The Liberals’ Creed

[shainaloves]

Re: The Liberals’ Creed

You know, it's a lot easier to do "unamerican" than "lie."

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Saddam sponsored terrorists including the PFLP (Geroge Habash), the ALF, the PLF (Abu Abbas), the PUK, the MeK, Abu nidal and Carlos the Jackal.

(Of course if you know exactly SQUAT about terrorism then this fact may have escaped your notice).

Saddam also agreed as the result of a temporary ceasefire in 1991
- to give up all his WMD's and long-range weapons
- and all material related thereto
- and cease all work and research into WMD and LRWeapon programs.

I know in the silly world of Noam Chamosky and Michael Moore only the US is supposed to abide by ceasfire agreements and mass-murdering terrorists sponsor are above such agreements (as long as they happen to be left-wing mass-murdering terrorist sponsors like Saddam).

Those of us not under the influence of Anti-American bigotry, however, consider the following findings in Iraq sufficient cause to justify the war (and we really don't care that John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the UN lied about the WMD stockpiles)




Finding #1

Those are the uranium enrichment centrifuge parts Saddam was hiding.
They are sitting atop the blueprints.
It was on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

The is exactly ONE purpose for an uranium enrichment centrifuge. Of course a centrifuge is not a weapon (What's he gonna do Throw it at us?)
so CNN headlined the story "No Weapons Found" or something like that.


"The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear
technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug
up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist
Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12
years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then
son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. "

Hmm, buried deep in the guys private yard, in his back yard. Would the UN inspectors have found it?



Finding #2

Those are vials of bioweapons reference strains.
Saddam was working on and maintaining stocks for
- Brucella
- Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF),
- Ricin and
- Aflatoxin .
In fairness, such reference strains have exactly TWO purposes.
One is to develop a weapon, one is to develop a cure.
Since he was allowed to cures, (he just had to disclose the material and
equipment so it could be inspected) but instead chose to secretly pursue
his research, which one do YOU think he was up to.

Of course, stockpiling reference strains whose only conceivable use is to
make bioweapons on short notice is not the same as stockoling the
bioweapons themselves.
ABC headlined the story "No Weapons Found"
CBS headlined it "No WMD in Iraq."


The reference strains were kept at home in a refrigerator by one of Saddam's WEAPON's scientists.

Would inspectors have found that? NOT!
(Hey Hans. Did ya check the fridge?)



Finding #3
David Kay's ACTUAL statement (not the media spun version of it).
It reads in part:

"With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have
obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should
clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain
nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Hussein
remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.
These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear
weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption
after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed
that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions
to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. "

Silly David you know the newspapers will enver quote that. If you didn't actually find a arsenal of bombs armed loaded and ready to go then They'll just quote you as "no weapons found." The voters err.. readers, don't really need to know all those nasty little details.



Finding #4
Saddam Hussein's secret stashes of Cesium (dirty bomb material) which, while perfectly legal if indteneded for nonweapons purposes were purchased on the black market, smuggled into the country, hidden from the UN weapons inspectors and buried it beneath a large pile of gravel at a WEAPONS plant?

Oh yeah we found that too.
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/041603_us_inspectors.htm

Of dirty bomb material secretly bought, smuggled and hidden at a
WEAPONS plant is a not a WMD, it is just clear evidence
of planning to build one.

I'm no weapons scientist, but why did Saddam have drying ovens and
bio-incubators at the same WEAPONS plant? (Yup, the
US inspectors found them too.)

True, if you drop a bioincubator out of an airplane it doesn't do much
damage so technically it is not a WMD. But maybe he had them at
a WEAPONS plant for other reasons, (HINT: like incubating bioweapons).

Hey you can think for yourself or you can believe whatever the NY Times
wants you to believe.




Finding #5
Is there really a need to go into the recent finding of long range missle motors?

I think not, at this point the case has already been made.

 

[charliekola]

So now you need to shout.
coulda shouda maybe...
Just show us the wmd's.

