'BEING THERE'
Starring John Kerry
(Final Scene)
(Whoops! Almost!)
Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
GMA
John Kerry was apparently on Good Morning America and The Note snippets this baffling exchange:
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn't?p>
JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you're saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don't twist here. Notice how Kerry loses his cool and accuses the questioner of twisting; Is this guy thin-skinned or what?
In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now. But he still has to do better than he did on GMA. You can bet President Bush has a list of zingers that he will deploy if Kerry gives him an opening.
I have not tried to say that Iraq participated in 9/11 directly.
Shakir is the person the 9/11 Commission Report mentioned was at a 9/11 planning meeting, was he not?
That he is not Fedayeen may be correct, but even the 9/11 Commission said he was an Iraqi national.
"(NOTICE: The 9/11 Commission Report released July 22 contradicts the speculation about Shakir's identity. Buried in Footnote 49 of Ch. 6:
Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)"
Jordanian officials still believe, btw, that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence.
I have always found it particularly interesting that 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”
One of the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks trained in Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
And a federal judge ruled Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and made a judgement against Iraq.
Until people understand that the terrorists groups all work together with anyone who will support them, they will not be united in the war on terror.
Every single thing you've said about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt can be said about Iraq.
It is absolutely inconveivable to imagine Saddam Hussein tracking down and killing Al Qaeda terrorists the way Pakistan has done. Every time they kill/capture AQ over there, you pretend it's not significant.
The people who condemn Pakistan the loudest are likely those who would be complaining if we'd done Pakistan first that we were ignoring the bigger threat - Iraq.
Let me get this right.
Every news report I saw said that Shakir was Fedayeen. Then, based on a link you provided (the first I've seen btw, as others have mentioned Shakir was not Fedayeen but didn't provide a link) I saw that the 9/11 COmmission believes he is not a Fedayeen.
Instead, he's just an Iraqi national. Jordanian intelligence believe Shakir is Iraqi intelligence.
And Shakir was involved with some of the 9/11 terrorists.
And you are talking to me about provocative claims standing up to scrutiny?
Do you really see that much difference in Shakir being Fedayeen vs. Iraqi national and quite probably Iraqi intelligence?
Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)"
Yeah, I'm reading that as a statement that Shakir (let's say #2) met Mihdhar at an airport. The rebuttal is that whomever was in the pre 9/11 meeting was a different Shakir (let's call him #1) and possibly not even an Iraqi.
>>>I have not tried to say that Iraq participated in 9/11 directly.
If that is truly your stance, then I think we agree on what the evidence currently shows. I am absolutely 100% open to new and verifiable evidence.
Oh, really? Post a single scrap of evidence that a figure in the Iraqi government provided six-figure sums directly to the 9-11 hijackers. Post a single scrap of evidence that Al Qaeda leaders were walking around with the phone numbers of high Iraqi officials committed to memory. These are facts about the others you named. Go ahead - try to say them about Iraq.
"Every time they kill/capture AQ over there, you pretend it's not significant."
That's just a lie. Unless you truly believe that not forgiving them for their support of AQ in some circumstances just because they hunt them in others equates to "pretending it is not significant." But I'm sure you don't believe that, so it must be another of your vacations from the truth.
" The people who condemn Pakistan the loudest are likely those who would be complaining if we'd done Pakistan first that we were ignoring the bigger threat - Iraq."
Another misadventure with the truth, if you are applying it to me. It is really simple - I think the initial military response in the WOT should have been to punish those who attacked us and those who were involved in the attack. The ISI was involved in the attack. The Iraqi government was not. Those who attacked us were being sheltered on Pakistani soil, not Iraqi soil. The Pakistanis, not the Iraqis, were helping defend the Taliban.
Catching some jihadis to keep the aid and weaponry flowing in a country that has a surplus of jihadis does not, IMO, absolve them of their sins.
'BEING THERE'
Starring John Kerry
(Final Scene)
(Whoops! Almost!)
this morning Edwards was on Imus (liberal radio guy on MSNBC in the AM) and Imus heckling about the flip flopping or something and Edwards was basically begging for stronger support.
The difference is that you repeatedly state as fact that he is a high ranking Fedayeen. The difference between the two is that one is (at least partially) true and one is not. It really is sad that the difference between truth and fiction is not "that much difference" to you.
1.) A high ranking Iraqi fedayeen soldier attended at least one pre planning 9/11 meeting with AQ.
2.) Saddam knew 9/11 was coming and where we were going to be hit.
I think we are figuring out that we are simply unsure if, indeed, there was an Iraqi at a pre planning meeting (but one reading of one piece of evidence does suggest it).
I was not aware that Saddam had prior knowledge of the attacts (this would be another wonderful gem to drop in the upcoming debates IF TRUE and demonstratable).
...I guess I'll just continue to research.
There were many meetings between aQ operatives and Saddam's killer crew the case of possible mistaken identity does not change that fact.
As to the meaning of "pre" I presumed that could cover a lot of time prior to 911 and it had nothing to do with 911 per se. A pre-planning meeting is NOT a planning meeting.
I'm just seeing this thread and didn't see GMA today but Rush played clips.
Kerry sounded lame, then when Sawyer (to her credit) pressed him he started to sound TICKED.
I think he'll be going into the debate really mad.
(Note to self: pick up popcorn. hehehehe)
There you go again. Saying stuff about other countries and 9/11 that you've never said before (at least to me) and then expecting me to prove that Iraq did the exact same thing as those other countries.
I can, and have, provided information about how Iraq supported Al Qaeda directly and indirectly. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee report said that Iraq trained AQ terrorists in biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry.
You and I will never agree on this matter.
You have been asked to stop posting to me. I have been asked to stop posting to you. I have abided by that request unless you post to me directly.
Which you continue to do repeatedly. Your stalking is not attractive. Most freepers know what you are. I've asked you to stop posting to me and you have refused, again.
Are we talking at cross purposes here?
My reading is that a guy named Shakir was at a 9/11 planning meeting. At first it was thought he was high ranking Fedayeen. Then it was discovered he was an Iraqi national. Jordanian intelligence believe he was Iraqi intelligence.
Where do you get he may not even be Iraqi intelligence? Doesn't the 9/11 Commission Report update you just posted say that he is an Iraqi national?
bttt
Has anyone noticed (post-Rathergate) that many liberal news anchors have suddenly gotten "fair and balanced"? This is not the Diane Sawyer I'm familiar with...
It is difficult to keep up with these characters since they change names at the drop of a hat and have multiple identities and documentation to support them. This was also discussed in the 911 Report.
Hehehe.
The popcorn is in the pantry. Mr. Peach has been informed I will not answer the phone. The television will be on and I'll see you on that live thread.
And, I do so hope you are right. Kerry doesn't like to be challenged and there's just soooo much to challenge him on.
Next time, you should actually pay attention to substance instead of trying to make some stupid point based solely on the language someone uses. Peach did say "pre". But, if you can get beyond her use of that word, you would see that she was referring specifically to the 9-11 planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur attended by two of the hijackers and KSM himself. So, while we are talking about an actual meeting, you can go on and talk about some unspecified hypothetical meeting all you like. That's not the topic of my posts, or hers.
I donnu know. sorry.
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.