 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ...and some, like me, have invasion of privacy issues with the phone polling methodology that, I assume, most employ...but I would also assume that most credible polling organizations are cognizant of all that has been, thus far, mentioned and ARE able to canvas a representative sampling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NoDonkey
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 78
Location: Arlington, VA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Do you really like Bush or just hate Kerry? |
|
|
| kyleparr wrote: | | Please speak to this point. I really cannot stand Bush and Cheney, but my only alternative is Kerry. So, this brings up a point. Would you vote for anyone but Kerry (like I am anyone but Bush), or would you vote for Bush against anyone and why? |
I cannot vote for anyone in the Democratic Party because their entire platform is full of leftwing, elitist, tired 60's nonsense. They have no new ideas or even an intellectual foundation beyond trite pop songs and race baiting poverty pimp rhetoric. The Democratic Party cannot be trusted to defend this nation.
John Kerry's voting record in the Senate is to the left of most Democrats. Beyond his arguably traitorous behavior during the Vietnam War, he is clearly a self-obsessed narcissist who has no business even being considered for President of the United States. Only the worthless Democratic Party could nominate a traitor like John Kerry during a time of war.
President Bush is being savaged by delusional lefties in this country because he committed two sins - 1) Being Republican - 2) Defending America. Sort of why Winston Churchill was attacked prior to WWII - He told people a lot of things they didn't want to hear.
Critics of the President remind me of adolescent boys sitting in the back of class. They make fun of the teacher, but they are immature and responsible for absolutely nothing at all, yet they have the answers to everything.
Perhaps if the adolescent "president" who held office prior to President Bush had taken action after terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993, bombed our embassies in Africa, bombed the USS Cole, bombed Khobar Towers, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but then Bill Clinton is the adolescent's favorite "president" so we heard no criticism of him.
I am proud to support President Bush for re-election in 2004.
"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." - Thomas Sowell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said, NoDonkey, well said!
Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nakona
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What we really need is a new political party, and 2008 is when we should do it.
Kerry will lose this election of course, even if the Clintons have to secretly torpedo him somehow, because Hillary is planning to run in 2008, which she can't do if Kerry is in the oval office.
I have no idea how we would go about doing this, but it would be really nice if we could get some folks from each party to jump ship and go with the new one.
If we could combine the social conscience of the democratic party, with the hard nosed pragmatism of the republican party, keeping the best of each and throwing out the rest, it could work.
_________________
13F20P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nakona wrote: |
If we could combine the social conscience of the democratic party, with the hard nosed pragmatism of the republican party, keeping the best of each and throwing out the rest, it could work. |
Exactly what social conscience of the Democrats are you talking about? Surely not the "keep the underclass down with entitlements to garner votes crowd"
The biggest growth in economic success for minorities and in equal opportunity came in the Reagan Administration.
Charity? Most Christians have stayed charitable but have voted increasingly Republican as the Democrats moved further left.
Bush had the right idea in 2000. "Compassionate Conservatism"....only problem is a war for our very survival has gotten in the way.
And another thing from the Washington Times today:
| Quote: | Taking issue
Members of Project 21, the black conservative group, were unhappy with the way the network news anchors routinely suggested last week that blacks did not benefit from Ronald Reagan's policies or that the late president had a poor relationship with blacks.
The group, an initiative of the National Center for Public Policy Research, cited ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos' remark that Mr. Reagan "did not reach out to African-Americans," as well as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings' comment on the public visitation at the Reagan library: "We haven't seen many African-American faces."
Project 21 member Mychal Massie, who waited in line for 5½ hours to view Mr. Reagan's casket in the Capitol Rotunda, said: "It is appalling that the Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaws, Dan Rathers and Sam Donaldsons of the media elite would surrender themselves to such morally opprobrious and vacuous pabulums of untruths and misrepresentations regarding the relationship that the late President Reagan shared with blacks in America.
"Ronald Reagan saw America as a pluralistic whole and worked to address her concerns as such," Mr. Massie said. "Their jaundiced rhetoric, while beneath contempt, is obviously not out of character for them."