Weak.

Saddam has mobile bio-weapons labs driving around.

All fabricated paperwork from untrustworthy souces.

Time to ban me.
You guys are full of shit.

 

[samcurry]

no all i ask is that you follows the rules. your not potraying your party favorably by not doing so.

 

[shainaloves]

ResearchMonkey:

It's not that Hussein didn't have ties to terror, its this:

In March 2003 the U.S. widened the war on terrorism by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party (see Iraq primer). Although President Bush asserted that there was a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, no solid proof of any relationship between them has emerged. Since the war ended, however, suspected al-Qaeda terrorists have moved into the country and are likely responsible for kidnappings and a string of suicide-bomb attacks.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

 

[shainaloves]

All the other evidence is speculative. I'm sure if the BA had found WMDs they would have vehemently announced it.

I have a piece of logic that has no source, which is probably speculative as well. But isn't it fair to say, that if a country that has WMDs and is invaded, they would use them on the invading force?

 

[catocom]

Well, I'll start you off with just the Top Ten:

THE LIST:

After I finished writing a 300-page book detailing a wide assortment of George W. Bush lies—scores of deceptions, if not many more (I haven’t counted)—my publisher requested that I produce a top-ten list of Bush lies. It would be good for marketing, I was told. In my mind, the "top" lies numbered far more than ten. And after all, the book has fourteen chapters. A list of ten would have to leave out entire swaths of this work, including sections on such important subjects as global warming, missile defense, environmental standards, Bush’s failed energy plan, and Afghanistan reconstruction. It also would have to rely upon a false equivalency in order to provide a full flavor of the book. One could easily argue that the ten most significant lies of the Bush presidency all related to his campaign for war in Iraq. But such a list would not be much good from a sales perspective, for the point of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception is to show that Bush has lied his way through most serious policy matters (as well as through his bid for the presidency). Thus, I’m forced, as I brutally boil down 120,000 words to ten bullet items, to rely upon lies that represent larger body of lies. So here is a painfully constructed list—arranged in quasi-chronological order--that demonstrates the severity and range of Bush’s serial lying but that only skims the surface. For the complete picture—as well as for all the details that support the below accusations—please read the book.

10. "I have been very candid about my past." Bush said this during a press conference a few days before Election Day 2000. He was then in the middle of media firestorm that followed the revelation that he had once been arrested for drunken driving. Of course, this statement was untrue. He uttered it while he was trying to explain why he had not been "candid" about his arrest record. And during the campaign, he had not been "candid" about other significant matters, including what seemed to be a missing year in his National Guard service (which did not jibe with what he wrote about his service in his autobiography) and his apparent (though unacknowledged) shift from supporting abortion rights in the late-1970s to opposing them in the 1990s. He also was not "candid" about the tax plans he had pushed while governor of Texas. He always referred to them as "tax cuts" and did not mention that his major tax proposal included both tax cuts for property owners and an increase in the sales tax and the creation of a new business tax.

9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." This was a Bush catchphrase, a mantra. It was shorthand for his claim that he engaged in positive, not negative, politics and could heal a political culture ripped apart by the bitter ideological and partisan combat of the Clinton years. Yet during the 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida fracas, Bush and his lieutenants engaged in down-and-dirty and divisive political maneuvers. Just ask Senator John McCain, Bush’s main Republican opponent, whose record on veterans affairs was falsely attacked by a Bush surrogate and who was accused falsely by the Bush campaign of opposing research for breast cancer. As president-elect, Bush nominated one of the most divisive ideologues in Washington, former Senator John Ashcroft, to be attorney general. During a pre-inauguration interview, Bush acknowledged that he expected Ashcroft to be a lightning rod. But would-be uniters-not-dividers do not shove lightning rods up the backsides of their opponents. Another example: during the 2002 congressional campaign, Bush accused Democrats—who differed with him on employment rules for the new Department of Homeland Security—of sacrificing national security for their own petty purposes. He did this to help elect Republicans to office. Such a move was well within his rights as a political player, but not the action of a fellow who cares more about uniting than dividing.

