PDA

View Full Version : Interesting theory that the 911 Commission possibly ignored Iraq/AQ/911 links


mlyonsd
08-17-2005, 03:21 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/951nmtfi.asp?pg=1

The Omission Commission
The 9/11 Commission Report failed to make any mention of Iraqi operations in Germany that might have been connected to al Qaeda.
by Edward Morrissey
08/17/2005 12:00:00 AM


REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON dropped a delayed political bombshell with a special-orders speech last June in which he revealed the existence of a data-mining program at the Pentagon named Able Danger, which he claimed had identified Mohammed Atta and three of the other 9/11 hijackers as al Qaeda operatives over a year before the attacks. Almost two months later, an intelligence-community periodical, Government Security News (http://www.gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), noted the speech. This caught the attention of New York Times reporter Douglas Jehl, who informed the nation that far from missing the terrorist cell before the 9/11 attacks, military intelligence had identified them (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?ex=1281240000&en=bc4d02afa0a46012&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) with plenty of time to act.

Questions immediately arose about why no law-enforcement agency took action with the information, and why the 9/11 Commission made no mention of Able Danger or the identification of Atta's cell in its final report. The sources for Weldon's revelations insist that the political atmosphere and the attorneys at the Pentagon would not allow the military to share the information with the FBI, believing (1) the existence of the data-mining project would create a political backlash against the Defense Department, and (2) it would violate the policies of the Department of Justice to have coordination between military intelligence and the FBI involving a legal resident in the United States, as they believed Atta to be.

As for why the 9/11 Commission made no mention of Able Danger, the Commission itself seemed completely unable to provide an answer. Weldon's sources claimed that they had briefed the Commission on two separate occasions, in October 2003 and July 2004, just before the release of their final report. The Commission's spokesman, Al Felzenberg, initially scoffed at that claim. He acknowledged that the Commission had learned of the Able Danger program during the October 2003 briefing, but that Atta's name had not come up at all. "They all say that they were not told anything about a Brooklyn cell," Felzenberg said. "They were told about the Pentagon operation. They were not told about the Brooklyn cell. They said that if the briefers had mentioned anything that startling, it would have gotten their attention."

A competing series of revelations--from Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1093694,00.html) magazine, Curt Weldon's book, the Bergen Record (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNjMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY3NDQ2OTMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZU VFeXk5), and even from the Commission itself (http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-08-12_pr.pdf) (just four days after stating that they had no recollection at all of the July 2004 briefing)--has cast a shroud of doubt over everyone's credibility, including Weldon. Moreover, it has given momentum for those who felt that the Commission's final report left a significant part of the story untold. Noting that Able Danger, or any other data-mining program, gets no mention at all but that the Commission recommendations include expanding existing data-mining efforts and providing better coordination among them (pages 388-389), critics have begun searching for other data points left out of the Commission's analysis.

THEY MIGHT START with a few cryptic media reports from March 2001 regarding two arrests made in Germany. The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1196283.stm) and Reuters (http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq-frg-ap3101.htm) both noted the capture of Iraqi intelligence agents in Heidelberg. Both reports gave essentially the same minimal data on March 1:
German state prosecutors said on Thursday federal police had arrested two Iraqis on suspicion of spying.
The two men were detained in Heidelberg, according to a German television report. German officials declined to comment on the report. . . . "They are suspected of carrying out missions for an Iraqi intelligence service in a number of German towns since the beginning of 2001,'' said a spokeswoman for state prosecutor Kay Nehm in Karlsruhe.

The Germans did not arrest these Iraqi operatives on a whim. Their counterintelligence operations had tracked them for some time before closing in and capturing the two. At the time, American and British forces had launched air raids on radar stations in Iraq's no-fly zones and the assumption was that the Iraqis may have wanted to hit American forces stationed in Heidelberg in retaliation. However, by March 16, a Paris-based Arabic newspaper had developed more information on the arrests. The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin summarized (http://www.meib.org/articles/0104_irb.htm#irb3) the report from al-Watan al-Arabi:
Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.
The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.

Interestingly, journalists such as Amir Taheri considered al-Watan al-Arabi to be a pro-Saddam publication--not surprising given its Parisian readership. Despite its reporting against its presumed interests, the al-Watan al-Arabi article generated no interest either at the time or afterwards. A scan of the Commission report finds no mention of these arrests in Heidelberg, nor any of the CIA or FBI interviews reported by al-Watan al-Arabi.

