| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Stuart |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 03:23:56
There's a surprise.... man can anyone tell me the difference between USA invading Iraq this time around, and Iraq invading Kuwait back in 1991??? Don't tell me, Iraq posed a threat to world stability with WMD (which haven't been found). Well, the US have a shitload of WMD, which they have used repeatedly since Vietnam.... why are they allowed to get away with it??
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair etc all need to be brought to justice!
Below is the story, if you haven't already read or heard it on the news:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Contrary to the Bush administration's prewar rhetoric, investigators have found no evidence Iraq aided al Qaeda attempts to strike the United States, a commission probing the September 11, 2001, attacks says.
The report by staff of the government-established commission said on Wednesday al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.
Comments by U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney this week kept alive the idea of an Iraqi link to al Qaeda, which is blamed for the September 11 attacks.
However, the staff report said, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan," it added.
FBI and CIA counterterrorism officials testifying at the hearing said they agreed with the report's conclusion, and a bipartisan group of former diplomats accused the administration of a "cynical campaign" to build support for war by linking Saddam with the September 11 attacks.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry and other congressional Democrats seized on the commission report as part of their campaign to unseat the president in November.
"The administration misled America," Kerry said. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that ... we didn't have the types of terrorist links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."
The report was issued at the start of the commission's final two days of public hearings into the hijacked-plane attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. The hearings were called to find out how the United States failed to prevent the attacks and what it can do now to improve security.
The report stood in contrast to Bush administration prewar attempts to suggest an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bush had said before the war Iraq and al Qaeda shared a "common enemy" -- the United States, and Cheney and other officials had suggested Iraq might have played a direct role in the September 11 attacks. Bush acknowledged after the war that there was no evidence of such a role.
But Cheney this week said that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda.
Bush then cited the presence in Iraq of Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "the best evidence" of an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda.
AL QAEDA TRYING TO STRIKE U.S.
In a staff report entitled "Overview of the Enemy," the commission said al Qaeda had changed drastically and become decentralized since September 11, but still helped regional networks and remained "extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks."
Al Qaeda's ability to conduct an anthrax attack was one of the most immediate threats, it said.
A second staff report outlined the planning the September 11 plot. It said the plotters had initially proposed hijacking 10 planes and attacking targets on the east and west coasts of the United States. Other plans included hijacking planes flying from Southeast Asia and exploding them in mid-air, or flying them into U.S. targets in Japan, Singapore or Korea.
These plans were ditched as overly ambitious. The staff report said the September 11 date was not chosen until about three weeks before the attacks.
The attacks cost between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, the commission estimated. The U.S. government has been unable to determine the attackers' source of money, it said.
While it found no convincing evidence of government financial support, the panel said Saudi Arabia provided "fertile fund-raising ground" for al Qaeda.
The second panel report said there was no evidence Princess Haifa al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan, had contributed any funds to the conspiracy. The FBI has examined whether some of her charitable donations ended up with the hijackers.
The commission will hold its final day of hearings on Thursday, focusing on crisis management by civilian and military aviation officials. The panel is due to present its final report at the end of July.
Just the good ole boys, never meaning no harm,
that all you ever saw
been in trouble with the law,
since the day they were born |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 09:57:21
Check out this website,
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=17162 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 09:59:47
June 21, 2004
http://www.buzzmachine.com/
The runaway 9/11 Commission
[snip]
And then the Commision itself had to backtrack and conceded that, well there were ties indeed. Bob Kerrey (see breakfast club post below) says that there were links, "no question." His No. 2, Lee Hamilton, says the Commission does not disagree with Cheney when he says there are connections and he even backs away from saying there was "no credible evidence" of a 9/11 link to saying that it was "not proven one way or the other," Safire reports.
But by then, the headline damage was done. It looks to the world like another hammer with which to beat up American and its President over the Iraq war. But it's a rotten red herring. [snip]
Turns out that the Commission members "do not get involved in staff reports," Kerrey said yesterday. So this report did not come from the "Commission." It is shocking that the commission would allow this to happen. It is another indication of the Commission's incompetence and the politicization of 9/11 it has allowed and fostered.
|
| Mroocore |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 09:22:35
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
somewhere FDR is glad that he did not have to prove a link between The Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany to the American people.
The Three-Power Pact that Germany, Italy, and Japan all signed would have made that case pretty easy.
my point exactly.
in both cases, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, everybody knew who was responsible.
with or without an 'Iraq Link' and the Three-Power Pact we still know who is/was responsible, regarding Saddam if nothing else Iraq conspired.
