 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wrong about what Nakona? That Sparky hasn't posted using the guidlines? I've not witnessed any indication of that, and in most cases I've seen he was treated with more derision than he/she dished out. However, I've also noticed a slight deterioration of Sparky's posts. Attacking the people rather than the issues.
Nothing in contrast to attacks on Sparky's character.
I suggest the deterioration is in frustration due to censorship, that I have likewise experienced. It's hard to make good polite posts, when your hard work and earnest opinion is stricken from cyberspace.
Nay Hist, I am not Sparky, and to be fair to the administrators, my post, to my surprise, still exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nakona
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy Eaton wrote: | | Wrong about what Nakona? That Sparky hasn't posted using the guidlines? |
yeah... that's what I was talking about. 
Go back to DU, kid.
_________________
13F20P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Allrighty then. Look I have seen in numerous international sources for months and months now. Al Quaeda and Saddam... No link. Now after the Abu Ghraib thing... bingo you've got all this state propaganda coming out. I'm extremely skeptical of it all. Al Quaeda is not linked to Saddam... and the links to Iraq are tenous. I can understand the need to restore the philosophical, and righteous underpinnings premises for the invasion of Iraq. Especially because the justification of WMD's has now been pretty much proven a falsehood. Even smart Republicans really know it's about the oil contracts, and geopolitical military strategy. China is going to be a really big upcoming energy market. Even better now that US companies can profit off of the second largest oil reserves in the world out of Iraq.
My apologies for going off topic Admin, I reacted rashly as I thought Nakona was being rude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeremy, did you miss the quotes I posted from members of the 9-11 Commission? There are definite links to Iraq and Al Qeada, just not to the 9-11 event.
What amuses me is how the left has been crying all along that Bush needed to do something to prevent 9-11 from happening, yet, after he did something to prevent another, he is castigated for it.
What would Kerry do? Run to the UN and ask for a resolution? Yeah, that's the ticket, pass a resolution condemning terrorists, make them tremble in fear of a UN resolution |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | Jeremy, did you miss the quotes I posted from members of the 9-11 Commission? There are definite links to Iraq and Al Qeada, just not to the 9-11 event.
What amuses me is how the left has been crying all along that Bush needed to do something to prevent 9-11 from happening, yet, after he did something to prevent another, he is castigated for it.
What would Kerry do? Run to the UN and ask for a resolution? Yeah, that's the ticket, pass a resolution condemning terrorists, make them tremble in fear of a UN resolution |
okay sigh...
I'll see your quote and raise you a link. After which I will probably be edited for not following "the rules".
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/17/1436250
I'm gonna state something a little radical here. Cut me some slack and see if you cannot convince me otherwise.
I believe that you cannot win the war on terrorism. You cannot track down the last terrorist and shoot em dead in the street. Most war efforts to do this, in fact do the EXACT opposite. It just irks the children of their dead parents, and they make promising in their hearts to strike back at America by any means necessary.
The best you can do is eliminate the circumstances and reasons for them to seek such drastic actions in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently, you did miss the quotes from members of the commission;
| Quote: | Jim Thompson former governor of Illinois and member of the 9-11 Commission: When asked by Soledad O’Brien on CNNs Good Morning America on 18 June 2004: "So we hear from both President Bush and Dick Cheney clearly there was a relationship. Does your report contradict what the White House is saying?" Thompson answered: Not at all. In fact, the report says that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are correct. It's a little mystifying to me why some elements of the press have tried to stir this up as a big controversy and a big point of contradiction because there is none. We said there's no evidence to support the notion that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated together to produce 9/11. President Bush said that weeks ago. He said it again yesterday. The vice president said it again yesterday. I said it again yesterday in television interviews. What we did I say was there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein, and the president has said there were contacts. The vice president has said there were contacts. They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found, I don't know. That wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11. So there is no controversy; there's no contradiction, and this is not an issue.
Chairman of the 9-11 Commission Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there.”
Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, on CNN’s June 17 “Inside Politics” ''The President's correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam's intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that's what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.''
Lee Hamilton, Vice CHairman of the Commission said: "The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq. |
These are not comments from some Liberal Blog or idle speculation by anyone. They are actual quotes from top members of the commission showing disgust at how the media is trying to distort their work for political gain.
