The awful truth about Bush!

“Well, finally the truth is out. Bush dropped the ball on 9/11, has increased terror through phony wars, ignored the truth while demanding lies from his "advisors", and has used 9/11 for personal and partisan political gain. This all coming from an expert witness who saw it all first hand. Richard Clarke, a top advisor to Reagan, Bush the 1st, Clinton and the shrub, revealed on 60 minutes just how dishonest and incompetent the administration really is. They will stop at nothing to spread the lie that shrub is the "Terror President", his only "accomplishment" aside from crippiling our economy, trashing our environment, trying to use the Bible for partisan gain, sheltering corporate criminals because they're his friends and financial supporters, and lying to the American people with virtually every statement he has ever made. Now, let the neo-con apologists and appeasers start their engines on the resulting smear campaign against all people who tell the truth, including this man. Looking into my crystal ball, I predict "It's all Klinton's fault" to give "Criticizing the President helps Al-Qaeda" a real run for it's money in the upcoming Dishonesty Derby!”

“"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." --James Wilson


"Your successes are unheralded -- your failures are
trumpeted." --John F. Kennedy to CIA intelligence professionals
in 1961.”

“We now hear the argument that since weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have not — so far — been found in Iraq, there has been a massive intelligence failure, and we never should have gone to war. But failure to find stockpiles does not mean the ultimate peril did not exist. Far more important were Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's history, capability and intent, and the serious and long-term threat he posed to a vital region, to America's allies and to our national security.
First, Saddam had used WMD — against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.

Second, Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them — along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of last year's war — assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.

Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere — from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea — Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD.

Fourth, Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and as murderously evident in Madrid, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat. Despite the bitter and often partisan controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling.

Robert J. Lieber is a professor of government and foreign affairs at Georgetown University. His forthcoming book is titled The American Era: A Guilt-Free Guide to Foreign Policy."”

“Saddam Hussein's weapons
Walter E. Williams (and he's black to boot!)
March 17, 2004


Listening to the political and media rhetoric about the war in Iraq, you’d think that only President Bush thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Here are just a few past statements made by Bush’s critics.


President Clinton (1998): "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (February 1998): "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

In 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Also in 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. John Kerry, Democratic presidential front-runner, said in 2002, "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

In January 2003, Kerry added, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

The fact of the matter is that former President Clinton, as well as many members of Congress, believed, just as President Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed or was developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The widespread attacks on President Bush are little more than political demagoguery and grandstanding and depend on public forgetfulness and ignorance to succeed.

Military intelligence will probably always be an inexact science. Let’s go back to President Roosevelt’s administration. By mid-1940, the "evidence" became so promising about Germany’s nuclear-weapons program that British and American scientists judged it imprudent to continue to publish new results. Further research in the United States and Britain was done in secret to prevent German scientists from using the findings to develop an atomic bomb of their own for use in the war then underway.

The frightening possibility that Germany might succeed in providing Hitler with a nuclear weapon was one of the driving forces for the U.S. Manhattan Project. It was also the reason for some of the strategic targeting during World War II, including heavy water facilities in Nazi-occupied Norway.

When World War II ended, it was discovered that Germany wasn’t nearly as close to developing an atomic bomb as intelligence experts had thought. Fortunately, back during that time, we didn’t have today’s hustling politicians and gullible public around to criticize either our war strategy or the atomic bombing of Japan. Back then, Americans were thankful we got the bomb first and used it to end the war.

Listening to today’s politicians and what goes for informed media commentary, George Bush should have waited for unambiguous proof that a megalomaniac tyrant like Saddam Hussein had nuclear-chemical-biological weapons. I’m wondering if that unambiguous proof sufficient for America’s political hustlers and gullible public would have been a mushroom cloud over one of our cities or millions of Americans suffering and dying from chemical or biological toxins."”

“Linking Al-Qaida and Iraq
Jonah Goldberg

As it becomes increasingly clear that al-Qaida was responsible for the horrific attacks in Madrid, one question keeps popping up: If there's no link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, why did al-Qaida blow up those trains?