No, it is not your point!! Don't act like what we're saying in any way is the same.
In the case of WWII, we knew who the Axis were. They signed an agreement; they weren't secret about their association.
In this case, we absolutely do not know that Iraq is responsible or conspired in the 9/11. In fact, the bipartisan committee has reported that they found NO evidence of Iraq and bin Laden cooperating. To quote chimpy the president, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida".
it was my point and it was simple.
it is my fault that i did not explain it this way earlier.
in 1941 after Pearl Harbor America(from all that i know and that includes speaking w/ veterans of WWII and people who lived through it) was supportive of all FDR's military decisions throughout WWII.
in 2001 after 9/11 America was mainly supportive of dubya's decisions and that continued for quite sometime.
untill the colonizers screwed all of it.
the Three Power-Power Pact elimanated any need to prove a link.
dubya has no form of pact in TWAT, although that does not mean that the many terrorist organizations that exist do not conspire.
i believe that they do.
i have tried to divorce my feelings towards the current adminastration in regards to TWAT.
imo, that is all i have 'cause i now believe nothing, it is a very interesting juxtaposition.
that was all.
nothing more or less.
i was not trying to compare TWAT, which by the way is an excellent acronym that i had not heard of until this thread thanks This_Guy, to WWII in anyway.
i was trying to compare America's past and present reactions towards the former and current president's decisions during these two time periods.
 PENGU LIES |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 09:20:45
Dave, I think these articles address your first question. In regard to the second question, my simple answer is that they would cooperate, from the common enemy argument especially given Bedouin history, at least as I crudely understand it.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/18/92642.shtml
Friday, June 18, 2004 9:21 a.m. EDT
9/11 Chair Hamilton Slams Media Distortions
Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al-Qaida, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions.
"The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq. Hamilton's comments followed a deluge of mainstream reports falsely claiming that the 9/11 Commission had discredited the Bush administration's claim of longstanding links between Baghdad and bin Laden.
But the Indiana Democrat said the press accounts were flat-out wrong.
"There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report.
"There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."
Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts."
http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/June2004_3.html#jrm2306
Newsmax is a partisan news organization, but they are right on this question, and the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, and all the rest of the "mainstream" news organizations are wrong. Is it not obvious that they, too, are partisan?
This failure of the very expensive journalists at such news organizations to get the basic facts right on this part of the Commission report reminds me of a similar failure on David Kay's interim report on the search for Saddam's WMDs. And Kay reacted in the same way as Hamilton did; he came out the next day and said the accounts were wrong. But even now you still see news stories that echo the first, incorrect descriptions of Kay's findings — and do not mention Kay's disagreement. Hamilton's objection to these distorted news accounts will, I predict, be buried, too.
This continuing massive failure of our "mainstream" news organizations to get the basic facts right is one of the most serious problems we have in the war on terror. In the long term, their declining share of the audience may bring them back to a less ideological, more factual, approach to the news. In the short term, I plan to do my small part by correcting them when they err.
- 8:17 AM, 18 June 2004
|
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 15:58:12
Two questions Erebus:
* why do you think the commission 'ignored' the evidence in that NYT article? (Would it not have been available..or maybe it's been disputed in the report, which the author may not have read..?)
* do you think it's really likely that Saddam would want to work with/aid bin Laden? They may have a common enemy, but other than that it's my understanding that they shared little else of significance..
And i, for one, appreciate your developments 'from the other side', tho i usually disagree. =)
 Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 16:18:24
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by The King Of Karaoke
US baffled over Rusia's remarks.
Recall no such information
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460304
The key to interpreting this is the realization that the State Department careerists have from the outset opposed, subverted, and sabotaged most of Bush's efforts.
So, because of that unsupported reason the CIA or whoever didn't tell the State Department? Sounds like an ineffective administration.
Support, huh. No links right now, but I've been reading about it, yes, at conservative sites, for a couple years. Diplomatic holdovers nobody can get rid of who resist doing the administration's bidding. That said, I was probably too hasty with my "reason" in that it could be read to mean that the State Dept is lying here to undercut Bush. Rather, it would seem your take is more likely: that, for the reason I gave, the CIA wouldn't trust State with crucial info. Yes, it is ineffective, but I wouldn't blame Bush. Instead the blame should go to public "servants" who are deliberately working against the entity whose policies they are paid to implement. |
| fudd |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 15:53:54
quote:
Originally posted by ramona
Well, you said ripping the country apart and killing innocents. While I would not say soldiers are innocent civilians, they are sure to die for little or no point. And I think the country being polarized is akin to it being "ripped apart". I don't think anything particularly good is happening for anyone with our current government. And I am sure to be flamed for that, but I don't really care.