Why should any of this have mattered to the 9/11 Commission? Their report provides the most important reason: The 9/11 plot began its practical planning in Hamburg, beginning in 1999 and assisting Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 plotters through the summer of 2001. Having discovered two Iraqi intelligence agents conducting "missions . . . in a number of German towns since the beginning of 2001" indicates at least the possibility of more than just a sabotage assignment. Even apart from the al-Watan al-Arabi reporting, the strange coincidence of discovering Iraqi intelligence operations in such close conjunction to known al Qaeda operations should have raised some eyebrows.

If the 9/11 report is any indication, no one on the Commission considered this connection. In fact, no one knows whether or not the Commission even knew about these arrests. In the years following the 9/11 attacks, there has been much argument about the nature of Saddam Hussein's connections to terror. How could the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission fail to consider this, given the other activity occurring in Germany during this period:
* Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh meet in Berlin in January 2001 for a progress meeting, around the same time German counterintelligence claimed that they picked up the Iraqi trail. * Ziad Jarrah, another of the crucial al Qaeda pilots, transits between Beirut and Florida through Germany twice during the 2000-2001 holiday season, flying back to the United States at the end of February. * Marwan al-Shehhi disappears in Casablanca, then constructs a cover story about living in Hamburg.

In fact, the Commission report notes that three of the four al Qaeda team leaders (excepting Hani Hanjour, who had at that time just begun his pilot training) interrupted their planning to take foreign trips (page 244). Why would these men interrupt their preparations in this manner? Traveling in and out of the United States presented a risk--a manageable risk, as events proved--but having three of the four team leaders outside of their established cells at the same time looks unnecessarily foolhardy from al Qaeda's point of view. It also appears to be the only time after their first entry into the United States that this travel occurred. All three had some German connection to their trips. In fact, Jarrah left Germany the same week that the Germans captured the Iraqi agents.


All of this activity in Germany could, of course, just be a coincidence. However, we have no explanation from the 9/11 Commission about why the al Qaeda team leaders who all hailed from the Hamburg cell felt it necessary to travel separately to Germany at the same time that German counterintelligence discovered the Iraqi espionage operation. We have no mention at all of even a coincidental, parallel hostile operation in the vicinity of the al Qaeda team leaders. Just as in the case of Mohammed Afroze (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/943epkff.asp?pg=1), the Commission never bothers even to supply the dots that might connect outside their preferred narrative.

Edward Morrissey is a contributing writer to The Daily Standard and a contributor to the blog

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 03:38 PM
Part of why we’re not hear’n ‘bout this from the major media outlets. They’ve invested themselves in the “Iraq had no ties to terrorism” lie, they’re not ‘bout to even recognize evidence counter to that.
Much less anything that might connect Saddam to 9-11.

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 03:42 PM
The fact that you have to continue attempts at justifying a war years after it was started should tell you something.

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 03:57 PM
The fact that you have to continue attempts at justifying a war years after it was started should tell you something.

“What is it about the facts that your afraid of?” the Talking Can.

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 04:01 PM
“What is it about the facts that your afraid of?” the Talking Can.I like the truth but in this case it doesn't matter because we're already there.

I've also seen a handful of these articles over the last two years only to see them debunked 2 weeks later.

What happens if it's true?

Saulbadguy
08-17-2005, 04:01 PM
Part of why we’re not hear’n ‘bout this from the major media outlets. They’ve invested themselves in the “Iraq had no ties to terrorism” lie, they’re not ‘bout to even recognize evidence counter to that.
Much less anything that might connect Saddam to 9-11.
"Tin foil hat!"

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 04:14 PM
I like the truth but in this case it doesn't matter because we're already there.

I've also seen a handful of these articles over the last two years only to see them debunked 2 weeks later.

What happens if it's true?

Then we invade Iraq. ;)

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 04:17 PM
"Tin foil hat!"

