Posted on 05/19/2006 5:16:40 PM PDT by woodb01
An excellent lecture about how America is defeating herself by being unwilling to believe that she have the right to defend herself.
leonard peikoff
http://www.peikoff.com/America Versus Americans
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1150Leonard Peikoff, writer, objectivist philosopher
Undermining America's ability to defend herself.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff, intellectual heir to Ayn Rand, explores the unlikely tension between a democratic nation and its people. Peikoff claims that, from its beginning, America has stood for the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, individual rights, capitalism, and the pursuit of happiness. He asserts that the dominant trends in America today, trends endorsed not only by our leadership, but seemingly by the general public, represent the opposite of these ideals. Dr. Peikoff, considered the foremost philosopher of objectivism, explores this contradiction, along with what he calls our current moral cowardice, with special emphasis on US foreign policy.
Audio Only
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1150&size=audioModem Video
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1150&size=loBroadband
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1150&size=hiFord Hall Forum
Sunday, April 6, 2003
Blackman Hall, Northeastern University
I think you missed the point. Everyone says there "will be" another terrorist attack. If there has to be another terrorist attack, please pick a location, i.e. NYT, where it just might sink-in this time that we are at war. Location had nothing to do with it. Attitude is the point.
bookmark for later
I think you miss the point. The conservatives in the Northeast would not want any attack on anybody including the NYT. No self respecting American should call for an attack on another citizen or institution. Perhaps you did not intend to say what you said?
America really does need some grown-ups to combat these thugs.
for future reference
You don't seem to understand that the NY Times is an American institution. The reason terrorists select NYC targets is because of the symbolic power of their institutional image. When you endorse, even in frustration, the violent destruction of an iconic American symbol do you not commit the very crime you accuse the NY Times of committing? It is unacceptable for a patriotic American to endorse any attack on any American person regardless of their political affiliation.
The title of this tread says it all for me. NYT is treasonous. They aid and abet enemies that wouldn't give a second thought to killing Americans. You question my patriotism, I question theirs. I agree with Limbaugh when he says he's afraid it will take one or more terrorist attacks before the left "gets it." I'm not "endorsing" any terrorist attack, but I do think the NYT perpectuates and prolongs the War on Terrorism. I think they have contributed to the murder of Americans in Iraq. I really have nothing more to say about it.
"I really have nothing more to say about it."
Yes, I think that might be appropriate.
FYI...the statement the MSM has been making:
On July 18, 2003, the administration, facing criticism for the intelligence used to justify the war, declassified an eight-page part of the NIE dubbed "key judgments" and conducted a lengthy background briefing with reporters to discuss it.“Key judgments" is the operative word here. They were declassified by Tenet in October of 2002, six days after the NIE was complete per the following information:
On October 7, 2002 DCI Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee declassifying portions of its new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Another article:
A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of "Key Judgments."A copy of the Key Judgments document can be found here. Warning: .pdf file.
As usual, the MSM gets it wrong. More info I just found:
The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." - Statement of Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL).
Wow, what a bunch of paranoid nonsense. I'm not just picking on you ravingnutter. I'm looking at all these posts in amazement that anyone still believes this tripe about Saddam being behind 911 and having WMDs.
You guys need to get up to speed. The CIA concluded in 2004 that ol' Saddam was faking having WMDs because (for whatever bizzare reason) he thought that Israel and Iran were more of a threat to him, and for some reason he thought that if they thought he had them it would make them less likely to attack him. (sounds strange but hey, we are talking about Saddam).
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/03/saddam_hussein_maintained_wmd_illusion_to_fool_israel/
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089490912.html?from=storylhs
As for the 'evidence' of a connection between Saddam and 911, presented in the link to this post, it all boils down to the word of Iraqi exhiles with every reason to lie and our own intel that bought into the lie. In fact, the 911 commission concluded exactly the opposite.
The 9/11 commission concluded that Osama bin Laden had been "willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq" at one time in the 1990s but that the al Qaeda leader "had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."
The 520-page report said investigators found no evidence that any "contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," it said.
President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."
So, are you calling GB a liar?