Minimizing terrorist activities by destroying them and their support is winning. No, every last single one of them cannot be done away with, they hide and cower like rats. But, we can sure make them think twice about sticking their heads up again and attacking someone else.
Nazis weren't totally eleminated either, but we sure took the wind out of their sails back in the 40s. I'd call that a win.
I just see no evidence that Kerry has the qualifications to make the stand that is needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeWinn
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 110
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And Jeremy, the link you gave was a week old. Does that mean we can use old and disproven data to lend credence to our arguments? Most, if not all, of the media sources that first reported the 'no link' headlines and stories have either apologized or printed retractions/corrections to those
same headlines and stories.
geeeez 
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!
GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What the press was saying way back in 1999
| Quote: | Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
Taliban authorities did not confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left Afghanistan
February 13, 1999
Web posted at: 10:55 a.m. EST (1547 GMT)
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known, said the sources who declined to be identified.
The report of his departure comes just days after the Taliban Islamic militia, which rules most of Afghanistan, took away his satellite telephone and banned bin Laden from speaking to the media.
Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country. The Taliban have called bin Laden their honored guest, a friend who helped the Afghan resistance fight invading Soviet soldiers in the 1980s.
The Taliban's ambassador in Islamabad, Saeed-ur-Rehman Haqqani, said he had not been told of bin Laden's departure, "but if it has happened, it will be a good thing."
Saddam Hussein offered asylum
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden.
Pakistan, a strong ally of the Taliban and one of only three countries to recognize the movement's control over Afghanistan, also has been asked by the United States to use its influence to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan.
"We have been asked, but we can't force the Taliban to do anything they don't want to do," Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz said last week.
The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.
Bin Laden came to Afghanistan from Sudan more than five years ago while the Taliban's opposition ruled the country.
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press |
_________________
 On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeWinn
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 110
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ASPB, you just hit it out of the park!!!! 
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!
GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope, not yet!
| Quote: | | I'm gonna state something a little radical here. Cut me some slack and see if you cannot convince me otherwise. |
I've learned from years of experience in verbal battle with democrats and liberals that no one can change their minds or convince them of the truth because most of them have their minds already made up. The sad part is that most of them claim to be 'open' minded, yet when fact after fact is presented to them, they stick to the same old party, parroted line.
| Quote: | I believe that you cannot win the war on terrorism. You cannot track down the last terrorist and shoot em dead in the street. Most war efforts to do this, in fact do the EXACT opposite. It just irks the children of their dead parents, and they make promising in their hearts to strike back at America by any means necessary.
The best you can do is eliminate the circumstances and reasons for them to seek such drastic actions in the first place. |
That's the problem with not only you, but most liberals, democrats and pacificists. The one thing that we cannot get across to them is that things changed dramatically after 9/11. These terrorists have been at war with the US for almost twenty years, yet our government and our citizens ignored the signs, and just did not realize this.
These terrorists are out for one thing, and one thing only, and that is to kill as many Americans as they can. One of the higher ranking leaders under Osama Bin Laden has stated publically that al Qaeda will consider their war on the US a success when they have killed at least four million Americans. Now think about it, if they manage to kill that many Americans, even on a scale of ten to one, wounded to dead ratio, that means that if they manage to kill four million Americans, then forty million Americans will be injured, maimed and wounded. More than likely, it would be far greater than a ten to one ratio.
The problem is that most liberals, democrats and pacificists are so centered on the idea of trying to get the entire nation to 'understand' why these people are doing what they are doing. That the reasons why these terrorists want to kill us is because the US has either directly or indirectly caused these terrorists to be the way they are, and therefore our fault. It's the 'Blame America First' thinking, and that if the US will only admit our wrongdoings, and correct all these bad things we do, then these terrorists will stop killing Americans.
It is this appeasement attitude that is not only harming our nation, and our troops abroad, but is helping these terrorists to continue doing what they do. It is that same attitude that caused the US not to win in Vietnam, caused the North Vietnamese to continue the war past 1968, not sue for peace, and caused thousands upon thousands of Americans to die needlessly in Vietnam.