Critics of the Iraq war have been saying for more than two years that there was never any al-Qaida-Saddam link. After all, they'd say, Saddam is secular and bin Laden is a religious fanatic. When Howard Dean was trotted out for last Sunday's "Meet the Press" to square off against Condoleezza Rice, the former Vermont governor rehashed the familiar complaint.

"It turned out that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida .even though the administration tried to lead us in an opposite direction," Dean asserted. "The administration simply did not tell the truth about Iraq. The debate is not about whether we should fight terrorism. I supported the war in Afghanistan. . But fighting Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism."

Now, I should help Dean here. He surely means Iraq had "nothing to do with terrorism" aimed at us by al-Qaida in recent years. After all, nobody disputes that Iraq has been a huge sponsor of terrorism.

A new study from the Hudson Institute details how Saddam provided money, support and shelter to a league of extraordinary terrorists. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first World Trade Center bombing, was given sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. forces.

The list goes on and on. Never mind the fact that Saddam funded suicide bombings in Israel, the gassing of Kurds, the attempted murder of George H.W. Bush and other acts that at least some of us consider "terrorism."

Regardless, let's interpret Dean as charitably as possible. If Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaida, why did al-Qaida feel the need to attack Spain, one of America's coalition partners? I mean why not blow up 200 people in Minsk? Or Bogata?

Supporters of the war say the reason al-Qaida is trying - and, alas, succeeding - to tear apart the coalition is that they cannot afford to see democracy win in Iraq. A stable and prospering Iraq will transform the Middle East, over time, into a region where the bloody fanaticism of bin Laden has no appeal.

The anti-war critics have an answer, too. They say al-Qaida is merely taking advantage of the moment. It's opportunistically using Iraq as a recruiting ground and the backlash against the war as a recruiting tool. Dean summed it up by saying, "We know al-Qaida is in Iraq now, even though they were not in Iraq before we went in."

Fine. I fail to see why both of these explanations cannot both be true. But in wars, at some point, speculation about motives needs to take a back seat to sober appraisal of fact. For example, there were plenty of plausible, interconnected reasons for Hitler's alliance with Japan. Hitler wanted to see the U.S. bogged down in the Pacific; he wanted to cut off the British from their colonies; he liked the way the Japanese cooked vegetables, whatever. Ultimately, who cares?

Right now - not last year or 10 years ago - the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is obvious for anybody willing to see it. Al-Qaida benefits if Iraq descends into chaos; it benefits if the Western world bickers with itself and dickers with terrorists; it benefits if America is isolated. Conversely, al-Qaida suffers if Iraq prospers, if the West stands together, if America leads.

The tragedy is that many people and nations refuse to see it that way. They want to pretend that Iraq is America's problem and that it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The incoming Spanish prime minister - a man with a thoroughly anti-American record - has declared the war in Iraq a "disaster" and will pull all of Spain's troops out of Iraq.

Meanwhile, in a statement that is surely the Chamberlainesque "peace in our time" of our generation, European Commission President Romano Prodi declared: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Prodi's evidence is the increased terrorism since the Iraq war. By this logic, shooting bears is not the best way to kill them, since a wounded animal is the most dangerous kind.

The champions of "nuance" would have us believe the Spanish vote and Prodi's preference for taking a prone position toward terrorism are more sophisticated and complicated than they seem. Fine. Bully for them.

But again, who cares? Certainly not al-Qaida. They're too busy basking in their victory and planning their next attack on complicated Europe”

“OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:


4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.
A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.


5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.
Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government."

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.


This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).
Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:


8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.
9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:


10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.
The analysis of those events follows:


The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.

IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A "former senior Iraqi intelligence officer" reported that "the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad's point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz."


11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .
14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.

According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.


15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.
16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.

17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.

18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction.

An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:


Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.
Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."


INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."

The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.


23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.
Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:


24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.
One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.


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.

The analysis of this report follows.


CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons."
Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:

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.

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.





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.

Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:


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."


CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror; that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely "exaggerated" for political purposes; that hawks "cherry-picked" bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public.

Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look at the administration's "exaggeration of intelligence."

Said Levin: "The question is whether or not they exaggerated intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that there's a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was there a basis for that?"

There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Gore's recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new "evidence" that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really?

One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

One example. 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.


Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard."”

“Well said Stratdewd. I definitely couldn't have done better. Most members on this forum probably know that I'm for Bush's war on Iraq. Don't get me wrong....I'm not pro-war....just that Saddam and Osama have to be taken care of.”

“What about Bill and 9-11?
Brent Bozell
September 17, 2003


On the second anniversary of September 11, there wasn't half as much solemnity and national unity on network TV coverage as last year. Bush administration officials were hammered by the TV interviewers for somehow straying from the war on al Qaeda into Iraq. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was being served cups of homage along with the coffee. CBS's Hannah Storm cooed: "You've fought so much for the heroes of 9/11 ... Has enough been done for the heroes, the people who fought so bravely on that day?"

In other words, we're back to normal. The imbalance was not only stunning for Team Bush, it was unfair to the viewing public. Several authors are now reviewing the Clinton legacy on terrorism, and it's a sorry one. Their new books should have caused CBS and the others to ask Sen. Clinton: Why didn't your husband seize Osama bin Laden when he had the chance?

It takes the passage of time for a true historical verdict to be reached, but the Clinton legacy on terrorism is one virtually no one wants to discuss. When they do touch on it, the authors seem very sensitive to appearing to be too anti-Clinton.

On Sept. 3, author Gerald Posner came on NBC's "Today" show to discuss his new book, "Why America Slept." Katie Couric bluntly asked if he blamed Clinton for failing to prevent the attacks. Posner tiptoed and mumbled into a yes, "unfortunately." But he added: "If the Republicans had been in power, it would've been the same situation, Katie. I'd be talking to you today about nobody paying attention. It just happened to fall on Bill Clinton's watch, unfortunately." After changing the subject to the Saudi connection to al Qaeda, Katie underlined that Posner's book should be read with a jaundiced eye: "a member of the National Security Council and a senior intelligence official in this country says the whole thing is fantasy."'

Posner was back on TV the next day on the hot morning show "Fox & Friends," and the change in the author's tone was dramatic. Co-host Steve Doocy asked how many times Posner voted for Clinton (both times), and then asked if he would so again in hindsight. Posner not only said there was zero chance of that, he rebutted himself from the day before: "I thought anyone who was in office (would have failed), we weren't paying attention as a country ... But Clinton was particularly bad."

Why? Clinton missed an opportunity to get Osama from the Sudan in 1996. "Worse than that," Posner told Fox, Osama landed in a jumbo jet with 150 family members and aides on the ground of our ally, Qatar: "They call up and say, 'What should we do with this guy?' And the White House says, 'Send him on.'" Posner even charged that Clinton did little because he was always doing polling to figure out if he should go after bin Laden, as opposed to leading the public against the building terror threat.

Conservative analysts from Rush Limbaugh on down have focused their minds and energies on the things Bill Clinton could have done to prevent the September 11 attacks. But our "objective" press corps can't even imagine blaming Clinton for anything. Posner's Clinton "bashing" was left out of the "Today" show Web site excerpt. The Sept. 8 Time magazine carried an "explosive" book review, but it was another interesting Posner story about the confession of top al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah -- nothing on Clinton.


Even if it's negative, at least Posner's book is getting major media attention. Former Wall Street Journal writer Richard Miniter's book, "Losing Bin Laden," goes into detail on Clinton's failures, but he hasn't been invited on ABC, CBS or NBC. In an interview with National Review Online on September 11, Miniter listed 16 moments of opportunity when Team Clinton screwed up the chance to get Osama.

