Posted on 01/13/2006 9:11:24 AM PST by neverdem
AttaBump!
I'd say it's likely that we're still protecting the identity of a mole in Saddam's regime, and for good reason. The reason is so we can do this kind of operation again in the future. It's a tough job being the Prez; that's why we have a tough man in that job right now.
Notice how you never hear a word from the MSM that Iraq probably was involved in a terrorist attack against the US before the invasion (besides the first WTC attack that we know was sponsored by Iraq). We may have learned about this from an informant in Saddam's regime or through some high-tech communication intercepts. Now if Clinton had invaded Iraq, do you think we would have heard about likely Iraqi involvement in terrorism against the US, even if Clinton decided to keep this information classified? I think we would have heard a lot about it from the MSM and Dems in congress. But with Bush in the WH, you hear absolute silence.
Txsleuth calls him Hairball, which cracks me up all thru the day, every day, recalling it, from shower to tuck-in.
(wink...) Yes - a nice compilation, and I was certain to ping the original poster as well. :)
LoL!
bookmark
mark
Great thread. Thanks for the ping. Thanks to all FReesearchers.
FYI: From Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/)scroll down: Starting at noon today (again, central time) we'll be interviewing Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard, who has done more than anyone else to explore the many relationships between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Among other things, we'll be talking about Steve's efforts to get access to the unclassified documents that contain a treasure trove of information on the Saddam-al Qaeda connection.
Vice-President Dick Cheney praised Steve's efforts on this topic just a few days ago; if you want to get the latest, inside dope, tune in tomorrow. I'm going to ask Steve why, if President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld are all enthusiastic about his work, they can't make the Defense Department turn over the documents.
You can pick up the show anywhere in the world, off the web. Click on the Northern Alliance logo on our right sidebar, or go to the Patriot site linked above. We've had calls from as far away as China; don't hesitate to call if you have a question for Steve Hayes, or the rest of the gang.
It will be on the Northern Alliance Network
Here's the feed:
http://www.am1280thepatriot.com/programguide.asp
Thanks for the links.
Yes he does maintain that A-Q was not in Iraq. I've already gone around with him on this subject, but he doesn't want to believe what's in front of his nose. He's one of those people who hates Bush so much, he can't stand the prospect that Bush was right about Hussein.
And I have other friends and co-workers just like him (as I'm sure you do). They could have argued that Hussein was contained (he obviously wasn't), and no severe threat. Arguing as they do that he had no ties to Islamist terrorists just makes them look stupid. My friend is no dunce, but never underestimate the power of Bush-Rage.
I've seen it referred to as "BDS" -- Bush Derangement Syndrome.
And, yes, I've seen and heard its symptoms displayed -- within my own family.
A decade ago, I was known as a "Clinton-hater", of course. But, at bottom, I was able to rationally explain my profound distaste for Der Schlickmeister. There was no disputing the fact that he was "an untrustworthy liar". Indeed, to my leftist relatives, that was part of his "charm"...
But the animus toward Bush is simply visceral, unreasoning. And absolutely bulletproof. It can't be explained, nor can it be addressed.
Very puzzling...
Yes, Kennedy stated that GWB dreamed up the Iraq war while down in Texas. BOSTON - The case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud ``made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost, Sen. Edward Kennedy said Thursday.
I have another old friend with whom I had a conversation more than a year ago. We were talking sports and suddenly my friend went into a LOUD rant about what an evil, stupid person Bush was. I was taken aback for a second because politics was not even being discussed. I tried to delve into my friends train of thought, but all I could get were leftist talking points. Incidentally he voted for Nader. He's one of my friends who can never define exactly what he believes in, but only what he hates.
He thinks life is unfair to him (a lot of my Dem friends think that), and corporations, Republicans, and the undefined "they" are responsible for his misery.
Oh, I should add that my friend has more wealth than me, and I'm doing alright thank you very much. In fact many of the Bush-haters I know are doing extremely well. And most of them are socially conservative. I can't figure it out.
Life is so unfair!
It's the kind of complaint you hear from your juvenile and adolescent children.
I've noticed the same thing. Most of my Dem friends think the same thing -- and it's not necessarily about what life is doing to them, often it's about the "injustices" delivered on other people. The "poor", the "minorities", etc.
The left's concept of "fairness" has all the intellectual depth of an twelve-year old. Leads me to a belief that liberalism is a sign of immaturity...
Bump.
The Libs "BIG LIE" is falling apart...
It's unfortunate that unless you can boil all that down into a single, easily shouted slogan, it's beyond the attention span of today's average Liberal...
All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license.
His international license was at his father's home in Cairo, Egypt (where his roommate Marwan al-Shehhi picked it up in late April). Nor were there other records in the hands of the FBI that put Atta in the United States at the time. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, "It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague." Clearly, it was not beyond the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers to use aliases.
The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer. Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs.
Don't worry about how the Moonbats react. As long as there's even one ordinary American witnessing the behavior -- their insane, delusional rants in response to hard evidence -- keep it up. Their denials and hatred just help make the case.
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.