These liberals, democrats and pacificists have never learned anything from history. They rewrite history to fit their own ideas, and dismiss any lessons learned from history that does not fit their ideas. They want us to 'understand' these terrorists, yet they themselves either do not do that in which they want us to do, or they refuse to see several key points about these terrorists, whey they do what they do, and their culture. That is that these people consider anyone that gives into their demands as weak, below them, etc. They do not honor promises made, treaties made, and/or deals made. They only recognize one thing as honorable, and that is the use of force. That is one of the main culture things in the mideast. The use of force is well recognized as a way of life. Anything less is recognized as a weakness in humanity.
You cannot reason with these people, you cannot make deals with them, you cannot make treaties with them, etc. Back to the history thing, one of the glaring lessons of history is that appeasement has never, ever worked with people who are evil, and dedicated to the deaths of others, or to those who war against other people or nations. Just like the idea of socialism / communism / facistism, there are many in our nation that know that these have never worked in any nation that they've ever been tried in, yet they honestly believe that because they know where all the mistakes have been, that they are the ones to make these work, because they feel that they are the right people that can make these work.
It's the same with appeasement, pacificistism, etc. Liberals on the whole firmly that debate and discussion are the answers to every problem. They consider themselves to be clear, intelligent, open, rational, independent thinkers on every topic and issue. Because of their intellect and this 'clear, etc', thinking they firmly believe that because they can see things so clear, they become frustrated because others do not see things like thay do. Most of the time, these people feel that they are way above all others that cannot see things the way they do. The one major fault in these people is the self-serving ego that these people have, in that they feel that others that do not see things the way that they do are less intelligent, smart than they are, and have lower IQ's.
They think that because they can think so clearly, and among themselves in discussions and debates with those like them, things can always be reasoned out, talked out, and if all of us in the world would just think like they do, and see things like they do, then all the answers to all the world's problems could be solved, and the world would live in peace. A real shangra-la, a utopia, finally a global community with all dedicated to peace, humanity where no one ever goes hungry, everybody gets along, no war, all have jobs, and where everybody gets whatever they need in life, etc.
The problem with the above is that there are many people in this world that do not think like these people do, will never think like these people do, and in fact think that the people that are pacificists, liberals, appeasers, are weak, and inferior to them. They do not respect these people, and in fact, they are counting on people like these, because the more people like these, the easier it is for them to accomplish their goals. I'm not trying to pick on the French, but the majority of the citizens of France are like our nations liberals. They believe in peace, consider themselves far superior to anyone else in the world, are pacificists, clear thinkers, intellectuals, more cultured, worldly, appeasement thinkers, etc. Yet, in two world wars, this attitude by the French did not stop the Germans from coming in and taking over France. None of the deals, treaties, promises made by the French and Germans were ever kept by the Germans. In fact, Hitler and the Germans believed that because of the French peoples attitudes mentioned above, that they were weaker, inferior, far beneath them, and not respected by their enemies.
That is how these terrorists view Americans. They have said that they are counting on that point of view in our nation. They fully expected the US to cower and give in when attacked. They expected us to run like we did in Vietnam, Somulia, Lebanon, and in other places. They expected us to do exactly what Spain did when we were attacked. They still think this way. They want the liberals, clear thinkers, intellectuals, independent thinkers, appeasers, pacificists, democrats in this nation to win. They want the partisan political battles over this to continue in our nation. They see that it is dividing our nation, and that helps them.
These terrorists would rather face a nation of what they consider to be weak and inferior people than a nation of citizens determined to fight them. Liberals and pacificists are so much easier to kill than those who stand up for themselves, their fellow citizens, their nation. Now, I am not calling these people anti-patriotic or questioning their patriotism, or saying that they do not care about the above things.
But, the main idea that cannot be gotten across to these liberals, pacificists, appeasers, etc., is that these terrorists do not care if you are a liberal, a conservative, a democrat, a republican, a greenie, an independent, a budhist, catholic, protestant, baptist, hindu, atheist, or whatever. All they care about is that you are an American, and they want to kill you. They want to kill not only you, but your family, your mother, father, brother(s), sister(s), children, grandchildren, relatives, friends, co-workers, etc.
The only thing that works with these people is to conduct war against them. Give them the same force and terror that they give us. And Yes, we must hunt them down one by one, and kill each and every one of them. If their families, sisters, brothers join them, then they must die also. The US has no choice on this one, we must fight those that want to kill us, that want to destroy our nation, our government, our way of life, our economy, our ideals, etc.