So you’re denying that the major media outlets haven’t invested themselves in the “Iraq had no ties to terrorism” lie? :shrug:

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 04:17 PM
Then we invade Iraq. ;)If that doesn't get rep then I don't know what does. :clap:

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 04:23 PM
So you’re denying that the major media outlets haven’t invested themselves in the “Iraq had no ties to terrorism” lie? :shrug:I see the media changing with the info that's out there. If solid proof emerges they're not going to stick to being wrong IMO.

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 04:25 PM
I see the media changing with the info that's out there. If solid proof emerges they're not going to stick to being wrong IMO.

Probably, if this story continues to grow.

stevieray
08-17-2005, 07:02 PM
The fact that you have to continue attempts at justifying a war years after it was started should tell you something.

Maybe that's because others continue to attempt to try to invalidate the War since it's started?

jettio
08-17-2005, 08:43 PM
If you want to believe that Saddam is on the verge of turning you into his b*tch, read the Weekly Standard.

Henry
08-17-2005, 08:55 PM
Maybe that's because others continue to attempt to try to invalidate the War since it's started?

It doesn't have to be invalidated. It does that all by itself.

stevieray
08-17-2005, 09:01 PM
It doesn't have to be invalidated. It does that all by itself.

Try harder, Henry.

Logical
08-17-2005, 09:10 PM
It doesn't have to be invalidated. It does that all by itself.

Well stated and I now agree. Initially I thought the war was the right thing, but not to just stay and create a worse enemy among 1000s of people vs just Saddam and a few of his henchman.

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 09:23 PM
Maybe that's because others continue to attempt to try to invalidate the War since it's started?Good point but a war should always be questioned IMO.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 09:38 PM
I’ll wait and see what the investigation turns up. We could be on the verge of witnessing some big-time history here. A story about how a commission, set up to investigate a national tragedy, which tried to change history by protecting a former administration. It could end up even being worse than that. Everyday something new develops on this story. I'm waiting to see how it unfolds.

TGI

Henry
08-17-2005, 09:43 PM
I’ll wait and see what the investigation turns up. We could be on the verge of witnessing some big-time history here. A story about how a commission, set up to investigate a national tragedy, which tried to change history by protecting a former administration. It could end up even being worse than that. Everyday something new develops on this story. I'm waiting to see how it unfolds.

TGI


PFFFT!

The "commissions" so far have been a bunch of limp-wristed cheerleaders.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 09:56 PM
PFFFT!

The "commissions" so far have been a bunch of limp-wristed cheerleaders.

I’m a very patient person. I’ll wait and see what the investigation turns up, though the investigation has the potential to be very damaging to the anti-war crowd.

TGI

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:02 PM
I’m a very patient person. I’ll wait and see what the investigation turns up, though the investigation has the potential to be very damaging to the anti-war crowd.

TGI

Like the 911 commission?

Like the Iran/Contra commission? ROFL

If I ever get in trouble, I want Nields to be my prosecutor. That man threw more softballs than the 1943 White Sox.

The commission will turn up absolutely nothing, and will basically pander to Bush.

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 10:04 PM
though the investigation has the potential to be very damaging to the anti-war crowd.

TGIWhat does this even mean?

Are you going to convince a bunch of people that don't like war that war is good? Keeping in mind that you're convincing them 2 years after the war started instead of prior to the invasion.

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:06 PM
What does this even mean?

Are you going to convince a bunch of people that don't like war that war is good? Keeping in mind that you're convincing them 2 years after the war started instead of prior to the invasion.

I think he means the anti-war crowd might not get re-elected. ROFL

Actually, I have no ****ing clue what he's jabbering about.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 10:08 PM
What does this even mean?

Are you going to convince a bunch of people that don't like war that war is good? Keeping in mind that you're convincing them 2 years after the war started instead of prior to the invasion.

If it turns out there were connections between Al Qaeda, Saddam, and 9/11, the war with Iraq would be justified.

TGI

jiveturkey
08-17-2005, 10:10 PM
If it turns out there were connections between Al Qaeda, Saddam, and 9/11, the war with Iraq would be justified.

TGIAnd what if the connections don't end up connecting?

The war isn't justified and all of the lives and money were lost for no reason???

Or do you move to the plan B justification (WMD's)?

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:12 PM
If it turns out there were connections between Al Qaeda, Saddam, and 9/11, the war with Iraq would be justified.

TGI


And if a frog could fly, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 10:20 PM
And what if the connections don't end up connecting?

