See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: LP owner allows poster to plant 1-pixel gifs in order to track LP users
Source:
Libertypost
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=179683&Disp=16#C16
Published: Mar 9, 2007
Author: add925
Post Date: 2007-03-09 14:17:36 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 8963
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-105) not displayed.
.
.
.
#106. To: BeAChooser (#95)
Gee ... wish I wasn't on a self-imposed laugh ban. I read all the letters of American Jews that disputed or attacked Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt's study findings, including Philip Zelikow's. Duh. And why are we not surprised? I got news for you - other Jewish Americans whom one might consider to be unorthodox voices in the Jewish academic community all did their perfunctory letters or articles or statements to dismiss M&W research paper including Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Chomsky. Btw,you can also read wikipedia's article on Zelikow and what he said at the Foreign Intel Conference and how he later back pedalled. It's not so hidden an event, Inspector Clouseau- BAC. Regardless, where's the incongruity to what I said earlier? I showed that Zelikow was the first and a very high up person in DC political affairs to say that the Iraq War was for Israel's benefit and Mearsheimer and Walt later published a study that confirmed what Zelikow said. If Zelikow tries to recant what he said - uh how does that take away from M&W's research paper? Their text was 40 pages long and their bibliography with a host of various sources was 38 pages long. Zelikow was one of hundreds of sources of information for their paper. Btw, here's the full text of the article I quoted Zelikow's statements, which you did not read obviously. It puts his remarks in very good context. http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083 IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser By Emad Mekay WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars. Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret. The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story. Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work. Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000. Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany. Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”. Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body. In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications. That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas. ”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”. ”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.” To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up. ”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.” Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. ”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East. But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said. Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight. ”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said. (END/2004) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Setting Iraq aside for the moment, I'm asking you an important question on foreign policy: Do you believe American citizen soldiers should fight and die in wars for Israel's national security benefit? Consider that Israel has consistently refused to sign a mutual defense treaty with America.
Oh really (tilting one's head to the side and speaking in a high squeaky voice)... Perhaps you did not read Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt's reply to Philip Zelikow's back pedalling letter. This one is for you, BeAChooser, a gift from me to you in the sincere hope this may clean out those proIsraelatanycost cobwebs in your BOT brain: The Israel Lobby: Mearsheimer & Walt vs. Phillip Zelikow http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/ letters.html#3 London Review of Books, Vol. 28, No. 6, May 25, 2006 From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct. Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned. Below are excerpts from Zelikow’s remarks about Iraq on 10 September 2002 (we have the full text). It shows that 1. he was focusing on the possibility of war with Iraq in 2002-03, not the 1990- 91 Gulf War; 2. he supported a new war with Iraq; and 3. he believed Iraq was an imminent threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Finally. . . I wanted to offer some comments on Iraq. . . . I beg your patience, but I think there are some points that are worth making that aren’t being made by either side in the current debate. The Iraq situation this administration inherited is and has been unsustainable. Ever since 1996 the Iraqi situation has basically unravelled. . . . So then the real question is, OK, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to end up fixing it? And if you don’t like the administration’s approach, what’s the recommended alternative? Another thing Americans absorb, and this administration especially, is the lesson of Afghanistan. Because remember we knew that international terrorist groups were plotting to kill Americans in a sanctuary called Afghanistan. . . [I]n retrospect, it is perfectly clear that only . . . an [American] invasion could reliably have pre-empted the 9/11 attacks, which relied on people who were being trained in that sanctuary . . . So what lesson does one take from that with respect to Iraq? Well you can see the lesson this administration has taken from that example. And so contemplate what lesson you take. Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell. Now . . . if the danger is a biological weapon handed to Hamas, then what’s the American alternative then? Especially if those weapons have developed to the point where they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us, by then. Play out those scenarios . . . Don’t look at the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, but then ask yourself the question: ‘Gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?’ Easy question to answer, and the evidence is abundant. Yes, there are a lot of other problems in the world . . . My view, by the way, is the more you examine these other problems and try to put together a comprehensive strategy for America and the Middle East, the more I’m driven to the conclusion that it’s better for us to deal with Iraq sooner rather than later. Because those other problems don’t get easier . . . And the Iraq problem is a peculiar combination at the moment, of being exceptionally dangerous at a time when Iraq is exceptionally weak militarily. Now that’s an appealing combination for immediate action . . . But . . . if we wait two years, and then there’s another major terrorist attack against the United States, does it then become easier to act against Iraq, even though the terrorist attack didn’t come from Iraq? No. . . . [A]t this moment, because of the time we bought in the war against terror, it actually makes it easier to go about Iraq now, than waiting a year or two until the war against terror gets harder again. In sum, it is Zelikow, not us, who is attempting to rewrite history. He was admirably candid in 2002, but not in 2006. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt
Maybe because Cheney is the keynote speaker? AP: Cheney Challenges 'Anti-War' Lawmakers.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
That's 10 percent of the biggest economy the world has ever known. During the period of WW2 we were in a severe depression, even 130% of GDP then was less than the 10 percent of today. That 10 percent has done nothing to secure America's future, rather it has created new enemies and more importantly has hurt America's image around the world. At one time it didn't really matter too much what foreigners thought about America, but not today. Today America's economy is heavily dependent on continued foreign investment.
God is always good! Why is Emad Mekay well regarded? What sort of corroboration did he get for his story? Is anyone else at the meeting quoted saying that's what he claims Zelikow said? I noticed in a little search that he and Asia Times have been unwilling to give his source for the supposed transcript he has. Hmmmmmm ... just curious. Why would this unnamed source decide to leak such an explosive story to a relatively unknown journalist working for a relatively unknown news outlet? And most of his articles concern financial matters so again, why him?
