Posted on 09/11/2006 11:51:13 AM PDT by future F22 pilot
I am a high school junior and currently have a teacher who believes Al Qaeda and Iraq are not linked. I would like documents proving links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, documents of democrats declaring Iraq as dangerous, documents listing numbers of terrorists (islamo-fascitsts) killed, documents with numbers of Iraqis killed under Saddam, and documents of foreign inteligence agencies declaring Iraq was seeking WMD's.
I want to thankyou all for all your help, and of course it would be nice if the sources were well-respected, but any documents can be helpful. Also documents proving bias of the MSM would also be helpful. Thank You.
5,000 killed/captured by the CIA's count...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1699514/posts
Ping
Remember that the head of the CIA told Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMD, and that Vladimir Putin told Bush that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Just defend the invasion as a reasonable choice given the alternatives. Don't argue that there were no good arguments against the invasion, there were plenty.
(BTW you meant "Democrats," not "democrats," "fascists" not "fasciststs," etc. Don't give him an excuse to mark you down for bad spelling.)
If you want to really blow your teacher's mind, after giving them all of the information you have gathered, ask him/her for proof your facts are wrong and they are right. Saying President Bush is the worst President ever is a childish statement to make, and I would venture a guess as to why your teacher made it-it is because the schools have to provide a MEASUREABLE LEVEL OF PROGRESS to receive federal funding under the "no child left behind" law, which, for your information, was not written by Mr. Bush, but rather by SENATOR TEDDY KENNEDY (D-Mass.). This will really piss off your teacher too, and that's when it is a lot of fun watching them sputter and stammer and tell you that you are wrong ( and you have the facts to back up your comments and they don't) Most teachers who despise Mr. Bush are union loving twerps, who do not understand most things in life, much less how to think for themselves.
He is a vietnam draftee and grew up in the 50's and 60's. I believe that is why he is a liberal. I am quite enjoying the debate, since I have never before had the opporunity to debate.
Once again I want to thank you for all of your help, and I would like to know if any of you know of documents stating the number of disrupted terrorist attacks, also some reports from Britih,Russian inteligence about Iraq and WMD.
I have to go to class now, Ill get back on once I get home in about 2 hours.
bump....
Let us know how it goes -- and a bump just to have a nice clearinghouse for the links.
The 90's:
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing
June 28, 1993. The Wall Street Journal. Laurie Mylroie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts
The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq.
November 4, 1998. The federal indictment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts?page=30#30
Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned.
November 1998. The New York Times
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
Saddam reaching out to OBL
January 1, 1999. Newsweek
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158277/posts
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections
January 14, 1999. ABC News
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1229608/posts?page=1
Osama and Saddam Work Together
January 27, 1999. Laurie Mylroie interview. She is a former Clinton terrorism czar.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158482/posts
A Much Shunned Terrorist Takes Refuge In Iraq (Abu Nidal)
New York Times. January 1999.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433610/posts
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL.
February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's Link to OBL
February 6, 1999. The Guardian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden
February 13, 1999. Associated Press
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158274/posts
Son of Saddam coordinates with OBL.
Iraqi Special Ops coordinates with Bin Laden's terrorist activities.
August 6, 1999. Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
List of newspaper articles written in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam.
FrontPage Magazine.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties.
The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
2001:
Fritz Hollings mentioned on the floor of the Senate that Iraq's state run newspaper knew exactly what was coming to the United States -- in July 2001 they published an article about it.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1472699/posts?page=1
Before 9/11 (August 2001?), Saddam put his military on the highest state of readiness since the first Gulf War, goes into a bunker with his two wives (who hated each other and had never before been housed together) and does not emerge until well after 9/11.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520824/posts?page=17#17
From the book: Saddam - King of Terror
The Iraqis, who for several years paid smaller groups to do their dirty work, were quick to discover the advantages of Al-Qaeda.
September 19, 2001. Jane's.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr010919_1_n.shtml
Iraq was in contact with Al Qaeda in the days preceeding 9/11 and thought to have sponsored the 911 attacks.
September 21, 2001. The Washington Times. Bill Gertz
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/iraqS.htm
Bin Laden met Iraqi Agent.
September 28, 2001. The Miami Herald.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/534617/posts
German investigators link Iraq to anthrax attack.