8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." All the available slots of this top-ten list could be filled by statements Bush made to sell his tax cuts at various points—on the campaign trail, in 2001 (for the first major tax-cuts battle), and in 2003 (for the second major tax-cuts battle). But I chose an assertion from 2001 that echoed statements from the campaign trail, that would be reprised in 2003, and that represented the best-sounding argument for his tax cuts. Bush frequently claimed his tax cuts would help low- and middle-income Americans, and in 2000 and 2001 he often spoke of a mythical single-mom waitress, making $22,000 or so, who would be guided into the middle-class by his tax cuts. The point was to make it seem as if he truly cared for hard-pressed Americans and that his tax cuts did indeed embody his promise of "compassionate conservatism." (By the way, I am not placing on this list Bush’s claim that he is a "compassionate conservative." That’s a rather relative term more suitable for judgment than truth-based evaluation.) But when the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche reviewed his tax plan for Time magazine during the 2000 campaign, it found that his beloved waitress would receive no reduction in her taxes. Zippo. In 2001, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that this waitress might gain $200 from Bush’s tax cuts if she managed to pull in $25,000 a year. But such a sum would not place her on the highway to the middle class. In fact, about 12 million low- and moderate-income families received no tax relief from Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (and millions of families were left out of his 2003 package). His plan unlocked few doors. Instead, about 45 percent of the 2001 package was slated to go to the top 1 percent of income earners. In 2003, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated that individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush’s proposed tax cuts. Again, not an amount that would cover the entrance fee for a middle-class life.

7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells lines that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics and no longer needed by the couples for which they were produced). But many prominent Republican donors and patient advocacy groups supported stem cell research, noting that scientists believed that studying stem cells (which have the potential to grow into any one of the more than 200 different types of human cells) could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other terrible diseases. In his speech, Bush said that 60 stem cell lines already existed—"where the life and death decision has already been made"--and that these lines could support a vital and vibrant research effort. Consequently, he said, federally funding could be limited to underwriting research that employed only these lines. Bush was trying to have it both ways. He could appease his social conservative supporters by saying no to any federal support for new stem cell lines, and he could claim to support research that might potentially help millions of people. There was one problem. The 60 pre-existing lines did not exist. The number was closer to a dozen—if that—an amount that experts in the field did not consider sufficient for research purposes. And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count—which Bush might have initially assumed to be correct—the Bush administration kept repeating its untruthful position. Sticking to the 60-lines fantasy (or lie) permitted Bush to avoid making an explicit decision to curtail stem cell research. But in effect that was what he had done without admitting it.

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings—including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"—were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information—an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy—which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger." Bush said that a month after 9/11, and he has repeated that vow several times since then, including at the start of his recent month-long vacation at his Texas ranch. Every possible step? A reassuring line, but it is not true. Two years after the attacks, there still is no plan for enhanced security at the nation’s thousands of chemical plants. (Over a hundred of them handle chemicals that if released could threaten a million or so Americans.) According to the General Accounting Office, the Bush administration has not even "comprehensively assessed the chemical industry’s vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks." In October 2002, Tom Ridge, Bush’s chief homeland security official, said that voluntary regulations for the chemical industry would not suffice, but that is the policy the administration has been slowly pursuing. And less-than-everything has been the approach in other critical areas. A recent report from a Council on Foreign Relations task force—headed up by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman—says that not enough has been done to improve the abilities of first responders and that their basic needs will be underfunded by $100 billion over the next five years. The nation’s ports have asked for $1 billion to beef up security; the Bush administration has announced grants of $300 million. Various reports note that the federal government has not done all that is necessary to improve its biodefense capabilities. The administration has opposed efforts to mandate the screening of commercial cargo carried by passenger aircraft. (Most of this sort of cargo is not currently screened—creating one large security loophole.) So "every possible step" has not been taken.