It's not the total amount that matters. The WW2 expenditures represented extreme hardship and sacrifice for most Americans alive then. Most got ripped from their current jobs and put to work doing something else. Iraq's costs haven't stopped most Americans today from living the good life without a care in the world. We are still spending fortunes on cosmetics and movies and ... And no one is being told to shut down production of this and produce that. Nothing is being rationed. But if the media had reported WW2 like they've reported the Iraq war, would Americans have been as will to make those sacrifices and send over 300,000 of their own to die above/on foreign soil or in/under oceans?
BeAChooser, let your fingers do the tapping on your keyboard and ask those very questions of the men who referenced Emad Mekay's article and who praised him. Here are the email address(es) you should use: a. John J. Mearsheimer University of Chicago - Department of Political Science j-mearsheimer@uchicago.edu b. Stephen M. Walt Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government stephen_walt@harvard.edu Postscript: To enhance author privacy, SSRN uses software to prevent mechanical harvesting of email addresses. Anonymous users are allowed 3 email address requests each day.
The issue is whether Zarqawi was in collusion with Saddam. The fact is, that Saddam tried to arrest Qarqawi, and the CIA has stated so much, and a bipartisan panel has confirmed the CIA's assessment. So stop dancing around that issue. Last but not least, if it can be proven, and I am not saying it can, that Zarqawi was in collusion with Ansar-I-Islam, you need to know 2 things (1) Ansar Islam was in the protected Kurdish area, and Saddam could not bring any military force to bear there, and (2) It is quite likely the Kurds had their own agenda in spinning the story of Big Bad Zarqawi. All that spam comes from the same tainted source - a criminal justice system in Jordan where torture is routinely practiced and people will confess to anything the torturers want them to confess to. Now tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi and received instructions from the two of them to carry out this alleged plot. You can't.
Irrelevant. You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba. Then you accused me of your own "parsing." The government was simpler back then, and the costs had fewer places to get spread around. No we haven't. GM is just about finished making cars in the US, just as one example. Most of the technology jobs are being exported to Asia or India. The war wasn't worth 300,000 American lives. But that's another off-topic remark. The Jews in Roosevelt's administration were pushing for America to get involved in that war, even though Stalin was a far bigger mass murderer than Hitler and Tojo put together. However after the war, most of Europe and a good part of Asia was in ruins. American industry was completely untouched by the war, and had enormous productive capacity that had been used during the war to make war materials and equipment. That productive capacity was then used to promote economic growth in the parts of the world where the war had destroyed just about everything. That economic growth from the productive capacity allowed America to pay back the costs of the war in relatively short order. We're not going to pull another rabbit out of the hat like that one this time. It hasn't. And as I've already told you, GDP's main components include (1) Services, (2) Consumer spending, (3) Government spending, and (4) Are measured in inflated dollars. So take your GDP sophistry and put it where the sun doesn't shine. They should definitely tax the corporate parasites who are exporting jobs and capital overseas. You have any problem with that?
BAC is doing his usual tap-dancing around the real issue and hoping his loads of neocon spam will obscure that fact. Saddam tried to arrest Zarqawi and there are photos of the arrest warrant floating around on the web. Probably on http://antiwar.com. Now it is possible that Zarqawi tried to hook up with some terrorists, however those Ansar-i-Islam terrorists would have been in the Kurdish "No Fly Zone" where they were protected from Saddam by the United States Air Force. As I've posted, the trials in Jordan come from a criminal justice system where torture is routine. In fact, the US "renditions" people to Jordan with the expectation that the Jordanians will torture them profusely. There are very good reasons why legitimate legal systems abhor the use of torture to interrogate people, and getting false information from people being tortured is at the very top of those reasons. Last but not least, the issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion. The CIA and a bipartisan panel have concluded they were not, and any and all allegations they were, are false. So just because Zarqawi may have had any acquaintances in Iraq is totally beside the point. Saddam wanted to arrest Zarqawi. It's as silly as saying that Zarqawi has allies in Iraq today, so the Americans are in collusion with Zarqawi.
No, the issue is what would you have done about al-Zarqawi killing thousands of people (and probably many Americans) if the plot he organized while in Baghdad had it succeeded, given that Saddam showed no interest in actually keeping anyone in al-Zarqawi's organization in custody? Baghdad was one of the most heavily monitored places in the world (by Iraqi security), yet you folks want us to believe that al-Zarqawi, who is often claimed to be an avowed enemy of Saddam, chose to go there for medical treatment and to hold important meetings on mass casualty terrorist plots against the US and Jordan? Should I be skeptical? No, what they said is they found a document telling Iraq intelligence organizations to be on the lookout for him and another ordering the arrest of 4 (probable) associates of al-Zarqawi who were wanted for crimes (not terrorism). A third document indicated that 3 of the individuals where thought to have gone to Northern Iraq but they did pick up the fourth. The security type who captured him said he was convinced the man was guilty as charged ... and was surprised when higher ups ordered his release. And note that the CIA indicated in a document written before the above documents were obtained that an associate of al-Zarqawi was detained but Saddam himself ordered the release. Right. You get that from here? That's always the way it works with you folks. Ignore/dismiss ANYTHING that doesn't fit your pre-conceived beliefs. Sorry, but there is no indication that the men in question were tortured into confessing. There are tapes of these confessions and they don't look physically coerced. The men were in open court where they were allowed to speak and never denied the confessions. In fact, they boasted about their association with al-Qaeda and threw out threat after threat against Jordan and the west. Strawman. Is that all you have? Say, did you know that al-Zarqawi may have admitted his group was planning to bomb Jordanian Intelligence? There's a voice on a tape claiming to be al-Zarqawi's saying that. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/jordan.terror/
And assumed all that 2 trillion you claim Iraq has cost has already been spent. Come on, AGAviator ... can't you even admit that they spent a VERY large portion of the GDP during WW2 on the war and have spent a relatively small fraction of the GDP on Iraq? Can't you even admit that one war totally disrupted the economy and way of life of the average American and the other has not? Can't you even admit that the reporting of the two wars has been significantly different? Is it so hard to admit these facts? Or are you afraid that if you admit even one your whole allegation will come tumbling down? We now make other things. Depends on which technology jobs you are talking about. So if the media had repeatedly told the American public that back in WW2, like they've been telling Americans Iraq isn't worth 3000 American lives, don't you supposed Americans back then might have demanded we sue for peace? And then what would the world have looked like today, AGAviator? See? You folks and the media could have made a similar case to the one you made about Saddam and the other mass murders of our day. Come on, AGAviator ... admit it. If the media had reported WW2 the way they've reported Iraq ... if the internet had been around then so you folks could make these allegations ... don' t you think the end result would have been America suing for peace rather than winning that war? Don't you think the end result would have been the US withdrawing its forces to the border and letting the rest of the world be conquered by the Axis? Oh that's right. You claim that GDP is NOT a measure of economic health. Despite what REAL economists say around the world. Say ... did that chart really say 16 percent? Really??? (south part voice with tilted head) Like Hillary said ... "we're going to TAKE IT from you". Right?