October 26, 2001. Anova.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/780782/posts
Saddam behind first WTC attack.
October 18, 2001. Laurie Mylroie, Clinton anti-terrorism czar. PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html
Hijacker given anthrax by Iraq
October 27, 2001. The Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/557446/posts
The media certainly were pushing Iraq as being connected to AQ and possibly behind 9/11 shortly after September 11, 2001. A compilation of media comments and articles:
November 17, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/984758/posts
2002:
Salman Pak. Satellite discussion about the terror camps in Iraq.
January 7, 2002. Aviation Weekly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865435/posts
Intercepted call links Saddam to AQ.
February 7, 2002. The Telegraph
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837605/posts
Report linking anthrax and 9/11 hijackers is probed.
March 23, 2002. The New York Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/652000/posts
Osama met with Saddam in Iraq.
March 23, 2002. The Times of India
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746741/posts
Did Atta meet in Prague with an Iraqi government official?
June 19, 2002.
http://www.computerbytesman.com/911/praguefaq.htm
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons.
July 14, 2002. The Sunday Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq.
September 4, 2002. BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237332.stm
Families sue Iraq over 9/11. Thousands of 9/11 victims and family members sue Iraq based on evidence that Iraq knew the attacks were coming, approved the attacks, and supported Al Qaeda for a decade. The lawsuit also notes Iraq's involvement in the first WTC attack.
September 5, 2002. CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
Democrats insisted on a separate war resolution as it pertains to Iraq.
Their language that they inserted into the Iraqi war resolution mentions specifically that it is known that AQ is in Iraq.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1513660/posts?page=2
Where the first WTC bomber went (Baghdad) and how the CIA tries to undermine the facts
September 12, 2002, This is London
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2395416-details/Saddam+and+al+Qaeda/article.do;jsessionid=gztqFCNR2QS04R38hvLgm0ny1NlrSCCpJfvSKz2Xsr7dXy9m2v4W!-81402767
Gephardt says lots of intelligence links OBL and Saddam.
October 6, 2002. Newsmax.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/764011/posts
Iraq War Resolution Demanded and Written and Signed by Democrats. Mentions how AQ is ALREADY IN IRAQ (despite the left trying to say the war drew AQ to Iraq)
October 2002.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
2003:
Colin Powell: Iraq and Al Qaeda were partners for years.
February 5, 2003. Colin Powell interview on CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
Freeper Republic Strategist's list of links between AQ and Iraq.
February 7, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850346/post
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact.
February 10, 2003. The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
Australia PM has lots of information regarding Iraq/AQ connections.
March 14, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/864277/posts
Spain links 9/11 suspect to Baghdad.
March 16, 2003. The Observer.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915142,00.html
The AQ connection to Iraq
April 12, 2003. The Weekly Standard http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Saddam's regime linked to several religious extremist groups (including AQ).
April 17, 2003. The Daily Telegraph.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/894721/posts
More evidence. Newspaper finds documents in Baghdad which directly prove the links between OBL and Saddam. The paperwork details meetings and when and where they occurred. Also found documents that Russia passed on to Iraq detailing private conversations between Blair and Italy's Berlusconi.
April 27, 2003. The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Lawsuit finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11
May 7, 2003, USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
June 1, 2003. Newsweek.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda.
June 20, 2003. Forward Magazine.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125899/posts
A judge sees the documents linking OBL and Saddam.
June 25, 2003. The Tennessean.
http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
The Al Qaeda Connection with Iraq.
July 11, 2003. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
List of newspaper articles written in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam.
July 14, 2003. FrontPage Magazine.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link.
July 16, 2003. FrontPage Magazine.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts
What the administration said. And what they didn't use, but could have regarding the relationship between OBL and Saddam. The Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in '98 when his Islamic jihad merged with Al Qaeda.
September 1, 2003. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
Free Republic Thread that mentions books on this topic. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and other notables recommend these books as well.
September 6, 2003.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/977221/posts?page=8
Memo shows Iraq contacted OBL.
September 12, 2003. The Washington Times.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030912-012437-3992r.htm
Vice President Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link
Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get training for terrorist activities. He mentions Iraq's involvement in the first WTC bombing in 1993.