I was talking about what has happened to Iraq.
|
| darwin |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 15:31:36
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by The King Of Karaoke
US baffled over Rusia's remarks.
Recall no such information
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460304
The key to interpreting this is the realization that the State Department careerists have from the outset opposed, subverted, and sabotaged most of Bush's efforts.
So, because of that unsupported reason the CIA or whoever didn't tell the State Department? Sounds like an ineffective administration. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 14:53:18
quote:
Originally posted by The King Of Karaoke
US baffled over Rusia's remarks.
Recall no such information
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460304
The key to interpreting this is the realization that the State Department careerists have from the outset opposed, subverted, and sabotaged most of Bush's efforts. |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 14:29:51
US baffled over Rusia's remarks.
Recall no such information
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460304
------------------------------------
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." : Mark Twain. The Mysterious Stranger 1916.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 14:19:42
quote:
Originally posted by Stuart
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23192.htm
O.K. my right wing friend, how about CIA meeting with Bin Laden on various occasions in the past.... does that mean that the US should invade itself. Why do you always back Bush, and not once question some of the ridiculous things that the US Government is doing?? Can't you see that their actions are criminal??
I admit to not being overly concerned with older associations, given the rapidity with which events develop. The context has changed so different reactions are warranted. Actually, I don't support Bush across the board, but I do like to help render the forum more "fair & balanced" (besides, isn't this more fun than you folks just agreeing with one another?). It's just that I think he and the right are correct, in general, in regard to national, and international, security. Bush is the lesser of the evils, the greater deriving from the naivete of the US Dems. I do question much of the administration does but usually restrict my posts to addressing what I deem to be excesses from other posters, who also usually remain somewhat monotone in their political allegiances. But, as an example of criticism of the administration, I'm appalled that they continue to fuel the perception that the Halliburton-Cheney connection involves impropriety and/or illegality. I assume that almost all politicians are criminals, but I do not think Bush stole the election or that he criminally took us into Iraq or that coalition troops are guilty of criminal intent in Iraq (although there seems to have been negligence in terms of prison oversight). Nor do I think the war is primarily about oil. Yes, the US government does many ridiculous things but I think it compares favorably to the governments of Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, ... and most especially to the United "Oil-for-Food" Nations. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 13:56:06
My point is that a lot of claims were made about WMD and the threat that Iraq posed to the US (Powell at UN come to mind) and most of those claims have now been shown to be false. Why is another claim from a different intelligence agency very convincing when previous claims have been false? I can think of one reason, the Russians didn't have as much incentive as the Bush administration did to cook the intelligence to fit their needs. But, now that Saddam is gone and all of Russia's past connections and contracts with Iraq are also gone, maybe the Russians have some reason to support Bush (they did just meet in Georgia). |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 13:42:29
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
http://polipundit.com/2004_06_13_polipundit_archive.html#108756365440450560
[begin article]
Russia Warned U.S. of Saddam's Planned Terrorist Attacks
I heard a reference to this story on Fox this morning and then got the link from Power Line. Here is the meat of the story:
Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq 's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
Why is this coming out now? If Bush/Cheney really believed this wouldn't they have used it to justify their war? And, why do we believe that Russian Intelligence is any better than our apparently failed Intelligence?
Don't know why now and not earlier. Perhaps secrecy was a condition of receiving the intelligence. I do think the administration made early reference to corroborative intelligence from unidentified sources. The Russians were closer to the situation, to include official and unofficial presences in Iraq. Could be that Russian intelligence was no better than ours, but don't we have to go with what we've got with allowance for degree of reliability. Not sure I understand the thrust of your last point. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 13:06:48
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
http://polipundit.com/2004_06_13_polipundit_archive.html#108756365440450560
[begin article]
Russia Warned U.S. of Saddam's Planned Terrorist Attacks
I heard a reference to this story on Fox this morning and then got the link from Power Line. Here is the meat of the story:
Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq 's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
Why is this coming out now? If Bush/Cheney really believed this wouldn't they have used it to justify their war? And, why do we believe that Russian Intelligence is any better than our apparently failed Intelligence? |
| ramona |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:15:52
There is an email that went around with quotes from Bush that is very funny. I will try to dig it up.