4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Bush said that many a time during the 2000 presidential campaign, and in at least one ad pledged to "return honor and integrity" to the Oval Office. See above--and read the book.

10. So you are saying everything about the pres., or most stuff he has done in his
life are a matter of record somewhere?
Who would really know besides him, and maybe his wife/family? Really

9. I believe that phrase was taken out of context. I think he was talking about
something totally different.

8. I see no reference as to what the middle income bracket starts at there.
Even if a person making $16,000/year paid no taxes, it wouldn't put them on the way
to middle class status. Which I understand is around $50,000/year now.
He was simply giving them something that would help out, because he saw the economy
taking a down swing even then.

7.

And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count

convincingly? to who
"media reports?" what media?

6.

a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"—

according to what I saw, Osama himself didn't know it would even be that devastating.
So how could our intell.?

which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."

So you are saying that we should give away any secrets of how we gather
intell., to satisfy the this curiosity?

5.

Two years after the attacks, there still is no plan for enhanced security at the nation’s thousands of chemical plants.

and how do you know this to be true.
You think you know everything that all government people are doing all the time?

A recent report from a Council on Foreign Relations task force—headed up by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman—says that not enough has been done to improve the abilities of first responders and that their basic needs will be underfunded by $100 billion over the next five years. The nation’s ports have asked for $1 billion to beef up security; the Bush administration has announced grants of $300 million.

this is not fact either, it's his opinion.
I personally think the panel the pres. has put together to help
decide the dollar amounts are more credible than the one person.
Just trowing more money at something isn't always the best way.

Various reports note that the federal government has not done all that is necessary to improve its biodefense capabilities.

once again, How is this to be known?

Most of this sort of cargo is not currently screened

once again, How is this to be known?

4. First off "getting to know someone" and just meeting them several times,
are 2 different things. I know people that have dealt with people in business
several years, but don't 'really' 'know' them.
What Bush's perspective on their relationship, and what Lay's idea of it,
are also to different things. (apparently)
As has been said many times in many different places, and is a matter of
record, Enron contributed to most, or all the the major campains, Dem., and Rep.
I guess to try to sway them or something. (it doesn't mean it worked)

3. Even if this weren't true, and I see no convincing evedince,
it was the intell., that bush was given at the time, and therefore
that's all he had to go on. He thought it was true, maybe still does,
so either it's wasn't an intentional lie, or it wasn't a lie at all.

2. Bad intell. yet again.
Besides, there are other proofs of WMDs now.

1. I think he has from what Clinton diminnished it to.


Your turn to do some more digging, insted of just posting
someone elses 'ideas',

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Sam, I will reduce the grandiloquence on my part and try to stay focused on the debate and less so on the personalities.


shainaloves,

As far as using WMD's against a force that has clearly stated a nuclear strike is an option on the table if WMD were used against us. I would be thinking twice about using them too.

There is limited proof and more will revealed as time passes.

As time passes the oil-war point is losing any credibility at all.

This war is against terrorism, AQ is just one faction of what we are at war against.


This shows just a few of the undeniable links between Iraq and terrorism.

• Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six New Yorkers and injured over 1,000. Yasin fled to Baghdad after the attack, where he was given sanctuary and lived for years afterward.
  
  
• Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988
  
  
• Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002
  
  
• Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003
  
  
• Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan.
  
  
• Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka
  
  
• Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis.
  
  
• All this plus the terrorist training base at salman pak.

May 9, 2003

U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America.

Judge Harold Baer's final decisions was a $104 million judgment against Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

According to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors, the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al-Qaeda recruits practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist technique never employed before 9/11.

At least one veteran of Salman Pak, Sabah Khodad, has maintained that the 9/11 hijackers were actually trained by Saddam's henchman. He told PBS in October 2001 that the World Trade Center attack "was done by graduates of Salman Pak."

story

Since this a subscription dealio I will C/P it (since we all love C/P anyway )

Saddam's Files
Wall Street Journal

May 27, 2004

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found -- literally -- millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.