September 15, 2003. Interview.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it. Specific names of Al Qaeda terrorists working in and with Iraq
September 19, 2003. National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
Iraq and AQ: A Federal Judge's Point of View
September 20, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and first WTC attack:
September 22, 2003. Newsweek.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987075/posts
Richard Miniter details the names and specific connections including the Iraqi who was involved in the first WTC bombing and lived in Iraq.
September 25, 2003. Richard Minister
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
The connection between Iraq and 9/11
Fox News. September 2003.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,97063,00.html
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore.
October 21, 2003. The National Review.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
November 3, 2003. The Weekly Standard
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
Stephen Hayes book, The Intel Links OBL and Saddam.
November 15, 2003. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html
The media certainly were pushing Iraq as being connected to AQ and possibly behind 9/11 shortly after September 11, 2001. A compilation of media comments and articles:
November 17, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/984758/posts
Article with many links. How Saddam paid AQ to commit attacks against America.
November 17, 2003. FrontPage magazine.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10848
Case Closed.
November 24, 2003. The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
The Terrorist behind 9/11 was trained by Saddam
December 14, 2003. The Telegraph.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146356/posts?page=1
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties.
December 29, 2003. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
2004:
Saddam behind anthrax attacks?
January 1, 2004. Accuracy in Media.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1052221/posts?page=33
4:
The support of the Iraqi regime for Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center building. Coalition forces found a document in Tikrit several months ago that indicates the former Iraqi regime has provided Yasin housing and a monthly stipend for nearly a decade.
January 2004. FrontPage magazine.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11946
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ
January 12, 2004. The New York Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda.
February 23, 2004, The Weekly Standard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts
Article details the number of terrorists who have attacked America in the past and taken refuge in Iraq. Loaded with interesting bullet points.
March 14, 2004. Scripps Howard News Service via NewsMax.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097521/posts?page=1
James Woolsey, former CIA Director, links Iraq and AQ. See also Posts #34 and #35.
March 23, 2004. CNN Interview
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
March 28, 2004, NewsMax
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas
April 29,2 004. The Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
Saddam Linked to 9/11.
May 11, 2004. FrontPage Magazine. Laurie Mylroie, Clinton's anti-terrorism czar.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133317/posts
Bush says Zarqawi killed Berg. Cites Saddam ties.
May 15, 2004. Reuters.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136076/posts
More on Shakir. Did he meet with 9/11 planners?
May 27, 2004. The Wall Street Journal.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
The Connections. Detailed.
May 28, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1144123/posts?page=11
Saddam's role in 9/11.
May 29, 2004. A Freeper book.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1144699/posts?page=5
Clinton mentioned how AQ was developing a relationship with Iraq. Also see Post #5.
June 1, 2004. The Miami Herald.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145787/posts
Read into the Congressional Record regarding the ties between OBL and Saddam. (Part 1)
June 1, 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:42:./temp/~r1082srpxN:e0:
More read into the Congressional Record (Part 2).
June 1, 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:42:./temp/~r1082srpxN:e2357:
More read into the Congressional Record (Part 3).
June 1, 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:42:./temp/~r1082srpxN:e12612:
More read into the Congressional Record (Part 4).
June 1, 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:42:./temp/~r1082srpxN:e23985:
Exploring the links between 9/11 and Iraq.
June 2, 2004. CBN.com
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146319/posts?page=1
New Iraqi Chief Links 9/11 to Saddam.
June 2, 2004. NewsMax.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146579/posts?page=1
Pre-Bush Timeline of Saddam/OBL Ties
June 12, 2004. Freeper Blackrain4xmas research
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1152923/posts?page=1
Cheney claims Iraq/AQ connections
June 14, 2004. Associated Press
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1153781/posts?page=20
Britain insists that AQ was in Iraq pre war.
June 17, 2004. MiddleEast Online.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155369/posts
Cheney says definite ties between Iraq/AQ and outraged at NYT Misleading Headline.
June 17, 2004. CNBC Capitol Report via Drudge
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1155520/posts?page=1
How the Networks Pretend to Ignore their own Reporting from the 1990's.
June 17, 2004. Media Research Center
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040617.asp
There was a link between OBL and Saddam.
June 20, 2004. The Sunday Telegraph.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156634/posts
9/11 Commission says prominent member of AQ served in Iraq's militia.
June 20, 2004. Reuters.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156957/posts
9/11 Commission reaffirms Bush administration view of Iraq/AQ ties.