Saddam was a liar alright. Such a good liar that he screwed himself over. He must have been really naive (stupid?) to think that telling his people that he really had WMDs, when he didn't, in the hope that it would be picked up by Mossad or Iran intel, wouldn't also be picked up by our NSA/CIA and provide them with just the propaganda ammo they were looking for as a reason to invade. Dumb-da-dumb-dumb.
No doubt he would have liked to possess WMDs for his own purposes, but guess what, he didn't. Why? Because the sanctions were actually working enough to keep them out of his hands.
There's no doubt that GB really did think Saddam had 'em before Operation Shock and Awe. And it would be a reasonable conclusion that he might be in cahoots with Al-Qaeda given the evidence available at the time. But in the end both theories were wrong. End of story.
Sorry I got a bit off track with that post. I know this thread wasn't really about 911 and Saddam etc. It was the original post's inclusion of the following that got me on that track:
Here are just a few of the verifiable facts that the media intentionally misleads the American public about:
As early as 1998, Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9-11 Plot (How the American Media engages in TREASON to support TERRORISM in the U.S.)
-- That and other posts on other threads from people who are still looking for those WMDs and 911/Saddam connections prompted that last post.
On June 9th [2004], the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council about the export of Iraqi WMD, missile and nuclear components shipped out of Iraq before, during and after the invasion. As reported by MENL news service, UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the Council, "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," and said inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.
The World Tribune reported on Perricos's briefing. "He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month... The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters ... required for the production of chemical and biological warheads. 'It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for,' Perricos's spokesman, said. 'You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax.'"
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria."
"Last month Moshe Yaalon, who was Israel's top general at the time, said Iraq transported WMD to Syria six weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
Last March, John A. Shaw, a former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said Russian Spetsnaz units moved WMD to Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.
"While in Iraq I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives," Mr. Shaw told NewsMax reporter Charles Smith.
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong was deputy commander of Central Command during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In September 2004, he told WABC radio that "I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran."
In January 2004, David Kay, the first head of the Iraq Survey Group which conducted the search for Saddam's WMD, told a British newspaper there was evidence unspecified materials had been moved to Syria from Iraq shortly before the war.
"We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program," Mr. Kay told the Sunday Telegraph.
Also that month, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who defected to an undisclosed European country, told a Dutch newspaper he knew of three sites where Iraq's WMD was being kept. They were the town of al Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria; the Syrian air force base near the village of Tal Snan, and the city of Sjinsar on the border with Lebanon.
In an addendum to his final report last April, Charles Duelfer, who succeeded David Kay as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said he couldn't rule out a transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria.
"There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation," Mr. Duelfer said."
"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
"Two days before the war, on March 17th, we saw through multiple intelligence channels - both human intelligence and techinical (satellite,eavesdrop) intelligence - large caravans of people and things, including some of the top 55 Iraqis, going to Syria."
In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.
Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.
The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?
Warning...slow loading .pdf file. This was from a lawsuit filed against Iraq after 9/11...the court ruled against Iraq.
There was also another lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Neill (a former FBI agent who captured Ramzi Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombings) after he died in the WTC on 9/11. His personal files from his years of traveling around the world investigating al-Qaeda are were used as evidence in the lawsuit. The evidence includes documents unearthed in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service) and information gleaned from the interrogation of both al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners. (Link below). It also quotes Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who stated in October 2000 that Iraq had been wanting to carry out terrorist attacks, and that the Iraqi military had been in contact with Osama bin Laden.
We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam The terrorist network may be closer knit than we think.
Weekly Standard: The Mother of All Connections
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:
The AQ connection (excellent):
Western Nightmare:
Saddam's link to OBL:
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:
Document linking them:
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:
A federal judge rules there are links:
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:
Iraq and Iran contact OBL:
More evidence:
Saddam's AQ connection:
Further connections:
What a court of law said about the connections:
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
The Missing Link (What the Senate Ingelligence Report Said about Iraq/AQ Connections)
Credit to Peach for the above info.
Credit to joesbucks for the following links:
Dozens of links here:
Just a few of those links include:
The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment:
Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned. November 1998. The New York Times
Saddam reaching out to OBL January 1, 1999. Newsweek
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP
And kabar submitted these two little gems showing Bin Laden supported Iraq and its struggle against the US and the West.