Project 21 member Gregory Parker added: "Those who say such things are not looking around hard enough. I grew up with him as president, and he was the reason I became a conservative."
Regarding assertions that Mr. Reagan's policies did not help blacks, Project 21 member Deroy Murdock said, "Rising employment and opportunities for entrepreneurship helped grow the black middle class during the Reagan years."
Project 21 member James Coleman added, "Black businesses and businesses owned by women prospered greatly in the '80s." |
_________________
 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 |
|
|
nakona
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ASPB wrote: |
Exactly what social conscience of the Democrats are you talking about? Surely not the "keep the underclass down with entitlements to garner votes crowd" |
Of course not.
_________________
13F20P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoDonkey
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 78
Location: Arlington, VA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agree - there's nothing in the morally and intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party worth keeping.
I say this not as someone who wants a one party system. I would like to see multiple parties, as long as all of the parties believe in this country and are willing to defend this country.
The latter statement completely disqualifies the Democratic Party.
_________________
"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." - Thomas Sowell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theresa Alwood
Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 631
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually heard a rumor saying the Cheney would be stepping down after the convention and possible names on the ticket would be Guiliani....would be interesting to see if he "America'a mayor" could bring in more votes. Will be interesting to see John "F" Kerry takes on...either way Bush will get my vote...just can not vote for John Kerry no matter who he takes as a VP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldkayaker
Ensign
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:58 am Post subject: Like Kerry or hate Bush... |
|
|
Good question.
From the beginning, as an independent, I thought Bush was a poor choice. The Repubs and Dems had better choices in the runner-up categories; but, Bush came across as a fool and an untrustworthy person who I immediately disliked. I liked McCain and Bradley better than either of their party's selections.
After the election was decided by the Supreme Court, I said, OK, set aside my personal dislike for the man, he is the President, give him a chance and hope he succeeds. (just turn off the sound whenever he speaks!)
Up until 9/11, Bush did very little to improve his standing as a disappointing President. After 9/11, Bush was expected to do something about the terrorists and to take appropriate action that we would expect with any President. Had Bush not gone into Afghanistan, he should and would have been impeached.
Up to Bush's escalation of military action against Iraq, I think he did as well as any President could or should have done in pursuit of OBL and al Qaeda. When Bush diverted the OBL hunt to escalate military action against Iraq, he lost me again and probably most of this following.
Iraq did not provide any of the 9/11 people. Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not support 9/11, OBL or al Qaeda people. Bush diverted the effort to get 9/11, OBL or al Qaeda people by his escalation of military action in Iraq. (We wouldn't mention the lies about WMDs)General Zinni says all of this better than I could ever do and he is very well respected.
Being an independent, I don't vote according to policital parties. But the Republicans appear to have decided upon re-running Bush.... and I will vote for anyone who can end Bush's administration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kayaker wrote:
| Quote: | | Iraq did not provide any of the 9/11 people. Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not support 9/11, OBL or al Qaeda people. Bush diverted the effort to get 9/11, OBL or al Qaeda people by his escalation of military action in Iraq. (We wouldn't mention the lies about WMDs)General Zinni says all of this better than I could ever do and he is very well respected. |
All you're doing is spewing conventional wisdom from the NY Slimes, the Washrag, and the LA Pravda. There is a serious debate among those outside of the mainstream media and the careerists in the intelligence community as to the absolutist view you just espoused. Before being quite so judgmental you may want to consider an alternate professional view. I've read the book and to me what you're believing from the effete media with it's biases is far from conclusive. Just the opposite is true.
| Quote: | Buy The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America
by Stephen F. Hayes.
"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED THE COUNTRY with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.
"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.
The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."
And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.
In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam.
One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report
last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.
An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off.
A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting.
The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles. Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 A.M. on September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother, Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.
Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend."
Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign governments. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they said, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.
CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service. Shakir's Iraqi nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence service the most likely source of his training.
The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to return to Iraq on condition that he agree to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most egregious mistakes by U.S. intelligence after September 11, the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq.
He hasn't been heard from since.
The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed.