June 21, 2004. RNC.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157478/posts
How Saddam collaborated with Osama bin Laden. Interview with Stephen Hayes with excellent information.
June 23, 2004. FrontPage Magazine.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158493/posts
The Clinton Administration first linked Saddam and OBL.
June 25, 2004. The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Documents Shows Iraq Intel Agents Met with OBL.
June 25, 2004. Associated Press.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160146/posts
More evidence of Iraq/AQ relationship.
June 25, 2004. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html?ei=5070&en=441dbd2a3bae663c&ex=1089259200&pagewanted=print&position=
Putin warned President Bush after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein planned to attack America.
June 28, 2004. Media Research Center.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161677/posts
Freeper blog (Windsofchange) and links to 9/11 Commission report with specific references to the ways in which Iraq/AQ were connected and worked together.
July 11, 2004.
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005191.php#al-qaeda
Long List of Clinton Administration Officials who Believed There was an AQ/Iraq connection.
July 12, 2004. NewsMax.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169397/posts
Gore, Cohen, Clinton linked AQ and Saddam.
July 15, 2004. The Daily Texan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165515/posts
Gore, Cohen, Clinton linked AQ and Saddam.
July 15, 2004. The Daily Texan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165515/posts
What the Senate Intelligence Report REALLY said about the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
July 22, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173423/posts
The 9/11 Commission found specific connections between Iraq and AQ. Specific names and dates are given from the report.
July 22, 2004. The Daily Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/354tdeij.asp
The 9/11 Commission and Iraq/AQ Connections.
July 26, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173008/posts
Clinton feared Iraq gave AQ chemical weapons in Sudan under a cooperative agreement they had.
July 2004. 9/11 Commission
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373948467
Information about Shakir, the Iraqi who met with AQ at a pre-9/11 planning meeting. Also information about the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb of the first WTC bombing.
August 2, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp?pg=2
Specific quotes from 9/11 Commission Report regarding links between AQ and Iraq.
July 30, 2004.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182042/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1193821/posts
Contact between OBL and Saddam are beyond dispute.
August 18, 2004. The Washington Times.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1193821/posts
List of CIA and various Reports regarding Iraq's support for terrorists, terrorism and AQ.
September 16, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
Kerry disputing 9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence Reports. Actual page numbers and quotes within article of what the Reports DID say regarding the connections.
September 20, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214954/posts
Fox News reports that Saddam may have used Oil for Food money to fund Al Qaeda.
September 20, 2004. Fox News Channel.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html
Excellent resource. Pictures. Charts.
Bomber from '93 WTC bombing received salary from Iraq.
Salmon Pak - terrorists trained on how to use forks and knives to hijack a plane.
Iraq was Islamic terror central.
September 22, 2004. Deroy Murdock, Hoover Institute.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Both the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission documented the links and relationship between AQ and Iraq.
October 5, 2005. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/731hezhy.asp?pg=2
CNSNews.com Publishes Iraqi Intelligence Docs
CNSNews ^ | October 11, 2004 | David Thibault
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1241500/posts
Osama bin Laden was considered an Iraqi Intelligence asset.
October 14, 2004. National Review.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246505/posts
Saddam - The Terrorist's Banker
October 15, 2004. The Scotsman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1245719/posts
Senate Intelligence Report says Zarqawi operated out of Saddam controlled territory - Baghdad.
October 20, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/803czhfn.asp
It looks like the 9/11 Commission got an important detail wrong. Shakir probably DID work the Iraqi Fedayeen and he had documents on him when arrested that linked him to the 1993 WTC bombing. And he drove the 9/11 hijackers to a planning meeting.
October 23, 2004. The Hoover Institute. http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254304/posts?page=1
Saddam was the ATM to Al Qaeda.
November 16, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15919
CIA Agent Scheuer USED to believe there was an Iraq/AQ link. Now he just wants face time on television and is pretending there was never a link.
November 23, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1286540/posts
Oil for Food Scandal may have funded 9/11.
December 4, 2004. NewsMax quotes The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1294424/posts?page=35
Iraqi Intelligence officers planted a sleeper cell (at least one) in the United States. The man is now under arrest and Iraqi agents are cooperating.