Americans were totally against getting involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor was attacked. WW2 had been going on for at least 2 years then, and Americans were overwhelmingly against getting involved in it despite the fact that our ally in WW1, Great Britain, was sustaining heavy losses and was on the verge of being defeated by the Nazis. Obviously Great Britain meant more to Americans then than Israel does today, yet they still didn't want to fight for them and help them win against the Nazis. WW1 was already fought to save them and people figured we had sacrificed enough for them. So, "miraculously", Japan makes the most ultimate military blunder ever made by attacking the sleeping giant when it wanted nothing to do with this world war, getting us involved in WW2 and saving Great Britain's hide once again.
God is always good! That's another guy who is full of mystery.
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062504falseflag.htm Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Did he REALLY try? No there aren't. There were no photos of any arrest warrant because there was no "arrest warrant". It's more than possible. Terrorists on trial in Jordan admitted to being al-Qaeda, being funded by al-Zarqawi, and having met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad. There is no indication these individuals were tortured to make the admissions they did. They didn't appear tortured in the videos or in court. In open court with foreign journalists in attendance, they did not change their story. They did not claim they'd been tortured into making false admissions about al-Zarqawi. They continued to claim they were were al-Qaeda. Just be honest, AGAviator ... you wouldn't believe what they admitted to on tape even if the Pope himself had done the questioning. No, the issue is not that. The issue is what you would have done had we not invaded and al-Zarqawi continued to plot and fund terrorists attacks like the one in Jordan. And by the way, this wasn't the first terrorist attack that he was convicted of planning nor the first where he claimed to be behind it. Remember the bombing of the hotels in Jordan later on when al-Zarqawi was still at large after the invasion? No one (except perhaps you and those like you) believes that anyone other than al-Zarqawi was behind that. al-Zarqaw was indeed an evil person. The CIA reported in a separate report that an al-Zarqawi terrorist was arrested and then released on orders from Saddam. And your bipartisan panel was the usual Senate joke. The SIC report stated that the "regime did not ... snip ... turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." That clearly isn't the case when captured Iraqi documents and CIA intelligence indicate the arrested of a member of his group who the arresting officer was convinced was guilty but who was ordered released by higher authority. Not when those acquantances plotted to kill twenty thousand people including everyone in the US embassy in Amman. Not when those acquantances were caught redhanded with the vehicles, explosives and chemicals they were going to us in the attack. You forget that this is a War On Terror. Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one. Yeah, right.
You only prove my point, again, Ricky. What you say makes it all the more likely that had the media reported WW2 the way they've reported Iraq, Americans would have wanted to sue for peace to avoid further loss of life and the tremendous disruption of the economy war would entail. And conspiracists would have helped the media by pushing the notions that the government allowed Pearl Harbor to occur and that the US forced Japan into attacking us by cutting them off from vital resources. They would have argued that the War in Europe and in China was of no concern to us. That what we should do is build a wall around America. That pulling our soldiers back would save countless American lives. But I ask you, Ricky, do you think that would have been the end of it had we done that? Would Hitler and Tojo have been content to leave us alone from then on?
Thank you for proving my point about 4um posters, robin.
And this is precisely what we have Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, America’s new “public enemy No 1”is. Zarqawi and his group have been used from the justification for the invasion of Iraq to the latest “barbaric” videotaped beheadings that his group claims to have carried out. The US State Department has increased the reward for his arrest from $10 million to $25 million, which puts his "market value" at par with that of Osama. Interestingly, Al Zarqawi is not on the FBI most wanted fugitives list. http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm ) What follows are excerpts from an in-depth report from The Centre for Research on Globalization that has gone to considerable lengths to document this false flag operation. The complete article can be read at Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals - BAC is working off out dated and debunked sources from Newsmax and Weekly Standard etc. Here, BAC, I'll bring you up to speed - while you were sleeping, there was a 9/11 Investigative bipartisan committee that toally debunked any co-operation between Saddam and OBL or Saddam and Zarqawi and in March 2003 George Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and confirmed that Zarqawi did not have any relationship with Saddam. Zarqawi had a relationship with the Kurds - specifically Ansar al-Islam. Saddam did not have any relationship with OBL - OBL contacted him about providing a place for training camps in Iraq, but Saddam did not respond to OBL because some of OBL's followers were anti-Saddam. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812- 2004Jun16.html "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" June 17, 2004 The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding. The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." ...In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks." Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives. The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links. ...The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan." Yah, so anyways, sorry BAC but another neocon warmongering lie bites the dust. Man you shouldn't take such long sleepybyes - you miss a lot of news that way.
