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.
#1. You never supply links and I certainly don't trust your unverified transcripts.
#2. You are missing the meat of the matter. It has never been disproven that Atta met in Prague and in fact, they still stand behind their reporting.
There are more than a few links to connect Iraq to 9/11, but that seems to disturb you so much that you've now spent virtually all day trying to disprove it.
And you've been unsuccessful in disproving anything except that Shakir wasn't Fedayeen, he was an Iraqi national who attended a 9/11 planning meeting and Jordanian Intelligence believe he was an Iraqi intelligence officer.
How do we know that Zubaidah knew Turki's phone number? He gave it to some interrogators he thought were Saudis, thinking it would get him off the hook. "Call him, he'll tell you what to do."
Judging from the 'Rat Convention, it's Edwards's wife who needs the stronger support (industrial strength bra).
If you feel the need to verify it, type the date and Meet the Press into google. It'll pop right up.
No, the other thing proven is that if the Vice-President says "I never said that," you just can't take his word for it.
Well, let's see. The one who was in Kuala Lumpur was in prison, in Qatar, when the Fedayeen officer was found in Iraq. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that they are two different people. And that's right there in the 9-11 report.
They really are stupid over there.
Carl Cameron just reported the same on Brit's show. 1:20 in the afternoon according to Cameron.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html
You're such a troll. And a stalker.
You can't remember what you said from day to day and you expect the VP to remember and then basically call him a liar? You've really outted yourself.
But who was at the meeting was an Iraqi national and Jordanian intelligence believe he was also an Iraqi intel officer.
Sheesh...what a dufus.
All I can say is that I hope Kerry's handlers have lots of nice, thick absorbant, non-white towels on hand ...he's in for a real sweat-a-thon on debate night.
what is a looser?
Ooooh. YOu finally provide a link address.
(HTML boot camp for you)
You are making leaps that I am not willing to make based on one source. Using everything you have posted and linked to, the furthest one could logically (and honestly) get to is:
An Iraqi man was an airport greeter in Malaysia. There was a 9/11 meeting in Malaysia. Hayes says he got in the limo and went to the meeting. Mabye he was Iraqi intelligence. He was definitely not Fedayeen (so Hayes was wrong on this... according to the 9/11 commission).
I just go back to your original statement. I don't need a video... I need at least 2 independent sources... and no "commentary".
Maybe Carney really did stumble into something... maybe it is in the pages and pages of blacked out senate intel report sections. I don't know.
I'm just not ready to say "Sadaam's guy had a hand in the planning of the 9/11 attack."
Because when confronted with "prove it," I would be left with:
"An Iraqi man that lives and works in Malaysia as an airport greeter met one of the 9/11 hijackers in 2000. Supposedly he went to a pre planning meeting with him, and supposedly he was trained in Iraqi intelligence."
I need more. Even an article by Hayes AFTER the commission "investigated" this claim.
This is the exact reason that Kerry doesn't like do interviews with the news media. He can't speak without defining everything he says. It seems as if he thinks the general public is too stupid to understand him. Can you imagine pillow-talk between him and the Queen B$$ch? It is probably a very one-sided conversation with T telling him to shove it.
And I went back to your original link. Not that I think the 9/11 COmmission Report is the final arbiter on this matter. They are so compromised in part because of permitting Gorelick to remain on the Commisison that I have my doubts. As well, they are only ONE source and we've been shown time and again how often people get it wrong.
But your original link said that Shakir was AT THE 9/11 meeting. He didn't just drive them to the airport.
From your link: "Lehman was referring to a Wall Street Journal editorial from May 27 (long before the staff statement was issued, actually) saying captured documents list someone named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a senior officer in Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitary forces, and that someone also named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was present at a January 2000 al-Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur at which the September 11 attacks were planned."
He was AT the meeting. He wasn't Fedayeen. He was an Iraqi National as the follow-up to that statement made clear. And Jordanian intel still think he's Iraqi intelligence.
Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you. I just think you are sort of contradicting your own source. But I'm off to visit other threads :-)
Kerry keeps lying that there were no connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I guess he didn't show up for work enough last year in the Senate.
He must not have read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or the 9/11 Commission Report, both of which cited the many connections between Iraq and AQ.
An Iraqi national who Jordanian Intelligence believe is an Iraqi intelligence officer attended at least one pre planning 9/11 meeting with AQ.
Saddam knew 9/11 was coming and where we were going to be hit.
Even the Clinton Justice Department was able to obtain an indictment against OBL which cited the terrorist's ties to Iraq.
A federal judge has granted 9/11 families a multi-million dollar judgement - against Iraq.
During the 90's, the mainstream press wrote about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Old Media thinks we can't look these things up.
Hundreds of articles and links in this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1224050/posts
funny scenerio, and i have been thinking about it. If he did something like that Genna and Barbara might bolt on to the stage. Or Maybe Laura's SS men might kick some A**. Bush's SS men have senority!!!!
What link are you referring to?
The Arab Times? http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=47381&d=26&m=6&y=2004
That article is commentary and does not quote the 9/11 commision. I even mentioned that it sounded biased from the start. I only used it as a demonstration that there is an OPEN REBUTTAL that hasn't really been addressed.
Also, I don't see anything in that article that shows that Shakir was "at the" meeting as you say... if that isn't the article you are referring to... I'm sorry.
Gore wore silly makeup in the debates too! He looked so silly, and acted worse!
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.