December 22, 2004. CBS.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1306842/posts
2005
New list by Richard Minister of the Connections Between OBL and Saddam.
February 4, 2005.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1335971/posts?page=7
Freeper book, Saddam's Ties to Osama, great review at Amazon.
February 2005.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335596/posts
Symposium; Experts gather to discuss relationship between Iraq/AQ
February 11, 2005. FrontPage Magazine.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16985
It's all about 9/11 (Iraq and OBL connections)
National Review. June 2005.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433221/posts
The Clinton Administration's Case Against WMD in Iraq
April 2005
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1513669/posts?page=1
The Saddam-Osama Link Confirmed.
June 20, 2005. FrontPage magazine.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1426816/posts?page=20
GOP Lawmaker Says Saddam Linked to 9/11
CNN. June 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html
Saddam was Motel 6 to terrorist. Whole article and Post #6 complete with a picture.
NewsMax. June 2005
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433908/posts
Thwarted Jordan WMD attack; jihadists got money and weapons from Iraq
June 30, 2005. AP
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434136/posts?page=3#3
THESE CONNECTIONS MUST BE USED TO COUNTER THE LEFTIST SPING THAT SADDAM DIDN'T SUPPORT AL QAEDA. AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ
July 2005. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440001/posts
A blog with great links regarding the relationship.
July 2005.
http://www.newspundit.net/saddamalqaedawmd.html
The Pope of Terrorism
July 2005. The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/880qqeoh.asp
The Pope of Terrorism, Part II
July 2005. The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/884ygeya.asp
Saddam financially supported an AQ affiliate in Algeria
August 2005. The Weekly Standard
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456433/posts
9/11 Commission did NOT include information they now admit they knew. In 2000, some of the 9/11 hijackers were on the radar, but Clinton did nothing.
August 2005. Philadelphia paper
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459716/posts
Operation Able Danger. What the 9/11 Commission knew and didn't know. What Clinton did and didn't do.
August 2005.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460263/posts
More on Atta in Prague, the Iraqi intel agent arrested in Germany who was linked to AQ and Ramzi Yousef's Iraq passport (Youseff bombed the WTC in '93)
August 12, 2005. Captain's Quarters
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005200.php
9/11 Probe could highlight Iraq link to 9/11
August 2005. NewsMax
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1471999/posts
The Iraqis the 9/11 Commission Report forgot to mention as they relate to 9/11.
September 2005. The Weekly Standard.
Must read.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472411/posts
Who is lying about Iraq (Hint -- It's The democrats)
November 2005. John Podhoritz
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
Records found in Iraq dated ten months before 9/11 indicates that Saddam Hussein’s employees clandestinely met Taliban and al Qaeda agents regarding a “decision to operate.” That and more.
National Review. 12/21/05
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1545868/posts?page=21
Kuwait sentences Al Qaeda terrorists who have connections to Iraq.
Reuters. December 27, 2005.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547483/posts
2006
Saddam trained over 8,000 jihadists before the war.
January 12, 2006. The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007809
New documents found in Iraq confirm that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda.
February 20, 2006. The American Thinker
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582379/posts
Who'll let the docs out?
The Weekly Standard. Stephen Hayes
March 10, 2006
The president orders Negroponte to get the Saddam tapes translated and released.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594192/posts
What the Clintonistas said about the OBL/Saddam Relationship
June 15, 2006, Chickenhawk Express
http://chickenhawkexpress.blogspot.com/2006/06/democratic-flip-flops-on-iraq-al-qaeda.html
The Testimony of Terrorists
July 7, 2006,FrontPage magazine, Mark Eichenlaub
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23264
Atta was in Prague after all. Credit Ravingnutter.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1588003/posts?page=55#55
MISCELLANEOUS
9/11 Hijacker sought treatment for red hands (anthrax).
October 11, 2001. Palm Beach Post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/546116/posts
Tabloid Editor rented apartment to two 9/11 hijackers. The tabloid lost a worker to anthrax.
October 15, 2001. Miami Herald.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/548061/posts
Hijackers linked to anthrax.
October 15, 2001. St. Petersburg Times.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/101501/Worldandnation/Hijackers_linked_to_t.shtml
9/11 Hijackers treated for anthrax.
March 23, 2002. The New York Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/652000/posts
Remember Anthrax?