I didn't say that, of course, which demonstrates how desperate you've become in this debate. I suppose like AGAviator, you think that all those captured al-Qaeda were coerced into saying that al-Zarqawi was the mastermind of their plot and even met some of them in Baghdad. I suppose you think there were coerced into saying they hoped to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and all those in the US embassy in Amman. Actually, it claimed that Iraq's regime didn't turn a blind eye to al-Zarqawi but a CIA report and captured Iraqi documents prove that is false. They captured an associate of al-Zarqawi's and released him on orders from a high ranking official (the CIA even said it was Saddam himself). That is indeed turning a blind eye. Please ... a definition of "collaborative". Does it include the murals that Saddam put up showing him applauding the impact of the planes into the WTC towers? How was it that an Iraqi newspaper owned by one of Saddam's sons was able to get an interview with bin Laden shortly before 9/11? According to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml, "The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon. ... snip ... "We have evidence Iraq knew and approved of the Sept. 11 targets," he said. It relies in part on a newspaper article published July 21, 2001, in Al Nasiriyah, 185 miles southwest of Baghdad. The law firm provided The Associated Press with a copy of the article written in Arabic and an English translation. According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The lawsuit says a former associate of Muhalhal contends the writer has been connected with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1980s. It also says Muhalhal was praised by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Sept. 1, 2001, issue for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished." Kreindler said Muhalhal had advance knowledge of al Qaeda's specific targets on Sept. 11 and that "Iraqi officials were aware of plans to attack American landmarks." Muhalhal also wrote in the paper, which btw was owned by Saddam's son Qusay, that Bin Laden would "curse Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs", apparently a reference to the song New York, New York. Mulhalhal went on to write that, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which perhaps references an airplane attack." But then the commission never did explain the odd coincidence of Atta's hijackers residing only a few miles from the first anthrax case or where Atta was that week in April when a Czech informant said he saw Atta meeting with a top Iraqi case officer named al-Ani in Prague. It never did explain the coincidence that al-Ani's day calendar listed a meeting with a "hamburg student" on the day in question and Atta's travel documents all listed his occupation as "hamburg student". Truth is that the commission got a lot wrong. Why they didn't even get the collapse time of the WTC towers correct.
Food for thought ... According to http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/default.asp, "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. A translation of the document shows that the Al Qaeda terrorist that Saddam Hussein’s government had identified was none other than Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. ... Although the document goes on to outline activities of the group, there is no indication that the Iraqi government took any steps to stop Al Qaeda from operating within Iraq, in clear defiance of international law." According to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts "In regards to the Iraqi intelligence documents that discussed Al Zarqawi presence in Iraq, as posted on the Foreign Miliarty Services Office (FMSO) website (document ISGZ-2004-019920 ) it appears that the some in the Iraqi intelligence apparatus provided the accurate information about Zarqawi presence in Iraq with attached pictures of him, but when the information reached the Director or a Director of the Iraqi intelligence he dismissed it as not accurate." Is that not turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda's presence? Perhaps you can explain why there's nothing to really indicate Iraq made an effort to capture al-Zarqawi, despite being told of his presence by the US and Jordan (which, by the way, wished to extradite him to face charges of terrorism). Perhaps the authors of this report can explain a CIA report that indicated that Iraqi regime security forces detained several of al-Zarqawi's group in Baghdad before the war and released at least one of them per the orders from Saddam (see http://www.veteransforpeace.org/CIA_review_finds_100504.htm and http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328). That's turning a blind eye. And according to the later article, the WP spoke to a Jordanian security official who "added that documents recovered after its overthrow in 2003 show that Iraqi agents did detain some Zarqawi operatives but released them after questioning. Furthermore, the Iraqis warned the Zarqawi operatives that the Jordanians knew where they were, he said." That's not just turning a blind eye ... that's support. Perhaps you should explain documents that indicate there were al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq ... not just in northern Iraq but near Baghdad. Perhaps you should explain reports like this: http://cgi.warblogging.com/warfarking/mirror/1050418238.html "Guerrilla fighters seen as threat to allied forces, By Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES ... snip ... Conventional military conflict in Iraq is nearly over, but thousands of foreign fighters and supporters of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remain in the country and pose a danger to U.S. and allied forces, U.S. officials said yesterday. The allies have discovered that Iraq was training or harboring guerrillas from North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, said the foreign guerrillas are "still threats" even though organized fighting by the Iraqi military has all but stopped. ... snip ... Intelligence reports also indicate that al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists remain in Iraq and are a threat to coalition forces. More than 100 al Qaeda terrorists are believed to have been in Iraq before the start of the war, the official said. How about you explain reports like these: ************ http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/031706_iraq.asp "March 17, 2006: Declassified documents from Iraq show 3,000 Saudi and Iraqi mujihideen depart Iraq in Nov 2001 to fight US in Afghanistan The newly declassified documents shed more and more light on the evolution of the violent insurgency in Iraq, and show that Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan. The document, addressed to the Security Board, Fedayeen Saddam at the office of the Presidency in Iraq, reports what it describes as a “rumor”, says: there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack This clearly indicates that Iraq was being used as a transit point or launch point for Saudi Arabian jihadis, as well as Iraqis, who wanted to go join the forces of Osama Bin Laden in Iraq in November 2001, nearly a year and a half before the US and Coalition forces commenced military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. The sheer volume of “mujahideen” that reportedly departed from the Anbar province, combined with the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq, indicates the presence of an organized Al Qaeda infrastructure within Iraq just a few months after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. ************** http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp Camp Saddam: What we've learned about Iraq's terrorist training camps. by Stephen F. Hayes 04/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 27 ... snip ... "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there," said Murtha. "None. There