The war isn't justified and all of the lives and money were lost for no reason???

Or do you move to the plan B justification (WMD's)?

Perhaps there were no connections. I said it could POTENTIALLY be damaging if there was. I’ll wait to see what the investigations turn up. I’m very suspicious of the commission after they left the Able Danger investigation and the Mary Jo White memos out of the 9/11 commission report. There are a lot of questions raised as to why they would leave those out. But most importantly, why the hell was Jamie Gorelick on the commission when she should have been testifying?

TGI

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:25 PM
Perhaps there were no connections. I said it could POTENTIALLY be damaging if there was. I’ll wait to see what the investigations turn up. I’m very suspicious of the commission after they left the Able Danger investigation and the Mary Jo White memos out of the 9/11 commission report. There are a lot of questions raised as to why they would leave those out. But most importantly, why the hell was Jamie Gorelick on the commission when she should have been testifying?

TGI

Are you suggesting that the Bush administration and the current republican congress would have a motive for DENYING or HIDING any involvement Saddam would have in the events of 911?

ROFL

Now I've heard it all...

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 10:31 PM
Are you suggesting that the Bush administration and the current republican congress would have a motive for DENYING or HIDING any involvement Saddam would have in the events of 911?

ROFL

Now I've heard it all...

It says commission as in the 9/11 Commission. You are trying to twist what I say by bringing in the current administration.

I’ll tell you what, if the 9/11 Commission covered up for an incompetent former administration and we lost 3,000 American lives because of that, I am going to be one pissed off Hispanic American.

TGI

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:33 PM
It says commission as in the 9/11 Commission. You are trying to twist what I say by bringing in the current administration.


WHO was president on 911? WHO is president now?

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 10:42 PM
WHO was president on 911? WHO is president now?

You’re obviously playing games and not keeping up. The Able Danger investigation turns up we knew about Mohammad Atta and some of his cohorts 2 years before 9/11 and the investigation hit a wall that prevented perhaps their capture. Now who was president then?

TGI

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:58 PM
You’re obviously playing games and not keeping up. The Able Danger investigation turns up we knew about Mohammad Atta and some of his cohorts 2 years before 9/11 and the investigation hit a wall that prevented perhaps their capture. Now who was president then?

TGI

And this has WHAT to do with an Iraq/OBL connection?

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 11:19 PM
And this has WHAT to do with an Iraq/OBL connection?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=121703

It’s possible that it all ties together.

TGI

Henry
08-17-2005, 11:21 PM
That old saw?

Do they have ANY actual evidence he was even IN prague on that day, let alone meeting with an Iraqi spy?

The_Grand_Illusion
08-17-2005, 11:27 PM
That old saw?

Do they have ANY actual evidence he was even IN prague on that day, let alone meeting with an Iraqi spy?

Not sure. That’s why I would like to see an investigation.

FWIW, it doesn’t matter what party was in power at the time, incompetence is incompetence if proven. Not to mention if something was trying to be covered up for that incompetence.

TGI

jettio
08-18-2005, 12:04 AM
Maybe that's because others continue to attempt to try to invalidate the War since it's started?

It is a supreme delusion to blame anything happening in Iraq on the people that have been completed ignored by that stupid arrogant prick B*sh.

B*sh and the fools that agreed with him arrogantly derided every well-meaning person in the world who told him that he was prematurely choosing an unnecessary course of action to address an overstated problem and that Iraq was a potential helluva mess.

B*sh and his supporters think War is a video game where you can choose the skill level that ensures victory.

People fight back in a War, do you even know what a war is? The folks that told B*sh that he was full of sh*t have had no decision making authority in creating any aspect of that sh*thole.

Iraq is not a f*ckin' mess because of people that have no power over the situation, it is a f*ckin' mess because of the people that do.

jettio
08-18-2005, 12:10 AM
If it turns out there were connections between Al Qaeda, Saddam, and 9/11, the war with Iraq would be justified.

TGI

There is no justification in taking the most powerful military in the world and hundreds of billions of dollars to invade a country that is now a worse place for its law abiding people to live in, than it was before when it was run by one of the world's worst tyrants.

stevieray
08-18-2005, 12:11 AM
It is a supreme delusion to blame anything hapening in Iraq on the people that have been completed ignored by that stupid arrogant prick B*sh.