April 20, 2002. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/669487/posts
9/24/01. ABC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/531023/posts
Hijacker treated for anthrax.
May 9, 2002. The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/682921/posts
Atta tried to buy a cropduster.
June 6, 2002. ABC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695924/posts
Analysis of anthrax letters.
June 19, 2002. Instapundit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703075/posts?page=44#44
Freeper My Identity research on anthrax letters. Post #44.
6/20/02.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703075/posts?page=44#44
The silica used in the anthrax attacks traced to Iraq.
October 28, 2002. The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28334-2002Oct27¬Found=true
Freeper Backhoe's list of links.
February 2, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838309/posts
Freeper Republican Strategist list of links.
February 24, 2003.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850346/posts
Freeper polemikos list of links to investigations regarding anthrax.
December 26, 2003.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047022/posts
Evidence Iraq behind anthrax attacks.
January 1, 2004. Accuracy in Media
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html
Freeper Christie's list of links. Great chart.
September 26, 2004.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1227437/posts?page=1
Saddam behind anthrax attacks and 9/11 attacks.
Independent website.
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraqlinks.htm
I would have my parents complain, except I enjoy the debate and most students have grown up conservative so there is no real danger.
I am considering taping the classes and posting them on the internet then complaining at the end of the year. I will let you know if I do this.
However if he ever tries to not allow me or anyone else to speak, or if he starts to spew such filth as 9/11 conspiracy theories, I will definately have some parents call in.
Think of Iraq as a Mosquito Magnet®. Whether or not there were many Al Quaeda operatives there before we went in, they're suicidally swarming in there now. Since of the Iraqi locals don't like these terrorists any more than we do, it's a lot easier for us to deal with terrorists there than in places where they might otherwise be able to blend in.
Great link!
Thanks to Mo1, she did all the work, I just gave a link.
If he is a typical liberal, his "reasoning" probably runs something like this:
Bush told us that we should invade Iraq because Iraq supported Al-Qaeda. Iraq never supported Al-Qaeda, so the invasion of Iraq was not legitimate. Bush lied us into a war.
Bush didn't lie about anything. He told us that we should invade Iraq for many reasons, among which was Iraq's support for terrorists. Congress put together a list of 39 reasons for the war in the Authorization for Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which was signed by Bush. That document does not specifically mention Al-Qaeda.
The War on Terror has been directed at many islamofascist terrorist groups and their state sponsors, not just Al-Qaeda. For liberals to pretend otherwise is itself blatantly dishonest.
You will learn that that is so heavily documented that it is absurd to speak about proving it to someone who doesn't already know it.
"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still."I consider myself to be an expert on the subject. I wasn't the first to figure out that "the media" were "biased," and I wasn't the first to be conned into assuming that it was "unbiased." But what I have done is to think long and hard about the issue since I first was convinced of the fact of "media bias" by the AIM ("Accuracy In Media) Reports put out by Reed Irvine back in the middle of the Carter Administration.
Not the whether issue, that was perfectly clear to me from AIM. My interest has been in why there is "bias in the media." My conclusions are that:
- "The media" includes movies and other fiction which is remarkably tendentious against conservatism. However, those fictional media are under no obligation to be "fair" or "balanced" or "objective." Their authors have rights under the First Amendment (and the framers of the body of the Constitution thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, so they would have argued that any violation of the First Amendment was a violation of the body of the Constitution). Just as you and I have free speech rights which we are presently exercising. If you would argue about "bias in the media," therefore, you are best advised to restrict your attention specifically to nonfiction in general and journalism in particular.
- Even in critiquing tendentiousness in journalism, you face the First Amendment issue. And IMHO most (though hardly all) of the tendentiousness in journalism lies in "story selection" - what is on the front page above the fold, what is in the middle of the paper, and what is not reported at all. You can't sue for something the paper does not say. Yet,
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinPrecisely because what they don't say may be extremely tendentious, there wouldn't have been any way for the framers of the Constitution to have required journalists to make their reports balanced. It was impossible, and they didn't try it.Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton waged their partisan battles by sponsoring competing newspapers. That is something which is very embarrassing to people who claim that journalism is objective. If it was OK for Hamilton and Jefferson not to be objective, how is it not OK for The New York Times to not be objective? And - here is the conclusion - what justification is there for anyone to claim that you or I have to believe The New York Times about anything?