THERE WAS A TIME not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.
Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:
Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.
Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.
NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:
Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.
By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."
Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.
In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:
Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. "The decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on," says a senior intelligence officer involved in the targeting. "They wanted a dual strike."
A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).
The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. "Let me be very clear about this," said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. "There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that."
The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued a month before the attacks had recommended gathering additional soil samples from the site before reaching any conclusions. "It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency," recalls a former top intelligence official.
The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq.
The Iraqis, of course, denied any involvement. "The Clinton government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon," declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."
Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
Later in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism. The report created a stir in May 2002 when critics of President Bush cited it to suggest that his administration should have given more thought to suicide hijackings. On page 7 of the 178-page document was a passage about a possible al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C., that "could take several forms." In one scenario, "suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House."
A network anchor wondered if it was possible that the White House had somehow missed the report. A senator cited it in calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A journalist read excerpts to the secretary of defense and raised a familiar question: "What did you know and when did you know it?"
But another passage of the same report has gone largely unnoticed. Two paragraphs before, also on page 7, is this: "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decide[s] to use terrorists to attack the continental United States [he] would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals," including "Iraqi chemical weapons experts and others capable of helping to develop WMD. Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda's well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide."
CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:
--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
Tenet has never backed away from these assessments. Senator Mark Dayton, a Democrat from Minnesota, challenged him on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in an exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Tenet reiterated his judgment that there had been numerous "contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that in the days before the war the Iraqi regime had provided "training and safe haven" to al Qaeda associates, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What the U.S. intelligence community could not claim was that the Iraqi regime had "command and control" over al Qaeda terrorists. Still, said Tenet, "it was inconceivable to me that Zarqawi and two dozen [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq knowing."
SO WHAT should Washington do now? The first thing the Bush administration should do is create a team of intelligence experts--or preferably competing teams, each composed of terrorism experts and forensic investigators--to explore the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For more than a year, the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has investigated the nature and scope of Iraq's program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. At various times in its brief history, a small subgroup of ISG investigators (never more than 15 people) has looked into Iraqi connections with al Qaeda. This is not enough.
Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets." This seems significant.
A second critical step would be to declassify as much of the Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence as possible. Those skeptical of any connection claim that any evidence of a relationship must have been "cherry picked" from much larger piles of existing intelligence that makes these Iraq-al Qaeda links less compelling. Let's see it all, or as much of it as can be disclosed without compromising sources and methods.
Among the most important items to be declassified: the Iraq Survey Group documents discussed above; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--pertaining to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi and alleged Saddam Fedayeen officer present at the September 11 planning meeting; interview transcripts with top Iraqi intelligence officers, al Qaeda terrorists, and leaders of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam; documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicating that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi regime upon returning to Baghdad two weeks after the attack; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility.
It is of course important for the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet to back up their assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Similarly, declassifying intelligence from the 1990s might shed light on why top Clinton officials were adamant about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection in Sudan and why the Clinton Justice Department included the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. More specifically, what intelligence did Richard Clarke see that allowed him to tell the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to the al Qaeda-linked al Shifa facility in Sudan? What would compel former secretary of defense William Cohen to tell the September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from the al Qaeda-linked plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX [nerve gas] program"? And why did Thomas Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, tell reporters, "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program"? Other Clinton administration figures, including a "senior intelligence official" who briefed reporters on background, cited telephone intercepts between a plant manager and Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program.
We have seen important elements of the pre-September 11 intelligence available to the Bush administration; it's time for the American public to see more of the intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda from the 1990s, especially the reporting about the August 1998 attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S. counterstrikes two weeks later.
Until this material is declassified, there will be gaps in our knowledge. Indeed, even after the full record is made public, some uncertainties will no doubt remain.
The connection between Saddam and al Qaeda isn't one of them.