was no connection with al Qaeda, there was no connection with, with terrorism in Iraq itself." This is now the conventional wisdom on Iraq and terrorism. It is wrong. A new study from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, paints quite a different picture. According to captured documents cited in the study and first reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in January, the former Iraqi regime was training non-Iraqi Arabs in terrorist techniques. "Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."" Some of this training came under the auspices of the Iraqi Intelligence Service's "Division 27," which, according to the study, "supplied the Fedayeen Saddam with silencers, equipment for booby-trapping vehicles, [and] special training on the use of certain explosive timers. The only apparent use for all of this Division 27 equipment was to conduct commando or terrorist operations." ************** http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection: And other revelations from the Iraqi regime files. by Stephen F. Hayes 03/27/2006, Volume 011, Issue 26 SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group. ... snip ... One Iraqi memo, from the "Republican Presidency, Intelligence Apparatus" to someone identified only as D4/4, makes the case for supporting the work of the Qaddafi Charity Establishment to help Abu Sayyaf. The memo is dated March 18, 2001. "1. There are connections between the Qaddafi Charity Establishment and the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines; meanwhile, this establishment is providing material support to them. The short response, two days later: "Mr. Dept. 3: ... snip ... ON MARCH 26, 2003, as war raged in Iraq, the State Department's Matthew Daley testified before Congress. Daley, the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, told a subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee that he was worried about Abu Sayyaf. "We're concerned that they have what I would call operational links to Iraqi intelligence services. And they're a danger, they're an enemy of the Philippines, they're an enemy of the United States, and we want very much to help the government in Manila deal with this challenge," Daley told the panel. Responding to a question, Daley elaborated. "There is good reason to believe that a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group who has been involved in terrorist activities was in direct contact with an IIS officer in the Iraqi Embassy in Manila. This individual was subsequently expelled from the Philippines for engaging in activities that were incompatible with his diplomatic status." This individual was Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi Embassy in Manila. And Daley was right to be concerned. ... snip ... Interestingly, an Abu Sayyaf leader named Hamsiraji Sali at least twice publicly boasted that his group received funding from Iraq. For instance, on March 2, 2003, he told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the Iraqi regime had provided the terrorist group with 1million pesos--about $20,000--each year since 2000. ... snip ... A new and highly illuminating article in Foreign Affairs draws on hundreds of Iraqi documents to provide a look at the Iraq war from the Iraqi perspective. The picture that emerges is that of an Iraqi regime built on a foundation of paranoia and lies and eager to attack its perceived enemies, internal and external. This paragraph is notable: "The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]." Preparations for "Blessed July," a regime-directed wave of "martyrdom" operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion." Think about that last sentence. *************** http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618519/posts 2003 Document: Saddam Ordered To Treat The Arab Feedayeen Terrorists The Same As Iraqi Soldiers Posted on 04/20/2006 2:00:22 PM PDT by jveritas Document ISGQ-2004-00060580 is a memo that contains a direct order form Saddam Hussein in the middle of the war asking to treat the Arab Feedayeen i.e. the non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists as equal as the Iraqi soldier in salary and benefits and not just any soldier but like those in the Special Forces. These are the same Arab terrorists who stayed in Iraq after the removal of the regime and caused those horrible attacks mostly on innocent civilians. This document is a follow on another document where the Iraqi were training Foreign Arab terrorist since the year 2000 (please see those two translations: Document: Iraqi Intelligence To Train Arab Feedayeen Terrorists In the Year 2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617431/posts Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts ). The extremely strong connection between Saddam and Terrorism is something that we need to tell the whole world about it, because for this reason alone we would have all the right to remove this Terrorist Regime after the 9/11, we just cannot afford to live with it. ************** http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378 Case Closed From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes ... snip ... 25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement." 26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training. ... snip ... 27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia. ... snip ... "The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." And the commentary: "CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information." It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts. Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time. ... snip ... 31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel. The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: "References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11." Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq. 37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere. 38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions. The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance." ... snip ... The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again. Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted. The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn't make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq. Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out. But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans. *******************
Whooping it up with the black ops boys ... Whooping it up with the black ops boys ... Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Posts someone who thinks Doug Rokke is an expert in DU. Someone who has bozo'd herself rather than see both sides of a debate.
Strawman. Is that all you have? Unbelievable. Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link. Then when I ask for you of any proof of that Saddam-Zarqawi link, you call it a "strawman." Tell me all you have about Saddam actually being connected with Zarqawi. Then tell me why you claim to know more than the CIA and the US Congress.
Zarqawi was not killed for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden, if the purpose of invasions is to kill or capture people who are "continuing to plot and fund terrorist attacks."
I didn't say that, of course, which demonstrates how desperate you've become in this debate. So BAC wants to make a Saddam-Zarqawi connection, then changes the subject and says that Saddam's relationship with Zarqawi was unimportant. But you're desperate. Now the new botshill talking point is there were alleged terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power. But now there are there more terrorists inside Iraq now than there were in 2002.
I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot. So that was a strawman. Is that all you have?
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst. Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link? Well ............?