1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
(I'd yawn too if I spent that much time collecting all that material and posting it)
I'll give you an A for effort but most of what was in the other reports were in the Weekly Standard report, so you could have saved yourself the trouble. Volume of sources doesn't make an argument in and of itself. Especially when most of those sources only make very unspecific 'allegations' based on unamed intelligence sources. But the Weekly Standard report was pretty good.
Nevertheless, though it clearly shows that Iraq was keeping tabs on Al-Queda and helping them out here and there, the only thing which really suggests Saddam might have been involved in 911 was at the planning meeting, where one of Saddam's agents was present, or at least someone identified by a foreign government as Saddam's agent. But no one knows to what extent he participated (or for that matter, if he was perhaps SPYING ON Al-Qaeda FOR Saddam rather than actually participating. Given the way Saddam had clearly been keeping AQ at arms length, this is very much possible.) Regardless, it is also clear that 911 was an Al-Qaeda operation and certainly Bin Laden didn't need Saddam's help to pull it off. Saddam may have known something about it in advance, but knowing about something and actively helping out are two different things.
What's also interesting is that Sudan was obviously much more involved in helping Bin Laden (who actually went in person to that country and stayed for quite a while as a guest there) yet we didn't invade the Sudan now did we? Even though there's been a civil war there for years that is now leading to a genocide. Why not? Hmmm... do ya think it might be because Sudan doesn't have nearly as much oil as Iraq does? OH NO! Couldn't be for oil, no, no, nooooo.;)
Another interesting thing about this subject is that when Saddam was captured by US forces documents were found on him which were orders to his people to NOT cooperate with Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda. If he was such a strong supporter of Al-Qaeda then why would he do that? Especially since they were fighting the same people.
Answer is, he didn't trust them. Especially since it is well documented that in the past they'd been involved in trying to overthrow him. Cooperating with Al-Qaeda is a double-edged sword for him, in that they could have turned on him just as easily.
As for shipping WMDs off to Syria, perhaps some of the gear he still had for making it went there but if he knew he was about to be invaded (two days before, right?) then if he had working WMDs why would he do that? Why not use them against coalition forces? No better time than that. Use them or lose them. So that really doesn't make sense either.
If that's all they got then I would still concur with the final conclusion of the 911 commission. Now, one point made in the WS story that is very legit is the fact that many more internal documents need to be analysed and vetted. So maybe something more will come out. No on denies that Saddam was hostile to the US in general but in all that you sent there's still nothing that says he was part of the 911 conspiracy at an operational level, or perhaps any level. His relationship with Zarqawi can be seen two ways, one as cooperative OR as a way of keeping tabs on Al-Qaeda and having enough influence on them to keep them from going after him. Remember, Iraq was essentially a secular state and AQ has a religious fanatic agenda. There really is no room for tolerance of 'humanists' and seperation of church/state to a religious fanatic. No doubt Saddam was aware of that too.
So, the question remains. Was it worth invading Iraq? A major check against hard-line Islamic fundamentalism in the form of a nation-state (Iran) has been removed. The country is disintigrating into civil war and Al-Qaeda has never been more popular. In fact, thanks to what many in the Arab world see as an unjustified invasion, recruitment for AQ seems to be at an all-time high. Meanwhile, the guy we know beyond any doubt WAS involved in 911, Bin Laden, is still at large. We are spending tremendous amounts of resources and lives to destroy Iraq while the guy who killed 3,000+ Americans is still free to plan more terrorism.
Here's another point, more to the general tenor of this website. Over and over I'm reading on this site how the mainstream media are traitors or liberals etc., yet the basis for most of these reports are the very same media. You know, the ones that are supposed to be so damned unpatriotic. If that's true, then why did so much of this get printed in the first place?
Judith Miller had to resign because it turned out she was basically being a cheerleader for the administration trying her level best to prove Saddam had WMDs when in fact none were found. In other words, she was biased FOR the admin and not against. So if the NYTimes are such a bunch of traitors then how is it that she was doing what she was doing until the Plame affair revealed her aquiescence to Bush admin desires? Doesn't make sense.
If we were to go after Saddam, perhaps we should have waited until we got Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan first. Now we're faced with a two-theatre war and neither are really going our way anymore. That's just not smart.
Also, there really wasn't an after-invasion plan to speak of. That's just plain incompetent.
will read later
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.