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithWhen your teacher challenges you to prove that journalism is tendentious, your proper answer is that you are trying to gain wisdom (do not claim to be wise!). And that you are trying to learn, but you are trying not to be the credulous naif which, Adam Smith warned, it is only too easy to fall into being. If s/he has evidence that journalism is objective you are very interested to study it.The answer s/he will give is to cite codes of ethics of journalism. And/or, circular references to claims of objectivity where A says B is objective, and we know that's true because C says A is objective, and we know that is true because B says C is objective. What you will not get, IMHO, is any reference which you are obliged to respect. The Bible will not tell you to be a naif about journalism. Thomas Jefferson will tell you not to believe anything in a newspaper but the advertisements.
If the teacher harps on the codes of ethics, ask what is the principle on which you should understand that the journalists even know what is objective and what is not. Because a journalist who was a Republican could have a different perspective on what is objective than a journalist who is a Democrat might have (Note: IMHO there are essentially no Republican journalists - but for argument's sake . . .).
Ultimately you will have to support the case that there is tendentiousness in journalism by actual examples. There are many. The first I would cite is the 60 Minutes "Texas Air National Guard memos," a.k.a. the "Killian memos." Those "memos" were crude forgeries. They were crude not in the sense that the equipment they were made on was crude, but exactly because that equipment manifestly was too sophisticated. That is what is known as an "anachronism" - something which was supposedly written by Thomas Jefferson but was obviously typed on a typewriter would certainly be a fraud. And the "Killian memos" were not created by a typewriter in about 1972 but by a computer running Microsoft Word in 2004. We can be sure of that because:
- The "memos" putatively were created in 1972 but not "found" until 2004; some of them would embarrass the author if he were not dead. And yet the "copy" was of poor quality. Exactly as if someone had gotten a copy of the original and copied it, and then someone else took one of the copies and copied that, and so on. But of course if that had occurred, the Democrats would have inevitably gotten their hands on it and used it against Mr. Bush in his race for Governor of Texas, never mind in the 2000 presidential contest. And there is no chain of custody; nobody admits typing it and yet Col. Killian didn't type either, and the family denied that it was in Col. Killian's effects.
- The "memos" had centered text which was perfectly centered, just as Microsoft Word would do - and as cannot be done on a 1972 vintage monospace typewriter. "Monospace" just means that no matter what letter you type the carriage shifts the paper the same distance to prepare for the next character. A "w" or an "i" takes up the same space on the line, and there are no half space options. If you centered a line on such a machine, you did so by locating the center point of the line you intended to type, and then hit the backspace key once for every two characters in the intended line. But what if the line had an odd number of characters? You just had to decide to be half a space off, one way or the other. And there were centered lines of both odd and even number of characters in at least one of the "memos" and yet the lines were perfectly centered in both cases.
That's what you get by default in Microsoft Word - but you can't do it at all on a 1972 typewriter.
- The famous superscript "th". Microsoft word automatically superscripts a "th" immediately following a number: type "5th" and Word will display "5th." If however you type "5 th" then Word will display exactly that. And there are examples of both in the "memos" - but why would they exist in a typewritten document? Furthermore superscripts are difficult on a typewriter. If you are going to put a superscript on the next line, you have to shift the paper up more than usual to allow clearance for superscript above the line. Microsoft Word does it automatically, because all the text is specified before it is ever printed. But you couldn't get the superscript of a typewriter to be smaller than the text of the rest of the line, as in the "memos," unless you had an unusual typewriter with a built-in superscript "th" key. And the top of that kind of "superscript" stays in line with the top rest of the text. If you had that sort of "superscript" key you might use it, but you wouldn't go to the trouble of anticipating the need for superscript, shifting the height of the next line lower than usual, then shifting the line to normal height for the superscript, then shifting back down for the remainder of the line.
- And then there is the issue of "kerning" - tucking letters closer together or further apart in a line according to how well adjacent letters nest together. Word does it, and it is clearly seen in the "memos" - but a monospace typewriter simply won't do it.
In sum, Microsoft Word is very sophisticated, and when used in its default settings it produces a sophisticated printed output. A lot of software went into making it behave that way, and that software can be overridden to produce a clunkier looking output much like what a 1970s typewriter would produce. But that was not done by the forgers of the "memos." And that is why those forgeries are "crude."