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. Parts of this article are drawn from his new book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins). |
_________________
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
Last edited by ASPB on Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marine4life
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 591
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes we have gotten al queda in Iraq as well as destroyed the training camps. There is a clear link to Iraq and the terrorist organizations. But Bush did not say he was going to Iraq for Osama, he went there to end a torturous regime and WMD's. A stable Iraq is essential to a stable ME. President Bush is doing exactly what I expect him to do, go after everyone who will help terrorists destroy our way of life. During the Clinton years they got out of hand and now Bush is stuck with the house cleaning, I support him and it would be who's of you to do the same, that of course if you enjoy our way of life as we know it. Kerry is the great destructor of this country and our way of life. If the only reason you will vote for Kerry is because you don't like Bush or you are mad at him, please don't vote. Let the people vote for Kerry because they believe he is the best choice, not because he is not Bush. You will be doing a great diservice to every American if you vote for someone that is not qualified just for revenge. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garb1015
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 89
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voting against one man rather than for the other man is certainly nothing new in presidential elections.
As far as "anyone" ending the Bush administration, well, that would be John Kerry.
I would suggest to the people who just look at John Kerry as the means to get Bush out of office, to take a hard look at the man and try to imagine what a Kerry administration would be like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theresa Alwood
Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 631
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is sad that people are only voting aginst George Bush because they do not like him...most do not have anything favorable for Kerry...sad, sad, sad. I still think George Bush would be much better than John Kerry....I know where George Bush stands on just about every issue and no I do not agree on all issues....but John Kerry will stand on both sides of the issues and can not come out with any clear vision on what he will actually do for this country. I know President Bush will stand tall and will win this war on terrorism...a war that was declared a very long time ago. Yet, John Kerry only wants to get the international communty involve...well they are too involve into money than actually doing what is right. I know who else wants John Kerry to win...and that is the terroist. At least with George Bush he is trying his best to keep this country from another 09-11. The democratic way is to stand back and hope they do nothing, just lob a single missle when they do and hope again they do nothing. We had 8 years of that...and then 09-11 happened. That should change everyone's opinion, but it doesn't. I just do not understand why people do not see that the terrorist will fight to the death and that is theirs or ours. We have a major decision to make as to who will be the better man in November. I can not see John Kerry making any kind of stance. I do know George Bush will not let us go down in flames without fighting. So the choice should be more than I just hate George Bush and therefore I am voting against him. It should be who will protect this country more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Remember that the majority of anti-Bush people that are on the boards all over the internet have one thing in common. They do not think for themselves, and all they can do is to parrot the DNC and Kerry party line. They do not debate or discuss pros and cons of John Kerry, they just keep practicing that same old 'MO', namely:
"Deny, Lie, Change Subject, Attack!"
If you visit numerous boards, as I do, and some of them are liberal, some conservative, some neutral, you read the same comments by the liberals, democrats and Kerry supporters on these boards. Most of their statements are almost word for word, lie for lie, false accusation for false accusation, attack for attack!
In my whole 53 years, I've never seen a level of hate that comes from these people. There are some democrats and liberals that do try and carry on honest discussions and debates, but the majority of them are so filled with hate towards President Bush, that it seems to cloud their judgement, and all they can do is to keep repeating the same old "BS" over and over and over, in the vain hope that if they keep telling the same old lies, keep spewing the same old false accusations, spreading the same old untrue propaganda, then eventually they will convince others to believe them.
The really sad part is that they never see themselves for the fools that they are making themselves out to be. And that more and more Americans across the nation are beginning to see through them, and they are turning against them, John Kerry, and the DNC. America is sick and tired of all the hate being spread by these people, but you'll never get any of these people to ever admit it, even though they know it to be true. That's why they are so damn scared that they and the party they belong to is going to lose big time in November. So, all they can do is to continue doing that same old things that worked in the past, in the vain attempt that it will work in the future.
Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theresa Alwood
Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 631
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I never liked Bill Clinton....but I would never use the word hate for anyone. I just do not understand why they are not looking at the issues and this election is BIG. There is ALOT at stake in this election. People are just voting against George Bush rather than for John Kerry...shoot vote for Nadar then. At least President Bush will try his best to keep this country safe and not worry about what other nations will think. All John Kerry does is think about the other nations. I just hope some of these people wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late. |
|
| 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