We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever -- that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

... the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

... if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.

... at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.

One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together....

... The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.

Source WSJ.com, pay side

I have promised my kids that we can go bike riding at the river.

 

[samcurry]

thanks RM thats all im asking for.

 

[shainaloves]

Um, my sources are better than your sources? Heh, nothing can be said but that.

But I knew there was a quote when Bush denied a connected between the two. I figured it fell in the memory hole. While searching, I found that it did: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

I'm sick and tired of giving politicians an excuse to be wrong because of "faulty intelligence." If the intel is not conclusive or uncontradictable, I don't want my leaders acting blindly. I think it is no excuse for ending lives.

I'd also appreciate it if you responded to all of my ideas and not just one that you can disprove. I don't like repeating myself.

I'd like to talk about tax cuts.

 

[Leslie]

[aside]You can't order people to post on topics of your choosing.
If there is interest in a post or portion thereof, followup posts will be made. If not, then there it is. [/aside]

 

[shainaloves]

I said appreciate. Do you not like me Leslie?

 

[catocom]

when Bush denied a connected between the two

and "not making a claim"
are also 2 different things.
And that was some time ago. He may now be able to make that claim.

 

[Gonz]

Yes, President Bush said there was no connection. That way he didn't have his hands tied. As time has passed, many links have arisen. We (he may or may not have known personally) knew of several before the war began. Many more have been shown to exist.

Tax cuts? I pay over $600/year less than I did. They worked for me. Oh, I'm a lowly truck driver...no CEO bonuses here.

 

[samcurry]

shaina its not that she dislkes anyone, we are just growing tired of the attacks that have been happening in this forum. (not meaning you inparticular just overall.)

 

[Leslie]

well, it wasn't then, but it is now sammy.

this is adorable.

of course they hide behind a posts previewed by a mod so noone can disrupt their little game...so...my post there I'm sure will never show up.

so here it is.

of course there's a chance we would get here m'dear, when your numbnutted friend posts this forum before inviting an invasion. What a maroon! *rolling eyes*

As a lefty treehugging peaceloving war hating Bush hating Canadian chick who cried the night you people elected Bush,

I'm still shocked and disappointed that you, Mark, would do this when it's obvious to anyone that we're trying to run a fun happy board without the hate that you all seem to thrive on, nonbiased, non-inflammatory discussion. I had previously had respect for you as a member, that respect level just went DISDAIN++.

Thank you all for j00r spam,

kthxbye.

 

[markjs]

Are we afraid of debate? I only wanted some more edumacated Libs to enter the discussion. I've no doubt your post will show up on the ABB site, but you have to pay yor dues and post lots of posts through the moderator first. I didn't mean for a hate fest to occur. I enjoy debating issues but I was feeling like the board was leaning dangerously far to the right and I thought I could balance it out some. If I did this board a serious wrong I guess you can ban me or something. Though I surely hope not.

 

[Gato_Solo]

well, it wasn't then, but it is now sammy.

this is adorable.

of course they hide behind a posts previewed by a mod so noone can disrupt their little game...so...my post there I'm sure will never show up.

so here it is.

I dropped by there myself, and, for all I can see, most of the folks there are doing nothing but flaming our current president. Most of them sound like they spent too much time in college, and not enough in the real world. markjs even confused me with Gonz about the cigarette issue...Let them fly, Les and Sam, I can take all their heat, and not even feel warm.

 

[Larner]

Someone documents the lies, and you don't accept them. What does this say about you, Gonz?

 

[Larner]

And, Sport, if you wanted "edumacated" liberals to enter the list, then why on earth did you invite me? You know very blessed well I have never been a liberal and won't become one at this late date. And you know the moment I gave up all pretense of being a Republican--when Bush took my political party and put it in the gutter. Lincoln must be spinning in his tomb.