Miniter is most intrigued by the response to the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which took the lives of 17 U.S. soldiers. Except for counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, the entire Clinton team wanted to take no military action in response. Janet Reno thought it was against "international law." Madeleine Albright thought it would hurt America in "world opinion." Even Defense Secretary Bill Cohen was a no. One friend told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Albright is the next major author who will make the TV rounds promoting a book. That's a good opportunity for the network stars to ask the tough questions about Clinton administration mistakes. But that's about as likely as Clinton doing the right thing about terrorism."”

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull sh*t. Stratdewd, you are the master. Too bad shrub didn't tell us the truth when sending us to a war of agression against an admittedly evil man who was no threat to us. There was no link between Iraq and international terrorists, and anyone who says there was is a stooge for the shrub cadre of liars, or is a war-mongering liar themselves. Which are you? Let me guess... LOL. Luckily, the American people are on to your Furher's evil ways, and he will soon join the ranks of the people he's "unemployed". Poetic justice, indeed!”

“JEESUS FRIGGIN CHRIST IN A BUCKET MAN, DID YOU READ ANY OF THAT?

this is the way i know you are full of it....

read this, slugdood;

DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Official: Kerry failed
to act on pre-9/11 tip
3rd agent to say he warned security lapses made Boston airport ripe for 'jihad' attack posted: March 19, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Paul Sperry
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – A third federal aviation-security agent, one still with the government, has stepped forward to say he also warned Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry about security lapses at Boston's Logan International Airport before the 9-11 hijackings there.

Earlier this week, two former FAA agents said the Democratic presidential hopeful failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his home airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings.

Brian Sullivan, a retired special agent from the Boston area, advised Kerry in a May 7, 2001, letter (page 1, page 2) that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack." He cited serious breaches at Logan security checkpoints exposed by an undercover investigation he and another former agent helped a Boston TV news station conduct.

Sullivan says he had a copy of the undercover videotape hand-delivered to Kerry's office.

It turns out the person who delivered it was a senior FAA agent in Washington who's now with the Transportation Security Administration. The agent, Bogdan Dzakovic, headed covert testing of airport security across the country before TSA took over aviation security from FAA after 9-11.

In an exclusive interview, he says he gave the tape to Jamie Wise, a Kerry staffer at the time.

After the office visit, "I received no feedback from anyone there," Dzakovic told WorldNetDaily.

Kerry boasts in campaign ads he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9-11."

But he waited three months to reply to Sullivan's letter. And his July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which was obtained by WorldNetDaily, merely offers to pass Sullivan's warning on to the Transportation Department's inspector general – even though Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents, including Dzakovic, had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere.

"The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," Sullivan told Kerry.

He suggested Kerry show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.

Yet the correspondence stopped there. Kerry never followed up with him.

"He just did the Washington shuffle," said Sullivan, who thinks Kerry had a chance to prevent the Boston hijackings.

Another former agent, Steve Elson, who set up the TV sting at Logan, tried to follow up with Kerry, but was told by Wise he wasn't a constituent. (Elson, formerly of the elite Red Team that did covert testing, was a Houston field agent at the time.)

He came unglued, warning the staffer that if Kerry didn't act soon he'd risk the lives of planeloads of his actual constituents.

"What would the senator say if a large plane filled with holiday travelers took off from Logan at Thanksgiving for somewhere in California and went – boom – spattering men, women, children and babies all over the landscape at a couple of hundred knots?" demanded Elson, an ex-Navy SEAL.

His warning now looks like prophecy: At least 82 Kerry constituents were murdered aboard American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.

Elson says he also dealt with Gregg Rothschild, Kerry's legislative director at the time. Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.

Dzakovic laments the lack of attention to their warnings.

"We could have fed fish at the aquarium and accomplished just as much," he said.

Sullivan is perhaps the most frustrated. His two-page warning to Kerry four months before the Logan hijackings was eerily prescient.

"With the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers?" he wrote. "Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible. It is almost likely."

The toll from such an attack would be economic, as well as human, he predicted with chilling accuracy.

