Posted on 06/16/2004 7:20:03 PM PDT by Shermy
BMP for later.
Tuesday at a press conference (a short one with President Karzai) a reporter says he sees Cheney standing "over there" and then asks President Bush to "qualify" Cheney's statements and state what proof, if any, there is between Iraq and Al Qaeda. President Bush promptly and forcefully states "Zarqawi", pauses, then expounds a bit.
No hemming, no hawing, no "qualifying" Cheney's statement.
Nothing that comes from the mainstream media or the 9/11 commission can be trusted. Neither has any credibility.
Damn shame. But there it is. A hundred years from now, the historians will have a better idea of what really happened than we ever will. Which makes we wonder if, indeed, it has been thus. Don't we probably have a clearer picture of the origins of WW I now than any one person had at the time?
At this point, Shermy's Compendium of Conundrums is a more reliable source of investigative journalism than the mainstream media.
Or, do they say 'twas ever thus'?
The report cited a photograph taken by a bank surveillance camera in Virginia showing Mr. Atta withdrawing money on April 4, 2001,
From the article I posted from the June 3 NRO:
On April 4, 2001, the FBI says, Atta departed Virginia Beach's Diplomat Inn with Al-Shehhi and cashed a SunTrust check for $8,000.
My goodness. Notice the difference in detail between a ho-hum "withdrawal" during a trip to the bank, as the New York Times puts it, or as the NRO informs, with his roommate and fellow terrorist to cash a "SunTrust check for $8,000".
Where did the $8000 come from and what was it for? Travel to Prague, by chance?
There were many Oswalds - maybe there were many Atta's?
I never take my cellphone to Europe. It doesn't work there and one less thing to bother with. I can see where Atta would have left it for his terrorist pals in Florida to use while he was in Prague.
The 9/11 Commission and the New York Times will purposely ignore that there were more alledged meetings besides the April 9th meeting, four in total, and that all FBI intelligence corroborates them.
The only meeting that gets any media time is the April 9th meeting because its "debunked" because the FBI has contradictory intelligence on his location 5 days before the meeting took place. Everytime I argue with a liberal they think the FBI debunked the Atta/Prague meeting when in fact they provided intelligence that confirmed 3 of the meetings that the Czech Officials alledged.
Thanks for the info and your excellent analysis!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe U.S. officials have been mute about this and that the original media reports cited "unnamed intelligence agents". It's amusing how the media can always get that "unnamed" source to get the story they want, and after sitting on it for awhile, just report it as "American officials" thereby adding legitamacy to a totally non-legitamate report.
Did anyone else see hardball tonight? Didn't Hamilton and Kean say there were many connections between al qaeda and Iraq? Yet every headline I have seen so far says, "no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda." What a surprise.
In any event, the syntax was a wee bit tortured, wasn't it?
I saw it and you are correct. They said there is no proof between Iraq and 9/11.
Chris Matthews was in a snit over the song "Do You Remember" because he thinks it unfairly revs people up to be pro Iraqi War when Iraq "didn't have anything to do with 9/11". The fool doesn't realize we aren't fighting a war of revenge, but to clean out those who pose a danger to us, and Saddam most certainly did (though Chris would deny even that).
You are correct.
Guess who was the first to report Al-Ani's denial??
Actually, Risen adds this:
American officials caution that Mr. Ani may have been lying to American interrogators, but the only other person reported to have attended the meeting was Mr. Atta, who died in the crash of his hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.Well, obviously he could be lying, but Risen doesn't offer this same caution in the new article.
It cannot be proven that Bill Clinton was at the hotel on the day Juanita Broaddrick was raped. He has refused to release his offical timeline during that period. Just as someone else could have used Atta's cellphone, someone could have been using Clinton's penis.
Strike one. They just lost an 'alibi'.
They might have shared the phone all the time.
By the way, who were the calls made to? There are records. Can't we know?
Slings and Arrows: Jayson Blair is gone, but his spirit remains.
Dishonesty, yes, but combined with a healthy dose of stupidity. I guess the NYT reporter is not familiar with the concept of air travel, and that it is entirely possible for Atta to be in Virginia on April 4 and then miraculously materialize in Prague on April 9. Also, I guess it never occured to this budding genius that his cell phone could very well have been used in Virginia while he was somewhere else, IF SOMEONE ELSE USED IT!
Now, its bad enough when a reporter for a widely-circulated newspaper accepts this claptrap unquestioningly, but when the government commission empaneled to study 9/11 and make recomendations to improve our national intelligence and security efforts to repeat a future attack issues this tripe with a straight face, it makes me very thankful that we have people with a laser focus on what is important running the Executive Branch.
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.