_____________________________________________________________________
I replace you easily, replace pathetically,
I flirt with any flighty thing that falls my way.
But how I needed you. When I needed you.
Lets not forget we are so strong... so bloody strong. |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:11:39
so, did anybody catch the daily show last night?
some funny shit! i liked the quote from bush: "the reason i said i believed there was a connection between al quaeda and iraq is because there is a connection between al quaeda and iraq"
didn't we get enough of these "because i said so" answers as children?
also, that interview with don king was frickin' hilarious!
"Here today, Guano tomorrow" |
| ramona |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:09:15
Well, you said ripping the country apart and killing innocents. While I would not say soldiers are innocent civilians, they are sure to die for little or no point. And I think the country being polarized is akin to it being "ripped apart". I don't think anything particularly good is happening for anyone with our current government. And I am sure to be flamed for that, but I don't really care.
_____________________________________________________________________
I replace you easily, replace pathetically,
I flirt with any flighty thing that falls my way.
But how I needed you. When I needed you.
Lets not forget we are so strong... so bloody strong. |
| fudd |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 10:39:20
quote:
Originally posted by ramona
quote:
Originally posted by fudd
quote:
Originally posted by ramona
I can't believe anyone would be surprised that Bush would find any way he could to go and get the guy "who tried to kill his dad". No lie that Sadam is/was a bad evil guy who has done HORRENDOUS things, but it seems like connecting him to 9/11 was relatively unnessecary. I feel like Americans were just manipulated into wanting to find someone (ANYONE!) to pin all of that on (because Bin Laden has been apparently harder to locate, along with those pesky weapons of mass destruction). And Sadam was as good a guy as any to grab up and place the blame on. And then GW can look so ballsy. Blah.
Okay, so which is worse: ripping a country apart and killing thousands of innocents because you're an imperialist, or doing it to settle a grudge?
And GW hasn't polarized the country or sent many kids over to a war that they will never return from?
I'm confused. I didn't say anything like that, did I?
|
| ramona |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 10:31:53
quote:
Originally posted by fudd
quote:
Originally posted by ramona
I can't believe anyone would be surprised that Bush would find any way he could to go and get the guy "who tried to kill his dad". No lie that Sadam is/was a bad evil guy who has done HORRENDOUS things, but it seems like connecting him to 9/11 was relatively unnessecary. I feel like Americans were just manipulated into wanting to find someone (ANYONE!) to pin all of that on (because Bin Laden has been apparently harder to locate, along with those pesky weapons of mass destruction). And Sadam was as good a guy as any to grab up and place the blame on. And then GW can look so ballsy. Blah.
Okay, so which is worse: ripping a country apart and killing thousands of innocents because you're an imperialist, or doing it to settle a grudge?
And GW hasn't polarized the country or sent many kids over to a war that they will never return from?
_____________________________________________________________________
I replace you easily, replace pathetically,
I flirt with any flighty thing that falls my way.
But how I needed you. When I needed you.
Lets not forget we are so strong... so bloody strong. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 10:19:43
http://nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp June 18, 2004
IT’S NOT JUST NRO, TALK RADIO, WSJ NOTICING [Mark R. Levin]
Lee Hamilton, Democrat vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, yesterday: "I must say I hae trouble understanding the flack over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that sharp difference that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."
Posted at 12:01 PM
TERROR TIES BELIEVABLE…IN CLINTON ERA [Tim Graham ]
The liberal media now scoff at the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had any kind of partnership, but back on January 14, 1999, ABC News aired a prime time report about links between the dangerous duo. Reporter Sheila MacVicar cited sources from the Clinton administration's intelligence agencies: "Almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad." See more here.
Posted at 11:58 AM
RELATIONSHIP V COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP [Jonah Goldberg]
I understand that there's a lot more nuance to this Cheney v. Commission story than I am allowing for here. But in the wake of 9/11, there was this generally agreed upon proposition that those who give aid and comfort to terrorists, or "safe harbor" to them, are no different than the terrorists. Well, after 9/11 for people to be defending Iraq because they had "only" been having meetings, coffee klatches and the like with al Qaeda strikes me as pretty lame. No, alone in a vacuum having meetings with al Qaeda isn't cause for war. But we weren't operating in a vacuum. There were quite a few other variables involved, WMDs, deteroriating sanctions, Saddam's defiance of the UN, the need to be proactive after 9/11 etc. In other words, if we heard that France had been having get-togethers with al Qaeda, war wouldn't be an option. But Iraq -- a country we were still more than technically at war with since 1991 -- holds meeting with al Qaeda, that strikes me as serious, very serious.