I know that you and those like you are against war, against violence, for peace, etc. And you are just not understanding the plain fact that nothing else but force and violence works against these terrorists. Your way will never work. No one in their right minds ever wants war. No one in our nation wants to go die for their country. The majority of the hawks and people in our military want peace, just like you do. They just understand what you do not, or refuse to understand.
You said,
"You cannot track down the last terrorist and shoot em dead in the street."
I say to you that after the events and attacks conducted on the US, US military, US property, ships, embassies and after 9/11, we cannot afford not to! We cannot afford to wait until these terrorists have attacked us again to act. We cannot treat these terrorists as criminals, and look at this as criminal acts to be handled within our judical system. If we do that, then that figure of four million Americans dead will happen.
I told you this is a new world after 9/11, and it is. This is a war against those that want to kill us, destroy our nation, etc. We as a nation must conduct war against these madmen and fanatics. Yes, we must go and do exactly what they want to do to us, we must kill each and every one of them. And if it takes killing their friends, families, co-workers, etc. to accomplish this, then so be it! As a nation, and a people, we are at war for our very survival. We cannot afford to fail.
It matters not if their were connections between any of these terrorists groups and sovereign nations like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others. It matters not if they met, didn't meet, jointly planned or did not jointly plan attacks on America. It matters not if they had or didn't have WMD. All that is just minor disagreements, and something to argue about, and to use to attack your enemies on the other political side of the fence.
What matters is that we must take this war to those that want to attack us. The day is coming when these terrorists groups will use either chemical, biological, dirty bomb, or God forbid, nuclear bombs against another nation on this world, and I sure hope that it is not ours. We must take out these people before they take us out.
Now, if you cannot understand and agree with all the above, and it doesn't change your mind, then the following statement that I made up over two months ago directly pertains to you, and by that, you have my pity, and I hope that when the terrorists attack again, someone you know or love is killed or wounded, so that you will finally see the truth of this issue, and open your eyes to the seriousness of this war.
Those Who Understand, Understand!
Those Who Do Not Understand, Will Never Understand!
FRIGGIN WAR WOOF!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeWinn
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 110
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dang! WarDog! You and ASPB are both knockin the ball outta the park!!
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to copy and paste both posts to use elsewhere again. I promise i'll not plagarize (joe biden) woops! Keep swinging, fellas.
Friggin GunnerMike
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!
GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeWinn wrote: | Dang! WarDog! You and ASPB are both knockin the ball outta the park!!
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to copy and paste both posts to use elsewhere again. I promise i'll not plagarize (joe biden) woops! Keep swinging, fellas.
Friggin GunnerMike |
Mike,
Half the stuff here comes via cut and paster from elsewhere! Help yourself!
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike, you are welcome to use anything I post!
FRIGGIN WAR WOOF!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hattip Frontpagemag.com
Great interview with Stephen Hayes, Funny, Mainsewer Media couldn’t get enough of Richard Clark’s opinions, but they have little interest in Hayes’ facts. Oh yeah ... and buy his book, would ya?
| Quote: | By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 23, 2004
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Stephen F. Hayes, the author of The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.
FP: Mr Hayes, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.
Hayes: Great to be here with you again.
FP: First things first, what did you think about the 9/11 Commission report?
Hayes: It was poorly worded, self-contradictory and vague. It seemed to reach conclusions not warranted by the evidence. And it added to the confusion on an already difficult issue. The staff statements felt like the cursory treatment given to an issue by an individual – or group of people – wanting to put the Iraq-al Qaeda issue to bed, rather than explore it in a serious way. Even the commissioners are running away from their own staff statements. It will be very interesting to read the final report – with heavy input from the commissioners themselves. I hope it’s a more balanced and thorough product. If the commissioners dismiss the alleged April 2001 Mohammed Atta meeting without even mentioning his trips to Prague in May/June 2000, as the latest staff report does, the final report will have a gaping hole in it.
FP: Tell us about your new book and how our two most dangerous foes were colluding with one another against us.