You like to use strawmen instead of valid logic as a debating technique. Established fact. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee recognized this. Who can say how many terrorists there might have been in Iraq now had we not invaded. Certainly the signs are there that Iraq was adopting terrorism as a tactic. During the invasion they found factories for making suicide bombs and camps where terrorists had obviously been trained. They found records showing that Saddam's regime had given safe haven to terrorists who had previously attacked the US (such as one of the 1993 WTC bombers). And al-Zarqawi was definitely expanding operations inside Iraq. They cited a 2002 CIA document saying: "The CIA summarized its overall views of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities in Iraq as follows: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence." Then, the SCI wrote "The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that al-Qa'ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa'ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam - mainly the al-Zarqawi network - and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas." Now it is true that the report then states: "A postwar CIA assessment on al-Zarqawi notes that both former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a "special committee" to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him. The CIA, the DIA and FBI all reported that no evidence suggests that al-Zarqawi had been warned by a former Iraqi regime element that he had been located in Baghdad by the IIS. The CIA assessed that Zarqawi left Baghdad in the late November 2002." And notes that "During a postwar debriefing with the FBI, a high-ranking Iraqi official stated that in October 2002, the IIS received a request from a foreign government service to locate five individuals who were also suspected of involvement in the Foley murder. According to the official, the IIS Headquarters passed down a written order to locate and arrest these individuals. In early 2003, the IIS successfully arrested one of the individuals, Abu Yasim Sayyem." But after saying documents confirm the above, it says this: "Although Sayyem denied any affiliation with al-Qa'ida or Zarqawi, the IIS officer believed the evidence of criminal activity provided by the foreign intelligence service against Sayyem was compelling. For this reason, the IIS officer was shocked when the Director of his division ordered Sayyem to be released. According to the Iraqi official, the Director of his division told him that Saddam Hussein ordered Sayyem's release." And then after noting that Sayyem claimed he wasn't al-Qa'ida or had affilition with Zarqawi, the report goes on to say this about the other 4 that were sought along with him: "The Iraqi official claimed that he could not recall the names of the four associates of Sayyem sought by the foreing intelligence service. The Iraqi official claimed that the "IIS suspected the four suspects were hiding in Northern Iraq and may have had connections to Zarqawi." Hard to believe Sayyem's denial. Then it states that: "According to the CIA, a former IIS officer believed that Saddam released Sayyem because he "would participate in striking U.S. forces when they entered Iraq." I don't know about you or the SIC, but that sounds to me like Saddam KNOWINGLY allowing someone from al-Qaeda and with an association with al-Zarqawi to remain in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. That sounds like cooperation. That sounds like a direct contradiction to the next statement in the report .. namely that: "In 2005, the CIA assesssed that prior to the war, "the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." So, let's take a close look at the members of this committee Pat Roberts, Chairman Not a very inspiring group or one above playing political games. There are some mighty liberal and far left members in that list. There are a bunch who clearly ignored the facts during the impeachment of Clinton ... highly partisan in their behavior. There is one who may have been blackmailed during the Clinton impeachment. The Vice Chairman suggested in a memo written before the 9/11 Commission that his party should use the investigations of 9/11 to further their political interests. Let's face it ... it is hard to have a whole lot of faith in a report with the section on post war discovery of chemical munitions doesn't even mention the binary sarin shell that was used as an IED. Or a report that doesn't even discuss the possibility of munitions being moved to Syria before the war. Given the implications of both. It's hard to have faith in a document that doesn't even mention the Jordan chemical bomb plot and what they learned from the admissions of those terrorists. One admission being that they met al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD. And that occurred before the invasion. And obviously, the terrorists were able to move around rather freely in Iraq. It's hard to have faith in a report that tells us there was no Atta/al-Ani connection yet blacks out 4 large paragraphs in the portions of the report on that connection (see page 96, 97, 98 and pages 100-101). And while the report says the evidence shows that Atta is unlikely to have been in Prague for a April 9th meeting, it's evidence for this is that Atta checked out of a hotel in Virginia Beach on April 4th, cashed a check in the area on April 4th and rented an apartment on April 11th and his cell phone was in use between April 6 and April 11th in the US. Well, only the later would suggest that and even then, they don't know who used the phone. The hijackers were sharing many other things. And curiously, there is no mention in the report of al-Ani's day calendar containing an entry for a meeting with a "hamburg student", which is what Atta listed as his occupation on his travel documents. And there is no mention of Atta possibly having an anthrax infection, which might have bearing. And the exact same reasons given for Atta not being in Prague apply to his presence in the US at that time. At least there was a witness who says he saw Atta in Prague. There wasn't even a witness to his presence in the US during that time. And one more point, AGAviator. How many terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, and before 9/11? Just as many as are claimed to now be in Iraq. You see?
You want to play the strawman game too?
Please answer the question.
Weakened by war, they most certainly would have if they were sensible, but of course they weren't.
God is always good! Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi "Strawman. Is that all you have?" Unbelievable. Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link. I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot. So that was a strawman. Is that all you have? You certainly have been making noises like Saddam and Zarqawi had some kind of connection. But if all you have is Zarqawi knew some people in Iraq, you can say the same thing about him knowing people in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Yeman, Algeria, and Egypt. So you haven't explained to us why it is so important to invade Iraq and take 3 years to capture Zarqawi, when Saddam himself wanted to capture Zarqawi, but not invade Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, and Egypt. In other words, if you want to claim you are not making a case for a Saddam-Zarqawi link, then you have nothing for invading Iraq. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And what's more, then Zarqawi has become your straw man. I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them.
Please answer the question.
He was difficult to capture by a foreign army who does not know the culture and the language and makes enemies by its actions. Says who, you and your arm? After more than a trillion dollars and 5 1/2 years, all you can come up with is "perhaps?" "Is that all you have?"
Here's the original quote. BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him?" (1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control any more than he was operating out of Jordan, Yemen, or any other country where he had followers. (2) Except for Afghanistan, the US had not invaded any other country Zarqawi has affiliates in, so Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty. (3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi, so the claim that "Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him" is a bald-faced lie. (4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003 to the middle of last year that American forces did not capture or neutralize Zarqawi. (5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
Zarqawi was not killed [by the Americans] for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. What it actually shows is that Zarqawi felt safer in an Iraq under American occupation than he felt in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, or Iran. What's more, during those 3 years his group killed thousands of people and carried out hundreds of attacks. Now compare that with many people did Zarqawi's groups kill under Saddam.
Comments (147 - 257) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI'm surprised you hadn't seen this letter, scrapper. It was linked in the very first hit I encountered when I used my web browser with the search phrase "Philip Zelikow".
#107. To: BeAChooser (#104)
You have not answered my question. Do you American citizen soldiers should fight and die in wars for Israel's benefit?
#108. To: BeAChooser, All (#104)
I think I answered that question by showing you and Mearsheimer were misleading regarding Zelikow.
#109. To: scrapper2 (#107)
March 12, 2007 -- The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting today and tomorrow in Washington has been designated a "national security event" by the Department of Homeland Security.