Posted at 07:21 AM
THOMPSON'S COMPLAINT [Rich Lowry]
Caught Jim Thompson complaining last night on O'Reilly about how the media has handled the 9-11 commission's conclusions about Iraq and al Qaeda--reporting it as if the commission had said there was no connection at all. I'm glad Thompson is such an acute critic of the press, but wasn't this sort of play entirely predictable? Didn't the commission make it almost inevitable given the cursory way it handled this explosive topic? If the commission had been more responsible, it would have gone into the question of the connection at more length, in which case its reporting would have looked more like a Steve Hayes or Rich Miniter piece, cataloguing the long history of connections and THEN saying there is no evidence that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in attacks against the United States. That wouldn't have been so susceptible to media misreporting. So, unless some forces on the commission intended to get this sort of media reaction, this episode has to chalked up as another 9-11 commission screw-up. Either way it speaks badly of the commission.
Posted at 07:13 AM
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 09:16:25
http://polipundit.com/2004_06_13_polipundit_archive.html#108756365440450560
[begin article]
Russia Warned U.S. of Saddam's Planned Terrorist Attacks
I heard a reference to this story on Fox this morning and then got the link from Power Line. Here is the meat of the story:
Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq 's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets."
"This information was conveyed to our American colleagues," he said. He added that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam agents had been involved in any particular attack.
Kerry has already belittled many of our Allies by dismissing the contributions they have made in Iraq, so now are we going to hear him talk about how Putin lied? I have to wonder how much more we will hear about this at all, since it helps support Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Let that sink in for a minute and read it again. "Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States 'and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets.' This information was conveyed to our American colleagues." If we had not gone into Iraq, and there had been another terrorist attack on our soil, and this information then became public, the Democrats really would have an argument for Bush's impeachment.
posted by Lorie Byrd at 8:37 AM |
| fudd |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 01:04:50
Er, didn't the aggressors in WW2 have a credible chance of conquering the world? Today's situation is just a little bit different. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 00:08:20
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
in both cases, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, everybody knew who was responsible.
with or without an 'Iraq Link' and the Three-Power Pact we still know who is/was responsible, regarding Saddam if nothing else Iraq conspired.
From The New York Times:
Friday 09 January 2004
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."
Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted and something administration officials have done little to discourage. |
| This_Guy |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 00:05:50
comparing WWll to TWAT (the war against terror)in any way, shape or form, is absoloutely fucking ridiculous.
the US is the agressor against soverign nations here, to weed out a foe that is more than invisible. all this bullshit is doing is creating MORE animosty towards the west. great job bushy. this should keep the folks at halliburton and lockheed happy for a really long time.
this retard farm of a monkey "president" is breeding terrorists by the thousands like a printing press. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 23:52:11
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
somewhere FDR is glad that he did not have to prove a link between The Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany to the American people.
The Three-Power Pact that Germany, Italy, and Japan all signed would have made that case pretty easy.
my point exactly.
in both cases, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, everybody knew who was responsible.
with or without an 'Iraq Link' and the Three-Power Pact we still know who is/was responsible, regarding Saddam if nothing else Iraq conspired.
No, it is not your point!! Don't act like what we're saying in any way is the same.
In the case of WWII, we knew who the Axis were. They signed an agreement; they weren't secret about their association.
In this case, we absolutely do not know that Iraq is responsible or conspired in the 9/11. In fact, the bipartisan committee has reported that they found NO evidence of Iraq and bin Laden cooperating. To quote chimpy the president, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida". |
| Mroocore |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 22:10:58
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
somewhere FDR is glad that he did not have to prove a link between The Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany to the American people.
we all should be
PENGU LIES
The Three-Power Pact that Germany, Italy, and Japan all signed would have made that case pretty easy.
my point exactly.
both dubya and FDR entered their respective conflicts on very similar terms.
-
equally devasting attacks in the number of lives lost.