And the Logan security failures he highlighted in the letter included breaches at the very checkpoints the hijackers would later exploit.

The undercover investigation by Fox affiliate WFXT in Boston showed crews penetrating security checkpoints at Logan with knives and other weapons in nine of 10 tries.

Elson says the crew, led by reporter Deborah Sherman, walked through with Leatherman tools concealed in fanny packs. The Leatherman is a fancy utility knife. The 9-11 hijackers used utility knives. Sherman says she also had no luck getting Kerry to act on the video he apparently saw.

"It was always being 'reviewed' every time I called," she said. "There was no comment or action taken on the senator's part other than passing the tape along to someone else."

Sullivan – a registered independent who's also critical of Bush's handling of aviation security, both before and since 9-11 – thinks Kerry could have saved the Twin Towers, which were toppled by the Boston jetliners, and thousands of lives.

"John Kerry should have – and could have – prevented 9-11," he said.

How? "He could have taken direct action to address the concerns we had identified by visiting Logan and the MassPort authorities at Logan or the Massachusetts State Police," he said.

If that didn't work to bring about corrective action, he could have applied political pressure by having Sullivan and other agents testify before Congress, he says.

"Enhanced security would have prevented the hijackings, virtually without question," Elson agreed. If nothing else, it might have discouraged ringleader Mohamed Atta, who monitored security procedures at Logan weeks before the hijackings.

Phone calls to Kerry's campaign were not returned.

Right after 9-11, he told the Boston Globe that he'd triggered an undercover probe of Logan security by the General Accounting Office in June 2001, based on the TV report.

Only, he wrote Sullivan no such thing in his July letter, stating only that he passed his warning and the tape on to Transportation, not GAO.

And GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, did not test security at Logan. (Kerry confessed he didn't know the outcome of the probe he says he initiated.)

GAO spokesman Jeff Nelligan says there is no evidence Kerry requested anything specific with regard to Logan, although he says GAO had communications with "a number of interested members and staff, including Sen. John Kerry's office" about airport screener testing work in 2001.

He would not elaborate.

Sullivan and Elson, joined by aviation-security experts David Forbes and Andrew Thomas, want to see Kerry called before the 9-11 Commission, as well as President Bush, to answer questions about what he knew about Logan's lapses, and specifically what he did about them, before that fateful day. They also recommend GAO and Transportation officials testify to sort out discrepancies in Kerry's story.

Calls to the panel were not immediately returned.

"We don't have to wait for a tragedy to occur to act," Sullivan urged Kerry in his letter."”

“This is such complete nonsense, that I'm surprised that even a neonazi like you would dare repeat it as fact. If this peson had such ironclad proof of terrorist-related weaknesses in our national security, then he is a lunatic or a traitor for not bringing it to the attention of the proper authorities in the bush administration and the FBI and the NSA and the CIA. They handle national security on an everyday level, with senators responsible for overall lawmaking and oversight. This person, Bogdan Dzakovic, is either a liar or the world's stupidest person, or both. He is obviously a shrub stooge, probably coached by the master of dirty tricks, Karl Rove, the mastermind behind the shrub administration's profiting from the 9/11 fiasco they knowingly allowed to happen. Shrub is a liar, he is a convicted criminal, he has hired convicted criminals to run our country, and he will stop at nothing to achieve his nazi-like agenda. Your using WorldNetDaily.com as a news source is very illuminating as well. They are a well-known crackpot/religious fannatic/lunatic fringe/complete a-hole group of weirdos and creeps. What a moron, to try to use them as a credible source! I guess neo-cons who belive this stuff are all idiots. Too bad for your kind that hardcore neo-cons are not a voting majority in America, thank God. (The headline story on WND right now is about how bush reads the bible every day, including on Sep 11th, even though bush has never once been able to say what verse he was reading that day whenever he has been asked that question, proving he is either stupid or a liar, or both). Give it up, dewd, the cat's out of the bag, and won't ever go back in. Shrub is a liar, his whole administration is crooked, and his only "accomplishment" is an illusion. Thank you, Jesus, for allowing Americans to see the truth of this murdering hypocrite, and for giving us the wisdom to vote him onto the scrapheap of history!”