B*sh and the fools that agreed with him arrogantly derided every well-meaning person in the world who told him that he was prematurely choosing an unnecessary course of action to address an overstated problem and that Iraq was a potential helluva mess.

B*sh and his supporters think War is a video game where you can choose the skill level that ensures victory.

People fight back in a War, do you even know what a war is? The folks that told B*sh that he was full of sh*t have had no decision making authority in creating any aspect of that sh*thole.

Iraq is not a f*ckin' mess because of people that have no power over the situation, it is a f*ckin' mess because of the people that do.


Is there a point to this? Other than angry speculation and opinion?

"Do you even know what War is...?"

I think this statment alone does nothing more than show why Democrats have lost power.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-18-2005, 12:13 AM
There is no justification in taking the most powerful military in the world and hundreds of billions of dollars to invade a country that is now a worse place for its law abiding people to live in, than it was before when it was run by one of the world's worst tyrants.

If it turns out Saddam had his hand in killing 3,000 Americans you’re saying there is no justification to go kick his a$$?

TGI

jettio
08-18-2005, 12:18 AM
Is there a point to this? Other than angry speculation and opinion?

"Do you even know what War is...?"

I think this statment alone does nothing more than show why Democrats have lost power.

How about explaining exactly how "others continue to attempt to try to invalidate the War" has anything at all to do with anything on the ground, in the real world, on this planet.

B*sh has had the power to make every decision and has gotten every appropriation that he asked for, his power has not been limited in any way by anyone that disagrees with him or his war.

Quit being a crybaby, there are no excuses.

stevieray
08-18-2005, 12:20 AM
Quit being a crybaby, there are no excuses.

Quit using me to deal with what you see in yourself.

Sounds like you think our Military is inadequate.

jettio
08-18-2005, 12:26 AM
If it turns out Saddam had his hand in killing 3,000 Americans you’re saying there is no justification to go kick his a$$?

TGI

Saddam was caught a long time ago. Most of his people have been rounded up. Most of their military installations have been overrun and I would assume that an incredible amount of intelligence has been gathered since the war. If the intelligence gathered since the war has less to say about his activites than these several year old facts supposedly now revealed, what do you think that means?

jettio
08-18-2005, 12:31 AM
Quit using me to deal with what you see in yourself.

Sounds like you think our Military is inadequate.

Your answer to the very clearly expressed question as to how anyone that has attempted to "invalidate the war" has had any effect on the situation is definitely inadequate.

If you have no good answer, then be a man and admit that you were wrong to blame people that are not responsible just so that you could avoid holding the ones with power accountable.

stevieray
08-18-2005, 12:44 AM
Your answer to the very clearly expressed question as to how anyone that has attempted to "invalidate the war" has had any effect on the situation is definitely inadequate.

If you have no good answer, then be a man and admit that you were wrong to blame people that are not responsible just so that you could avoid holding the ones with power accountable.

You never expressed a clear question, just a statement..and a statement that had nothing to do with the comment...you are the one who said it did or didn't make difference..is that because it's all about winning for you? Creating an enemy, using negatives as weapons?

you are a lawyer afterall.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 12:54 AM
The more time goes by, the more Peter Lance looks like he's on the way to another Emmy...

If you haven't read this yet, check it out... It won't be long until it starts turning some major heads...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060543558/qid=1124344426/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5922642-1399354?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Boyceofsummer
08-18-2005, 12:59 AM
Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo

Enjoy!

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush


Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99


"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99


Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)


"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"
Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)


"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage


"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R )


"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will
either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media


http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/08/17/heresWhatRepublicansSaidAboutClintonAndKosovo.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005
Last update: 8/17/2005; 12:23:59 PM.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-18-2005, 01:04 AM
Saddam was caught a long time ago. Most of his people have been rounded up. Most of their military installations have been overrun and I would assume that an incredible amount of intelligence has been gathered since the war. If the intelligence gathered since the war has less to say about his activites than these several year old facts supposedly now revealed, what do you think that means?

What that means? That means I’m not going to base any assumptions on the hate Bush mentality. History is sometimes slow in revealing things. If you’ve been keeping up on all this there are some good questions as to why some important details were left out of the 9/11 Commission Report. It will be good to know if they had good reasons to do so or possibly a cover-up. I’m willing to wait and see.