Contextual inconsistencies also exist in the "memos." They are a fraud.
OK, they are a fraud, so CBS wasn't objective to report them. Even if they were real, they would have borne only on what happened thirty years before, and we had four years experience on which to judge Mr. Bush actually in office as President of the United States. It is not obvious why whatever happened in 1972 is truly relevant in that context, but that was precisely the implication of Senator Kerry's nomination acceptance speech, in which he saluted and "reported for duty."
But even if you accept the premise that whatever happened in 1972 was relevant, CBS should explain why the opinion of Senator Kerry's fellow officers and superior officers - not on the basis of photocopies of some putative original "memos" but on their live, in-person testimony - was irrelevant. And why it did not matter that Mr. Bush had signed a release of all his military records to all of the press, nor that Senator Kerry talked a good game but never signed a release of his military records. Even though it was he, and not Mr. Bush, who claimed that the issue was important.
The "memos" provably were fraudulent. Even had that not have been provable, it was always impossible to validate them because they were not originals but putatively copies of originals. It is inherently impossible to validate copies, because it is impossible to prove that they were not Photoshopped. Anyone who was making even the slightest effort to be objective would have refused to run with those "memos." But CBS did. And CBS stood by its story when challenged. And finally, CBS created an "independent" commission for the purpose of drawing the absurd conclusion that all of the straining at gnats and swallowing of camels I have outlined above did not come about because of political motivation.
What of the rest of "objective journalism?" Well, I had to "saw sawdust" going over way after way in which the "Killian memos" should not have been taken as true and certainly would not have been broadcast if CBS had been objective. And the very fact that I had to saw that sawdust tells you one thing - that the rest of "objective journalism" refused to aggressively describe any of what I have just pointed out. They put priority on solidarity - on going along and getting along - rather than taking the opportunity to claim superiority of their editorial content over that of their competitor.
What do they mean when they call journalism "the news?" Doesn't the use of "the" contradict the presumption that our many journalism organs - how many networks, and how many separate newspapers? - behave as completely independent entities? "The" news? No matter how many newspapers or broadcast journalists, there is only one "news?" Seriously, why??
For a more academic, statistical approach to the issue, you could follow this link: [Think Tank Citations as] A Measure of Media Bias.
But I promised that I had not merely learned that journalism is tendentious, I have analyzed why it is so. Why is journalism tendentious as a general proposition, and why is it "liberal" in particular? The short answer to why individual journalism organs might be tendentious is because that is human nature, and freedom of the press means that they can get away with it legally. They are as a group all tendentious in the same direction because that way each of them gets the support of all the rest in upholding the conceit that journalism is "objective."
And the direction they tend toward is liberalism for the simple reason that they all overhype the importance of talk - their own talk in particular - and thereby they denigrate those who don't merely talk but who act. They second guess the police and the military as being either too "brutal" or not effective enough, and sometimes both at once. They look for any opportunity to criticize the corporations for "polluting too much" and/or failing to produce enough product (i.e., they "charge exorbitant prices").
In short, hyping talk above actual accomplishment which entails tradeoffs of risk and benefit, and whose very successes point the way for possible ways they could have done better. And if you simply become a politician who promotes second guessing above action - if you flatter journalism - journalism will reward you with the label "liberal" (at least, that was a reward until they ran the word into the ground this way) or "moderate" or "progressive." If you do not promote talk and second guessing over action, you yourself will be mercilessly second guessed.
And make no mistake, socialism - "government ownership of the means of production" involves second guessing. Some entrepreneur must first develop not only the "means of production" but, in general, the specific item to be produced as well. If his concept fails, he disappears and there is no issue. Only if he succeeds does his innovation suddenly result in a situation where he is second guessed about how expensive his product is and how little he pays his help. The answer of the socialist is to take the credit away from the entrepreneur and assign it to "society," meaning nothing other than the government.
So question is not, "How can I prove bias in the MSM?" The question is, "I don't have to believe these jerks. Why should I assume that people who do nothing but criticize everyone else except other people who also buy ink by the carload are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Why would I trust those guys? I was born at night - but it wasn't last night."
So there, relatively briefly, you have the benefit of my years of study of the issue. These and related ideas are developed over time, and a thousand posts, in this FR thread:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.