“I saw on 60 minutes that all liberals and anyone who thinks like a liberal are the spawn of Satan and need to be destroyed.

Andy Rooney is Satan's @ss puppet and will burn in hell for all eternity.

8)”

“good point UP.....”

“Figures microtallywhacker....your boy Bush is backed into a corner and your only response is some nonsense about the devil's spawn. Ignorant.”

“Slugman - Will you marry me?”

“I love all the misleading spin they are throwing at Kerry.

I watched one of the political shows last night, and some meo-con stated that "how can John Kerry rail against jobs going overseas when his wife's company has 59 out of 79 plants overseas."

Please not who is not present on the Heinz Co. Board of Directors:



Board of Directors


William R. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, H. J. Heinz Company

The following Directors are Independent under the current NYSE rules, the proposed NYSE and SEC rules and the H. J. Heinz Company Director Independence Standards.


Charles E. Bunch
President and Chief Operating Officer, PPG Industries
Mary C. Choksi
Managing Director, Strategic Investment Partners
Leonard S. Coleman, Jr.
Senior Advisor, Major League Baseball
Peter H. Coors
Chairman, Coors Brewing Company
Edith E. Holiday
Attorney and Director, Various Corporations
Candace Kendle
Chairman and CEO, Kendle International Inc.
Dean R. O'Hare
Director
Lynn C. Swann
President, Swann, Inc.
Thomas J. Usher
Chairman and CEO, U.S. Steel Corporation
James M. Zimmerman
Chairman, Federated Department Stores, Inc

Hieress doesn't mean you are involved with corporate decision making.”

“Slugman must have watched a different 60 minutes program than I did.”

“The interviewee, Mr. Clarke, was thorougly discredited even before the segment aired.”

“Sounds like they had al-Phaedy as a guest.

I'm still not voting for the man [President Bush]. He's more dangerous to America than the Taliban.

Phaedrus
12:05:50 AM
03/20/04"”

“"The interviewee, Mr. Clarke, was thorougly discredited even before the segment aired."
Bison
07:01:22 AM


I missed the show completely, but have read up on Richard Clarke's comments in the papers. My question is how was a man of this caliber, who was a highly respected man through 4 presidencies and whom 60 minutes devoted a significant amount of prime time for his story, thoroughly discredited before the thing even aired? And who did this'discrediting'?”

“You can always tell when strat is cutting and pasting. No atrocious spelling and semi-coherent thoughts.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................”

“Just one of many.”

“Bison, a column that is an opinion of one man can actually be interpreted as spin. That is one person who obviously has an axe to grind with Clarke. If you are going to present something that is to discredit a person, please make it something a hell of a lot more conclusive than one's opinion...”

“How many more former administration officials have to come forward with similar tales before the true believers develop some doubts? It’s like a friggin’ cult, I tell ya.”

“Wasn't Clark appointed during the Reagan administration, and didn't he serve continuously until the present Bush? Somehow, I would think that gives him great credit among conservatives.”

“I guess, according to these people, the credibility they had when they were given their jobs doesn't amount to sh_t once they form an opinion of their own. Moral of the story, stick to the script and you get the part...”

“Trus, Dun. He is basically non-partisan. But, independant thought is dangerous in this country, it seems...”

“Good article Bison.”

“Two words: Special Prosecutor.”

“"Good article Bison."


which offers nothing but spin!”

“Looks like the 9-11 Commission has some new material to work with. It should definitely make the questioning of Bush and his people more interesting, LOL

I have a feeling they aren't going to stick their heads in the sand like some people. They've already accused Bush et al of sandbagging the investigation.... the Republican commission members as well as the Democrats and families of the victims.”

“Bush is such a collassal failure of epic proportions, it's almost unbelievable.”