TGI

Taco John
08-18-2005, 01:17 AM
What that means? That means I’m not going to base any assumptions on the hate Bush mentality. History is sometimes slow in revealing things. If you’ve been keeping up on all this there are some good questions as to why some important details were left out of the 9/11 Commission Report. It will be good to know if they had good reasons to do so or possibly a cover-up. I’m willing to wait and see.

TGI



Read Peter Lance's book... It's a total cover-up, and it's totally about CYA... Both Administrations... Just an amazing amount of incompetence that lead from one cover-up to the next. There is so much still to be discovered. Read his book. Decide for yourself. It's well researched and footnoted.

The 9/11 commission was a joke.

The_Grand_Illusion
08-18-2005, 01:20 AM
Read Peter Lance's book... It's a total cover-up, and it's totally about CYA... Both Administrations... Just an amazing amount of incompetence that lead from one cover-up to the next. There is so much still to be discovered. Read his book. Decide for yourself. It's well researched and footnoted.

The 9/11 commission was a joke.

Thanks, I may do that.

Radar Chief
08-18-2005, 08:11 AM
Saddam was caught a long time ago. Most of his people have been rounded up. Most of their military installations have been overrun and I would assume that an incredible amount of intelligence has been gathered since the war. If the intelligence gathered since the war has less to say about his activites than these several year old facts supposedly now revealed, what do you think that means?

Gee jettio, just because you choose to ignore intelligence gathered post invasion doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any. (http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=120408)

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 09:22 AM
The 9/11 commission was a joke.

That's the correct answer.

The purpose of the thread was not to prove there were ties between Iraq/AQ/911, rather it was to point out the 911 Commission was a waste of time and money.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 09:51 AM
Gee jettio, just because you choose to ignore intelligence gathered post invasion doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any. (http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=120408)



That stuff is dubious at best... A tie to AQ in 1992 is hardly worth going to war over in 2003... 11 years after this alleged meeting happened. Not to mention that this report wasn't part of the build-up to the war, but was actually produced after the fact as a psuedo-justification for the war... A war, by the way, which was sold to the American people based on WMDs. WMDs that not only did we not find, but by all accounts simply didn't exist.

Post invasion intelligence which ties AQ and Saddaam back to 1992 isn't very compelling. Got anything in the 1998-2001 range? *That* might be compelling.

Radar Chief
08-18-2005, 09:59 AM
That stuff is dubious at best... A tie to AQ in 1992 is hardly worth going to war over in 2003... 11 years after this alleged meeting happened. Not to mention that this report wasn't part of the build-up to the war, but was actually produced after the fact as a psuedo-justification for the war... A war, by the way, which was sold to the American people based on WMDs. WMDs that not only did we not find, but by all accounts simply didn't exist.

Post invasion intelligence which ties AQ and Saddaam back to 1992 isn't very compelling.

:LOL: OMFG Did you trip yourself up with that spin? ROFL

Got anything in the 1998-2001 range? *That* might be compelling.

Yea, Able Danger.
Count down to deflection in 3…..2……1…..
ROFL

jettio
08-18-2005, 02:27 PM
Gee jettio, just because you choose to ignore intelligence gathered post invasion doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any. (http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=120408)


Revisit post #13 in this thread.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2630702#post2630702

Radar Chief
08-18-2005, 02:45 PM
Revisit post #13 in this thread.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2630702#post2630702

Revisit post #90 in this thread.
http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?p=2630050#post2630050
ROFL

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 02:48 PM
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)




ROFL

Ohmygawd. Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had in awhile. ROFL ROFL ROFL

yoswif
08-19-2005, 05:56 PM
Read Peter Lance's book... It's a total cover-up, and it's totally about CYA... Both Administrations... Just an amazing amount of incompetence that lead from one cover-up to the next. There is so much still to be discovered. Read his book. Decide for yourself. It's well researched and footnoted.

The 9/11 commission was a joke.

From day one, the 9/11 commission was a cover up scheme. Commission staff didn't tape interviews. How do you reconcile differences without a transcript to look at? How do you plan interviews with additional sources or do follow up interviews without a transcript to look at? They didn't record interviews so anything that didn't fit the prearranged commission report could be easily dismissed.