#110. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Parse all you want (it's so Clintonesque). 2 trillion dollars over the period of the war so far is less than 10 percent of total GDP during that time.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#111. To: scrapper2, ALL (#106)
Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct.
Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned.
#112. To: RickyJ, ALL (#110)
That's 10 percent of the biggest economy the world has ever known. During the period of WW2 we were in a severe depression, even 130% of GDP then was less than the 10 percent of today.
#113. To: BeAChooser, All (#111)
Why is Emad Mekay well regarded? What sort of corroboration did he get for his story? Is anyone else at the meeting quoted saying that's what he claims Zelikow said? I noticed in a little search that he and Asia Times have been unwilling to give his source for the supposed transcript he has. Hmmmmmm ... just curious. Why would this unnamed source decide to leak such an explosive story to a relatively unknown journalist working for a relatively unknown news outlet? And most of his articles concern financial matters so again, why him?
#114. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#96)
Are you trying to deny that before we invaded, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, plotted attacks against US allies and Americans?
Because I can provide a dozen articles from numerous sources indicating that the terrorists convicted of a plot in Jordan that was supposed to kill tens of thousands
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#115. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba.
But I gave you the benefit of the doubt
What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets.
The same is true of the listed WW2 costs.
after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt
Gosh ... we've been in a tremendous growth spurt while the Iraq has been going on.
Because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs.
Gee ... are you callously suggesting that was worth 300,000 American lives?
No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs
Then why has the GDP been growing by leaps and bounds of late.
The greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's- tax-em philosophy will help economic growth.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#116. To: christine (#98)
(Edited)
Your sources: NewsMax, FoxNews, Townhall, NationalReview = NEOCONS R US. I think we need to include 'BeAChooser' as one of our keywords for the new 4 Category, 'Neocon Nuttery'. ;)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#117. To: AGAviator, ALL (#114)
The issue is whether Zarqawi was in collusion with Saddam.
The fact is, that Saddam tried to arrest Qarqawi, and the CIA has stated so much, and a bipartisan panel has confirmed the CIA's assessment.
Because I can provide a dozen articles from numerous sources indicating that the terrorists convicted of a plot in Jordan that was supposed to kill tens of thousands
All that spam comes from the same tainted source - a criminal justice system in Jordan where torture is routinely practiced and people will confess to anything the torturers want them to confess to.
tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
#118. To: AGAviator, ALL (#115)
You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3
GM is just about finished making cars in the US
Most of the technology jobs are being exported to Asia or India.
The war wasn't worth 300,000 American lives.
The Jews in Roosevelt's administration were pushing for America to get involved in that war, even though Stalin was a far bigger mass murderer than Hitler and Tojo put together.
And as I've already told you, GDP's main components include (1) Services, (2) Consumer spending, (3) Government spending, and (4) Are measured in inflated dollars.
"And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's- tax-em philosophy will help economic growth."
They should definitely tax the corporate parasites who are exporting jobs and capital overseas.
#119. To: BeAChooser (#112)
(Edited)
But if the media had reported WW2 like they've reported the Iraq war, would Americans have been as will to make those sacrifices and send over 300,000 of their own to die above/on foreign soil or in/under oceans?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#120. To: BeAChooser (#117)
Say, did you know that al-Zarqawi may have admitted his group was planning to bomb Jordanian Intelligence? There's a voice on a tape claiming to be al-Zarqawi's saying that.
#121. To: Diana (#120)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#122. To: AGAviator, christine, ALL (#116)
Saddam tried to arrest Zarqawi
there are photos of the arrest warrant floating around on the web.
Now it is possible that Zarqawi tried to hook up with some terrorists
As I've posted, the trials in Jordan come from a criminal justice system where torture is routine.
the issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion.
The CIA and a bipartisan panel have concluded they were not, and any and all allegations they were, are false.
So just because Zarqawi may have had any acquaintances in Iraq is totally beside the point.
Saddam wanted to arrest Zarqawi.
so the Americans are in collusion with Zarqawi.
#123. To: RickyJ, ALL (#119)
Americans were totally against getting involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor was attacked.
#124. To: robin, ALL (#121)
One of these men is a ruthless international terrorist. The other is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
#125. To: All (#121)
Here’s how it works. The disinformation is circulated to the news media and then the intelligence community creates its own terror warnings concerning the very organizations it has created. In some cases, the disinformation appears in advance, in order to pave the way for an up and coming act of “terror” that roots in a desired political outcome. This problem/solution equation always appears when the war effort is waning and serves to give a face to terror via an expensive advertising campaign.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#126. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#122)
#127. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#126)
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals
there was a 9/11 Investigative bipartisan committee that toally debunked any co-operation between Saddam and OBL or Saddam and Zarqawi
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
#128. To: scrapper2, ALL (#126)
2. This establishment is one of the Libyan Intelligence fronts.
3. The Tripoli post has indicated that there is a possibility to form what connections are available with this establishment as it can offer the premise of providing food supplies to [Ed: word missing] in the scope of the agreement statement. Please review . . . it appears of intelligence value to proceed into connections with this establishment and its intelligence investments in the Abu Sayyaf group."
Study this idea, the pros and the cons, the relative reactions, and any other remarks regarding this."
#129. To: All (#125)
The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show
The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show
1 June 2005
By week’s end the world’s most wanted terrorist – scourge of the occupation and Shiite Muslims, representative of Osama bin Forgotten – gravely wounded in battle, had made his way to the safety of Shiite Iran. Think about that. He manages to get from the west of Iraq, across the war-torn country, through dozens of checkpoints, to seek safety among apostates he had sworn to expunge from the face of the earth. If you believe that, I have a second-hand Nissan Bluebird to sell you. 