“Doods! Don't you see! Everyone who doesn't agree or comes out against this Adim is a phuckin COMMIE!?!!

I have never seen so many peeps come outta any Admin and come right out and give it like it is!

You "pubs" are in Deeeeeeppppp! chit!

Rove has played his last card.


Karma bill is due, MUTHAPHUCKER!”

“It's no less spin than what this guys selling. And let's not forget his ties to Rand Beers, and Rand Beers works for who?????

Oh he works for the Kerry campaign... I smell political sleaze.”

“But, he ain't no NAZI!”

“Well, I was hoping to spawn a heated debate. Too bad the neo-cons can only copy hate that they read on ultra-conservative lap-dog websites. Clarke "discredited"? Complete hogwash, proof that anyone who dares to stand up this awful group of traitors is going to be automatically "discredited". I notice that bison's source has ads for the Republican National Committee all over it. Some "news source"! What kind of nitwit would believe this propaganda? That's easy: self-serving nitwits who believe anything, as long as that belief benefits them financially or in a partisan manner. Too bad they can't put America ahead of the republican party, or they'd see that bush and company are the discredited ones. It's all going to be moot soon, as this group of war criminals will be tossed out with the trash in a few short months!”

“Truthfulness, facts and eyewitness accounts now being spun as "political sleaze". I guess it will never stop.”

“The number of people who worked for and are now speaking out against the administration, pails in comparison to the number of people who aren't.”

“WTF!?!

Please be specific...”

“Maybe some folks are worried about losing thier jobs, since there are barely any to take out there if they get fired.”

“All of this republican logic and spin (except my man McCain) lacks reason, logic and credibility. Open your eyes, minds and ears people, jeez.”

“Buddha You're Fired!


heheheheeee”

“A post like that above is so full of vile, that it defeats any purpose of having a discussion with you. There are plenty of other people who were in meetings with Mr. Clarke who dispute what he says took place, Why should we choose to believe him? Perhaps because he's telling you what you want to hear. And I've already commented on his political connections.”

“Hell, even ole' Donald came out and said the economy does better under Democratic leadership. Did you folks see that interview? I'll find the link.”

“"All of this republican logic and spin (except my man McCain) lacks reason, logic and credibility. Open your eyes, minds and ears people, jeez."

I would say the exact same thing about you. I know the people around here aren't dumb, but I can't believe there are people around here spewing democratic propoganda, at the same time that they are accusing others of doing the same on the republican side.”

“What situation leads good Puck to envy?

By fair light, on yon hether

What is this?

A trouble maker, fairy, a troll?

Blast! You have yet to feel my wrath, for I, good Puck, will see that this deed is undone!

I pray thee, have good will, for thee must be tired of such flailing, such pain.

It is with thy words.. I must speak.........










JIHAD YO MOMMA!!




FLMAO!!”

“Alas, great indifference I see.

Two great houses in conflict.

Shall I make a merry?

Shall I make a jester?

Pickth the later, for I see no joy in appauleding whatsome might seem as right.

Blind are they, the ones who put there lips upon trumpets.

And sign the songs of the failed.

Anger, misery, betrail!

You beast! You hussy! You Mormon!

I, Puck, feel your pain and upon doing so, revial in it!”

“WTF are you talking about?”

“Pray tell, kind sir.

For what do you seek?

Is it me?

Is it them?

I beceeth thee, for why do ask thy question?

Is the the harbor of wonder?

Is thee the minstral of Devilsih deeds?

Or, I do know thee.

As clever as thy would make thee out to be!

Ask! Ask again!

For thee is one of reason, not one of depair.

You, kind sir, are the window of truth, the speaker of sence.

Go forth NOW! Go yon hether for thee as desinty there!

Pease be on your trail, good tidings as well!”

“And now we see that a Viacom subsidiary is publishing the book, and 60 minutes is on CBS a company that is owned by... You guessed it Viacom.

Once again I smell a rat.”