Hayes: Sure. The book lays out over almost 200 pages the evidence we have accumulated about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Some that evidence is circumstantial, some of it direct. My goal in writing the book is to encourage people to take another look at this evidence – or in many cases, a first look at this evidence – and to consider it as they evaluate the Iraq War. We will be choosing a president in November based largely on the war and its aftermath – it’s important that people see the entire picture as they make up their minds. A second, equally important goal, is to examine the reasons the intelligence community overlooked or downplayed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection for so long. This of course has practical applications for our soldiers today as they face former Baathists and Islamic militants working together in Iraq.
FP: There are reports, as you have noted, that Saddam welcomed bin Laden to come to Baghdad. This is truly a nightmare scenario, considering the Iraqi dictator’s possession of WMDs and willingness to hand them over to the perpetrators of 9/11. What is your angle on this?
Hayes: In late 1998, according to U.S. intelligence documents and numerous reports in the media, Saddam dispatched Faruz Hijazi, a top intelligence officer and longtime al Qaeda liaison, to Afghanistan to offer Osama bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. Saddam was continuing his policy of denying UN inspectors access to sensitive sites. The inspectors left Iraq and a 70-hour bombing campaign – Desert Fox – ensued. Meanwhile, just five months after the simultaneous al Qaeda bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, the Taliban was receiving intense pressure from the West to expel bin Laden. The overture sparked widespread news media coverage of the possibility that, as you say, our two most dangerous foes could be collaborating against us.
FP: Will the Islamists eventually get their hands on WMDs and, if they do, will they use them?
Hayes: Yes, and Yes. Key question, I think. There is this sense among probably half the country, that we were struck once on September 11 and that we’re in the clear now. You hear this from the media and administration critics (including John Kerry) when they talk about Bush officials exaggerating the threat. In fact, the Bush Administration should be doing more to warn people about the nature of those threats here in the U.S. In 1997, William Cohen, then President Clinton’s Defense Secretary, took to the Sunday shows in DC with a five pound bag of sugar. This amount of anthrax, he argued, could wipe out half of Washington, DC. He took some grief for being dramatic, but I think he was right. The fact is, the Islamists (and their state supporters) want to kill as many Americans as possible. WMDs are the best way.
FP: Why does the media pay so little attention to the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection?
Hayes: Good question. This wasn’t always the case. The Clinton Administration invoked the Iraq-al Qaeda connection at several points throughout the late 1990s. The evidence they cited was sometimes questioned, but their broader argument that Saddam and bin Laden would team up was largely accepted.
A major difference between coverage of the connection under Clinton and Bush is this: Bush acted on the threat and with only one exception, Clinton did not. So journalists scrutinized the evidence more carefully knowing that there would be serious consequences under Bush. This is as it should be. But then journalists went further. There was a readiness, even an eagerness, to discredit the Iraq-al Qaeda connection without actually investigating it. When CIA Director George Tenet released a letter to the Senate Intelligence Community outlining Iraq’s WMD threat and the al Qaeda connection on October 7, 2002, the establishment media largely ignored the entire second half of the letter – the part dealing with the connection. They did so despite the fact that Tenet concluded that the Iraqi regime’s cooperation with Islamic terrorists would likely increase even without military intervention in Iraq. Tenet’s letter was balanced and nuanced; the reporting on it was not.
FP: Why did the intelligence community overlook or downplay the connection for so long? Was it, to some extent, the hang-over from the incompetent Clinton administration?
Hayes: Several reasons. There has long been a sense, particularly at the CIA, that bin Laden and Saddam were natural enemies much more likely to fight one another than join together to fight the United States. In some sense, this assumption wasn't tested strongly enough and frequently enough against incoming intelligence that in fact suggested a more substantive relationship. That said, there are pockets within both the CIA and the DIA that have argued for a good many years that the overlap between Iraq and al Qaeda was something to be taken very seriously.
The Clinton Administration deserves some credit for at least recognizing the problem. In fact, in its spring 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden, Janet Reno's Justice Department included what it termed an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda whereby al Qaeda agreed not to agitate against the Iraqi regime and, in exchange, Saddam promised help on "weapons development" to al Qaeda. Later that same year, top Clinton official disclosed several pieces of intelligence that tied Iraq to al Qaeda-linked chemical weapons programs in the Sudan. Where the Clinton Administration failed, I think, is that even after having recognized the threat that an Iraq-al Qaeda alliance posed to America, it did very little to eliminate it.
