurate information on a lot of things, such as WMDs and the Iraq-Osama connection.

...and I wonder why intelligence now has been faulty? I certainly remember when it was perfect.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Correction. The Bush administration rely on intelligence that seems to have inaccurate information on a lot of things, such as WMDs and the Iraq-Osama connection.

...and I wonder why intelligence now has been faulty? I certainly remember when it was perfect.

Ummm they make their decisions on the information that they have, it is inaccurate information regardless of where it comes from.

No one is saying intelligence has ever been perfect, but this administration has selectively taken the intel that they want to listen to and run with it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Ummm they make their decisions on the information that they have, it is inaccurate information regardless of where it comes from.

No one is saying intelligence has ever been perfect, but this administration has selectively taken the intel that they want to listen to and run with it.

I agree, except for the "this" administration part. All administrations have. It's just everyone is focused on the current one, until the next one comes along.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I agree, except for the "this" administration part. All administrations have. It's just everyone is focused on the current one, until the next one comes along.

Not true. Example A - The fascination with the Clintons.

I guess I should clarify, this administration has been burned more than others by relying on faulty intel.

[lonewolf]

What kind of hip new bus to have wi-fi internet in '99, sending e-mail via Berg's laptop. It doesn't exactly say that in the cnn article, but why in the hell else would the guy have a need for the password at that particular time. Naive it was to give out would be an understatement. Did Berg print him out his smtp and pop servers for further assistance to this so-called acquaintance..

[Ragone]

I see sjshaw hit the penalty box.. would that be because of a set of non safe work links in this thread?

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Ragone

I see sjshaw hit the penalty box.. would that be because of a set of non safe work links in this thread?

No.