To: Remember_Salamis
Even if there is a link it doesn't matter. Saddam is a terrorist no matter if he is buddies with Osama or not. Proving a link between Saddam and Al Queda is unneeded really to justify the US overthrowing the Saddam regime.
2 posted on
05/11/2004 1:31:26 AM PDT by
yonif
("So perish all Thine enemies, O the Lord" - Judges 5:31)
To: Remember_Salamis
"Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public"
I wonder why these documents have not been made public? If they wait too long to show them, someone will be claiming they were fabricated.
5 posted on
05/11/2004 2:56:31 AM PDT by
Susannah
(Have you thanked a soldier lately for your freedom?- www.amillionthanks.org)
To: Remember_Salamis
Author was a clinton advisor!!
To: Remember_Salamis
How about this for a conspiracy theory: With growing evidence that AQ had ties to Iraq, the US quietly stops all UN inspections in Iraq out of fear of (more)terrorist attacks.
9 posted on
05/11/2004 4:09:25 AM PDT by
rintense
(Now I know why liberals hate guns... they keep shooting themselves in the foot!)
To: Remember_Salamis
They failed to recognize that starting with the first assault on New Yorks World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States.
11 posted on
05/11/2004 4:14:39 AM PDT by
kcvl
To: ScaniaBoy; Cooter; eyespysomething; B4Ranch; Alamo-Girl; Triple; MJY1288; potlatch; Shermy; ...
OKC-911 CONNECTION ALERT. Please let me know by freepmail if you want to be taken off this list. Thanks.This one's from Laurie Mylroie.
12 posted on
05/11/2004 4:16:04 AM PDT by
ovrtaxt
(Forget ANWR -- Drill Israel!)
To: Remember_Salamis
Democrats on the 9-11 commission have sure toned down their rhetoric since meeting privately with Bush and Cheney. Wonder if they were told information similar to and supportive of that in this article.
13 posted on
05/11/2004 4:18:17 AM PDT by
randita
To: Remember_Salamis
Yet among the elite, there is tremendous opposition to this notion. A simple explanation exists for this dichotomy. The public is not personally vested in this issue, but the elite certainly are. Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is no evidence. What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented.
Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks carries serious implications for judgments about the way that Bush 41 ended the 1991 war. As will be recalled, after 100 hours of a ground war, with Saddam still in power and Republican Guard units escaping across the Euphrates, Bush called for a cease-fire. Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed for that decision, and Scowcroft backed him, although it was totally unnecessary, and many Arab members of the coalition were astounded at the decision.
Now many people will point to the UN resolution that clearly defined the goal of the 1991 war as getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not deposing Saddam. But now we have learned the lesson that what is in the UNs best interest is usually opposed to what's in the USs best interest.
14 posted on
05/11/2004 4:25:26 AM PDT by
ovrtaxt
(Forget ANWR -- Drill Israel!)
To: Remember_Salamis
bump for later
18 posted on
05/11/2004 4:52:07 AM PDT by
PLMerite
("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
To: Remember_Salamis; backhoe; Howlin
To: Remember_Salamis
By the way, not only was Mohammed Atta witnessed in Prague meeting an Iraqi intelligence agent, but the CIA has been lying about this issue for a couple of years now. They've been trying to claim that he was in Virginia Beach the whole time, when the fact is that they (embarrassingly) completely lost track of him and had no idea of his whereabouts at the time in question.
What I'm not sure of is whether they're lying about these kinds of things because Bush and Cheney have instructed them to do so, because they're just covering their asses as usual, or because they're deliberately trying to undermine the entire administration's case for war.
26 posted on
05/11/2004 5:45:24 AM PDT by
jpl
("You can go to a restaurant in New York City and meet a foreign leader."- John Kerry)
To: Remember_Salamis; RedBloodedAmerican
Thanks for post R_S, and for ping RedBloodedAmerican
There is a wealth of information In your article & in the sharing of other FReepers.
27 posted on
05/11/2004 5:51:55 AM PDT by
DollyCali
("Trying to keep the Freepers pulling in the same direction is like trying to herd cats." Richard Poe)
bump for later...
28 posted on
05/11/2004 6:00:13 AM PDT by
eureka!
(May karma come back to the presstitutes and Rats in a material way.....)
To: Remember_Salamis
read later bump
To: Remember_Salamis
Think this news will ever be shown on any of the major networks?
32 posted on
05/11/2004 6:30:48 AM PDT by
al_c
To: Remember_Salamis
There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public. Why not?
38 posted on
05/11/2004 7:29:06 AM PDT by
aculeus
To: Remember_Salamis
Most people knew in their hearts & minds there was a connection. The evidence has been gathered, the links are there.....the media will not cover it.
43 posted on
05/11/2004 12:24:53 PM PDT by
Feiny
(This post ain't for everybody, just the sexy freepers.)
To: Remember_Salamis
Thanks for posting this. Laurie M. is a treasure. We never get enough of her.
45 posted on
05/11/2004 2:03:22 PM PDT by
hershey
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson