Posted on 12/19/2003 5:05:34 AM PST by witnesstothefall
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I had never read that...how disgustingly sickening.
The script is already written.
What they left out...
According to a report Sunday by the Associated Press, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "told his interrogators he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia."More on Yasin:Yousef, of course, was the man who plotted and executed the failed 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport the year before and whose partner in the plot, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was granted sanctuary by Saddam Hussein after the attack. Yasin is still at large.
Another intriguing detail unmentioned by the AP, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is Ramzi Yousef's uncle.
Just last week, new documents uncovered by U.S. investigators in Iraq implicated Saddam's regime in the 1993 attack.
"U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 . . .
"Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official . . . said some [U.S. intelligence] analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin."
Beyond Ramzi Yousef's Iraqi passport and Abdul Rahman Yasin's subsidy from Saddam, terrorist expert Laurie Mylroie has insisted for years that Iraq helped Yousef execute his plan. She says that Jim Fox, the FBI's New York bureau chief in 1993, who headed up the WTC bombing probe, was thoroughly convinced of a connection.
After pursuing possible Iraqi links, Fox was yanked from the investigation and he died a few years later. But two months after the bombing he told ABC News he thought the attack might have been revenge for the first Gulf War against Iraq.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Account Links 9/11 to '93 WTC Attack
Eight years have passed since Abdul Rahman Yasin bade hasty farewell to New York and flew to Baghdad. There he initially passed the time by fielding telephone calls placed by solicitous FBI agents and finding a niche in Saddam Hussein's police state. By all appearances, Yasin has lived a quiet, secluded life there.See also:Bush on Oct. 10 named Yasin as one of the world's 22 Most Wanted Terrorists for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Bush's list is headed by Osama bin Laden and his cohorts in al-Qaida, the terror group accused of finishing the destruction of the New York landmark begun by Yasin and others.
There is no doubt about Yasin's whereabouts after the 1993 outrage. The FBI agents who perfunctorily questioned Yasin in New York and were conned by his pleasant manner quickly understood their mistake in letting him go. They got his brother to telephone Yasin in Baghdad repeatedly to ask him to come back for more questioning. Guess what? Mr. Yasin sent his regrets.
In 1998 then-FBI Director Louis Freeh said publicly that the fugitive was "hiding in his native Iraq." The Iraqi National Congress, the leading anti-Saddam movement, earlier obtained a photograph of Yasin in Baghdad and provided it to Washington. Every indication points to Yasin's not having left Iraq since then, a senior U.S. official tells me.
Will We Find Abdul Rahman Yasin?
9/11 Bombshell: Mohamed Atta Trained in BaghdadHmmmm...and who was President in 1993? Why was the FBI pulled off of pursuing the Iraqi links in 1993? They have known Saddam and Al Qaeda have been in bed together for a long time and apparently the mainstream media is ignoring those facts to save Clinton's behind.
As for Clinton taking action after the 93 attack, it's only speculation at best as to whether that would have prevented a 9/11 or 9/11 type situation. We may suffer another similar attack even after we went into Afganistan and Iraq. Defense and offense against this enemy is very unique and the old roll over and crush them likely isn't going to work. And the world is too big for us to conquer like we did Iraq.
If Clinton had not pulled the FBI off of the Iraq links in the 1993 bombing, he would have had that option. See my post #44.
Very interesting info. I always take issue when people describe the '93 WTC bombing as "failed". Six people lost their lives and over 1000 were injured, not to mention the 10's of millions of dollars of damage and the sheer terror visited on 50,000 who were evacuated and countless others watching from afar.
WTC 93 was a very serious deal, but Clinton pretended it was a routine criminal matter.
Even if it did happen like that (and I think you make a good point about Clinton's character that he wouldn't miss a legacy-making opportunity), why would a new president just rush into something without having his new administation look into whether or not it was wise? Especially an incompetent and corrupt one like Clinton. Isn't that partly what Kennedy did at the Bay of Pigs? Implemented a former plan without doing his homework?
From Post #9 (and other sources)
In hindsight, Clinton should have implemented this plan himself instead of leaving it for Bush II.
But two months after the bombing he told ABC News he thought the attack might have been revenge for the first Gulf War against Iraq
From your post #44
In hindsight, Bush I should have taken out Saddam.
Armchair generals - with the benefit of hindsight - can always find good reason to criticize their betters, those who must make decisions and fight wars in real-time.
When you have a child who can run circles about you intellectually and emotionally, you realize that life is good.
I think milk was the chosen weapon because she is a martial arts student and can part your hair with a foot in the blink of an eye.
A White House official gave CNN a timeline of counterterrorism planning that took place before September 11.
Presidential transition time: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gets a briefing about terrorism from Clinton administration officials. Samuel "Sandy" Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, drops by the meeting and talks about the importance of fighting terror.
January 2001: In the first few days of the new administration, Rice asks the National Security Council and Cabinet agencies for proposals for "major presidential policy initiatives," including one focusing on counterterrorism.
January 2001: A few days later, Rice receives a memo from Richard Clarke, the Clinton administration's counterterrorism chief. Based on that memo, she orders a "comprehensive policy strategy review on al Qaeda."
January-March 2001: Policy coordination meetings take place to "review issues and prioritize actions needed to counter the al Qaeda threat."
March 2001: Work begins on the National Security Presidential Directive on al Qaeda.
April 2001: The administration's "deputies," including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy National Security Council Adviser Stephen Hadley, meet to discuss U.S. policy against al Qaeda, approve "immediate actions" against al Qaeda and review the draft of the security directive.
May-July 2001: The deputies' committee develops a strategy to enlist Pakistan's support for pressing the Taliban to shut down al Qaeda in Afghanistan and a strategy for dealing with the Afghan regime.
August 14, 2001: The security directive draft goes to Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other national security principals.
September 4, 2001: These principals sign off on the directive.
September 9 or 10, 2001: The directive, ready for the president's final approval, arrives on Rice's desk.
September 11, 2001: The directive is sitting on Rice's desk waiting to go to the president.
Then why are you talking about it now Kean and letting the News Networks spin this report ?
Well ain't that special .. your daughter's friend just proved what a nasty thing she is .. I just hope others around them noticed this
Good questions your daughter asked
Great information. Why no definitive action b4 9/11?
It's so comical to hear someone call a conservative a Nazi. I heard Hannity take on a teacher who called him a right wing Nazi for an hour on his show but Hannity never once went for the jugular based on the stupidity of the Nazi label being applied to a conservative.
"Nazi" is short for the complete words, "Nationalso Zialist". It is a socialist party, about as close to conservative republican right wingers as Lake Tahoe is to the Sudan. The movement is also focused at state control of industry, but stops short of Communism.
If people who call right wing conservatives "Nazi's", they are merely showing their complete lack of education and ignorance of history and politics.
Now if one were to call a Democrat a "Nazi", they would be getting a whole lot warmer based on fact. Calling a Wesley Clarke a "Nazi" is about as close as Hot Springs is to Hope.
But he said it was "too early to tell if people in high places failed or didn't do their job." In a later interview for ABC's "Nightline," he added, "We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong."
The government investigating the government is like Arthur Anderson investigating Enron. Nobody but dispensable underlings will be found to blame, and the bureaucracies in question will get substantially larger budgets.
Bush I did not have a Congressional or U.N mandate to take out Saddam, just to get them out of Kuwait. Iraq signed a peace agreement at the time which effectively ruled out Bush I's ability to use force to take out Saddam.
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.