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a real Zarqawi. Nobody is willing to tell what really happened to him, but at some point before the invasion of Iraq he vanished from the real world and entered the twilight zone of black operations to become a symbol of evil and a master of disguise. Nowadays he hides out in the CIA complex at Langley, Virginia, a basement in Baghdad’s Green Zone, an office in Kuwait … or maybe all three.
Are the black ops boys who script the Zarqawi character having fun? We can only imagine the mirth as they workshop their man’s next adventure over a Budweiser or three, the snickers as they upload his latest message to the internet, the hysterical laughter as they follow the earnest accounts of his evil deeds in the world’s media. With journalists as compliant as this, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.
For those who haven’t been following the Zarqawi show here’s a synopsis:
The wicked Wahabist first came to notice when Colin Powell tried to coerce the UN into backing the invasion of Iraq. Our man was his key bit of evidence for collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Zarqawi, having lost a leg in combat, had an artificial one fitted in one of Saddam’s hospitals, Powell claimed. Oddly enough, he was said to be hiding out among his bitter enemies in Kurdish-controlled territory, then protected by the US enforced no-fly zone. Really?
After the invasion of Iraq the Coalition Provisional Authority “discovered” a CD containing a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden in which the dastardly insurgent railed against Iraq’s Shiite majority and outlined his plan to foment civil war in the country. Naturally, Coalition spokesman trotted out this proof of the evil of the Resistance on every possible occasion. Not only was Zarqawi behind every car bombing in Iraq he then went international and masterminded the Madrid train bombing.
Then, just in time to counteract the shock of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Zarqawi beheaded the missing American contractor, Nick Berg. Trouble was, the tin-leg terrorist was seen on the notorious beheading video stepping nimbly forward to wield the knife. Ah, the US spokesmen glibly admitted, maybe his leg wasn’t shot off after all, maybe we were wrong about that. Pity about the 100,000 Iraqis who died in the invasion, but, hey, everybody makes mistakes.
After the Berg job, Zarqawi vanished for a while, before surfacing in Fallujah, where he provided the excuse for the Yanks to flatten the city, with the loss of tens of thousands more lives. There was vague media talk of US troops finding Zarqawi’s torture chambers, but strangely, no pictures or first-hand accounts. Alas, the man himself vanished … to be useful another day.
He popped up in the West of Iraq, near the Syrian border, where he became the subject of the recent Operation Matador. A few more towns were flattened but gosh, no Zarqawi.
Which brings us down to the last week of May, when the world’s press began to run with stories by embedded journalists to the effect that Zarqawi had been wounded in an ambush. At first this stuff was attributed to statements on those mysterious Islamic websites (“the authenticity of which couldn’t be confirmed”) that only embedded journalists get tipped off about and that vanish after a few hours.
The US army spokesman played inquiries with a straight face. “We don’t know whether it’s fact or fiction. He continues to be our number one target”, he said. Naturally.
So did the puppet Iraqi prime minister’s “security advisor” who added: “In all cases there are many probabilities. Maybe he is not wounded and he posted this statement on the internet to say he is wounded and then post another statement to say that he is treated and fine and he is like superman”.
Indeed. Like Superman: mythical figure with fabulous powers.
But then the plot had thickened. By Thursday 26 May the mainstream media were breathlessly reporting that a struggle for succession had broken out within al-Qaeda Iraq Inc., which was leaking like Australia’s Liberal Party during a leadership contest. Half the organization was spending hours on the phone to Western journalists, who were offering direct quotes from a variety of talkative terrorists. Yeah, right. How likely is that?
On that day Donald Rumsfeld, no less, told thousands of US paratroopers that Zarqawi was cornered like Hitler in his bunker (he must have just seen the movie). Even hardened observers like me were thinking the scriptwriters had decided to kill off their creation. Perhaps he’d evaded his pursuers so often they were looking incompetent. Perhaps they were risking making him into a kind of Robin Hood.
But it wasn’t to be. How could they replace an asset as useful as Zarqawi? Even as Rummy was speaking the black ops scriptwriters were moving their prize asset out of harm’s way.
Iran. Yes, that’s it. Let’s get him to Iran. That’s more evidence of Iranian perfidy. Another reason why we should bomb the crap out of them.
Don’t buy the novel folks, wait for the musical.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#130. To: robin, ALL (#129)
Don’t buy the novel folks, wait for the musical.
#131. To: BeAChooser (#117)
Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#132. To: BeAChooser (#122)
The issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion.
No, the issue is not that. The issue is what you would have done had we not invaded and al-Zarqawi continued to plot and fund terrorists attacks like the one in Jordan.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#133. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#127)
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#134. To: AGAviator, ALL (#131)
Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
"Strawman. Is that all you have?"
Unbelievable.
Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link.
#135. To: AGAviator, ALL (#132)
Zarqawi was not killed for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
#136. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#134)
I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot.
#137. To: AGAviator, scrapper, ALL (#133)
So BAC wants to make a Saddam-Zarqawi connection
Now the new botshill talking point is there were alleged terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power.
But now there are there more terrorists inside Iraq now than there were in 2002.
John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman
Orrin Hatch
Mike Dewine
Christopher Bond
Trent Lott
Olympia Snowe
Chuck Hagel
Saxby Chambliss
Carl Levin
Dianne Feinstein
Ron Wyden
Evan Bayh
Barbara Mikulski
Russell Feingold
#138. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#136)
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link?
#139. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#138)
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link?
#140. To: BeAChooser (#123)
Would Hitler and Tojo have been content to leave us alone from then on?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#141. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, Skydrifter (#134)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#142. To: BeAChooser (#122)
Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#143. To: BeAChooser (#138)
#144. To: BeAChooser (#135)
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous.
And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#145. To: SKYDRIFTER (#143)
"Thousands and thousands of islamo- fanatics have gone to Iraq ... and died there. If they weren't attacking us there, they'd likely be causing trouble elsewhere.
Off the top of my head there are 5 serious flaws in these claims.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#146. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, skydrifter (#135)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
.
.
.