9/11 and Pear Harbor were surprise attacks.
dubya and FDR 'may or may not' have had some intel giving them prior knowledge.
on 9/11/01 America was attacked by no nation. on 12/07/41 America was attacked by a nation we were in peace talks w/, that day.
in both cases, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, everybody knew who was responsible.
with or without an 'Iraq Link' and the Three-Power Pact we still know who is/was responsible, regarding Saddam if nothing else Iraq conspired.
dubya and FDR acted as they believed best for America.
both had the support of the nation.-
-
the most telling and relevant, to this topic and more directly my point, difference is that in 1941 America rallied around FDR and supported the war. today dubya is a 'criminal' and we hate our own country, some people going as far to believe that we deserved it.
i am not a supporter of dubya but, i cannot believe some of the things that i read or hear everyday about America and the president. i believe that it is a very troubling time we live in.
PENGU LIES |
| Stuart |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 17:17:49
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23192.htm
* Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Yasin both a home and a salary.
* Bin Laden met eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and with Saddam's external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 6, 2003.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid '90s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested by Pakistani authorities. Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan ?who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks ?that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre."
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad, where militants trained to hijack planes with knives ?on a full-size Boeing 707.
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
* The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Wounded, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When he recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" in Baghdad.
* CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document-forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. . . . This information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."
O.K. my right wing friend, how about CIA meeting with Bin Laden on various occasions in the past.... does that mean that the US should invade itself. Why do you always back Bush, and not once question some of the ridiculous things that the US Government is doing?? Can't you see that their actions are criminal??
Just the good ole boys, never meaning no harm,
that all you ever saw
been in trouble with the law,
since the day they were born |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 16:18:13
quote:
Originally posted by This_Guy
i agree that the entire war was cooked up as a way to "solve" 9/11. it was obvious from the get go. the PNAC(project for a new american century, which was developed in part by cheney himself) was obviously just waiting for a situation such as this as an excuse to jump into the middle east and destabilize an already fucked up area of the world for economic gain, their own paper work says so!! BUT..
saddam was a freak show none the less.
Thanks Guy.
Finally people are catching on!!
Read this!!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm
------------------------------------
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." : Mark Twain. The Mysterious Stranger 1916.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
|
| fudd |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 15:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by ramona
I can't believe anyone would be surprised that Bush would find any way he could to go and get the guy "who tried to kill his dad". No lie that Sadam is/was a bad evil guy who has done HORRENDOUS things, but it seems like connecting him to 9/11 was relatively unnessecary. I feel like Americans were just manipulated into wanting to find someone (ANYONE!) to pin all of that on (because Bin Laden has been apparently harder to locate, along with those pesky weapons of mass destruction). And Sadam was as good a guy as any to grab up and place the blame on. And then GW can look so ballsy. Blah.
Okay, so which is worse: ripping a country apart and killing thousands of innocents because you're an imperialist, or doing it to settle a grudge? |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 15:19:07
Man, terrorists really need to get hobbies. Or girlfriends.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 12:14:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mroocore
somewhere FDR is glad that he did not have to prove a link between The Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany to the American people.
we all should be
PENGU LIES
The Three-Power Pact that Germany, Italy, and Japan all signed would have made that case pretty easy. |
| ramona |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 11:46:05
I can't believe anyone would be surprised that Bush would find any way he could to go and get the guy "who tried to kill his dad". No lie that Sadam is/was a bad evil guy who has done HORRENDOUS things, but it seems like connecting him to 9/11 was relatively unnessecary. I feel like Americans were just manipulated into wanting to find someone (ANYONE!) to pin all of that on (because Bin Laden has been apparently harder to locate, along with those pesky weapons of mass destruction). And Sadam was as good a guy as any to grab up and place the blame on. And then GW can look so ballsy. Blah.
_____________________________________________________________________
I replace you easily, replace pathetically,
I flirt with any flighty thing that falls my way.
But how I needed you. When I needed you.
Lets not forget we are so strong... so bloody strong. |
| Mroocore |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 11:12:32
somewhere FDR is glad that he did not have to prove a link between The Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany to the American people.
we all should be
PENGU LIES |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 10:59:00
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23192.htm
* Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Yasin both a home and a salary.
* Bin Laden met eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and with Saddam's external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 6, 2003.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid '90s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested by Pakistani authorities. Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan — who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks — that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre."
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad, where militants trained to hijack planes with knives — on a full-size Boeing 707.
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
* The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Wounded, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When he recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" in Baghdad.
* CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document-forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. . . . This information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."
|
| Stuart |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 06:03:17
It's a joke isn't it!
Just the good ole boys, never meaning no harm,
that all you ever saw
been in trouble with the law,
since the day they were born |
|
|