FP: What did you think of Tenet's resignation?
Hayes: I have very mixed feelings about George Tenet's resignation. It is clear that no significant intelligence reform was going to happen under his watch. He was protective of a slow-moving bureaucracy that in many cases didn't deserve protecting. One example: in March 2002 Jeffrey Goldberg from the New Yorker magazine published a remarkable story in which he interviewed several detainees in a Kurdish prison who spoke openly about extensive contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Kurds who had captured the prisoners let them speak to Goldberg in part because the CIA, having been informed of their presence and given the basic outlines of their allegations, showed little interest in interviewing them. I assumed that after Goldberg's article, the Agency would have been so embarrassed of its negligence that it would have immediately dispatched interrogators to northern Iraq. Wrong. A senior intelligence official told the Washington Post some six months later that although the agency was aware of the prisoners and their stories, no one had yet been sent to interview them. Inexcusable. Tenet probably should have been fired on the spot.
But from that point forward, Tenet consistently showed an openness to exploring the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship that put him squarely at odds with the bureaucracy beneath him. He authored a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee in October 2002 that laid out some highlights of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship and reiterated many of his points in congressional testimony as late as March 2004. Publicly discussing the relationship in that fashion certainly didn't make the agency look good since, as you've pointed out, they downplayed it for years.
FP: If we snatched Osama, is it better to get him dead or alive?
Hayes: Probably dead. And I think he’d be a lot more likely than Saddam Hussein to put up a fight. However we get him, I hope he is recognizable and that there is some way to confirm that he is dead.
FP: What is at stake in this election? If someone were to tell you that it doesn't matter who wins, Kerry or Bush, what would you say?
Hayes: I would say that I disagree. John Kerry, in debates with his fellow Democrats several months ago, made two very revealing comments. First, he said the War on Terror is primarily a law enforcement and intelligence matter. Important as those aspects of the war are, I think it’s a mistake to subordinate the military campaign in this way, even rhetorically. Remember, we fought a “War on Terror” under President Clinton, too. It’s hard to argue that we were winning when he left office. Second, Kerry called himself an anti-war candidate. War is always a last resort and it should be. But I have hard time seeing President Bush ever calling himself an anti-war candidate and, frankly, I don’t think touting our pacifism in the middle of a War on Terror sends the message.
FP: Who, in your view, is the most competent individual in the Bush administration? The person who understands best the War on Terror and what must be done about it.
Hayes: Hard to say. As it is in most bureaucracies, I’m sure it’s someone who doesn’t get much acclaim. I think Vice President Cheney understands the threats as well as anyone. His critics would tell you that he obsesses about a WMD attack on the U.S. homeland. If/when that happens, I think we’ll look back and wish we were all as vigilant as he has been.
FP: What do you think our next steps should be in the War on Terror in general and in Iraq in particular?
Hayes: Get Iraq right. Nothing is more important to a victory -- in the long-term -- in the War on Terror. This is not only because there are so many terrorists operating in Iraq today, but also because by establishing some form of representative government in Iraq those in the Middle East will see that we're finally serious about reform in the region. One of the complaints you hear most from moderates in the Middle East is that the U.S. has long talked a good game about democracy and human rights in the region, but our actions have sent the opposite message. We've paid lip service to self-determination and, at the same time, funded oppressive regimes. These changes will, and must, come slowly, but we've already seen some progress. The G-8 leaders this past week endorsed democratic change (however vague) in the Middle East and even the Arab League has made some noises about reform. This big-picture stuff often gets lost in the news-of-the-day reporting that results from a 24-hour news cycle. But it's happening.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the interim government in Iraq. There's reason for Iraqis to be skeptical about new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (chiefly, his close association with the CIA), but his almost singular focus on security is precisely what Iraqis need. If he create in Iraqi security forces a sense that they are fighting for the future of their own country, that will be more important that anything we can do at this point.
FP: Mr. Hayes, it was a pleasure.
Hayes: Likewise, Jamie. |
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Putin revealed that Russian intelligence was warning the U.S. that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the U.S. and on U.S. interests after 9/11.
Such warnings were a justifiable reason to have taken Saddam out, period.
FDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
