Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tobyhill; pissant; george76
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in ‘93 WTC attack

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and Beyond

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698239/posts
World Trade Center, 1993 Terrorist Attack (don't say it too loudly - Yousef had IRAQI passport)

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters

Hmmm, there seems to be enough Iraqi/WTC connections for me!

28 posted on 03/10/2008 10:03:41 PM PDT by Chgogal (When you vote Democrat, you vote Al Qaeda! Ari Emanuel, Rahm's brother was agent to Moore's F9/11.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Chgogal; SunkenCiv; BIGLOOK; Marine_Uncle; jazusamo; PGalt; jan in Colorado; Fred Nerks; ...

In Case You Missed It...

IAN SCHWARTZ has the video of Christopher Hitchens berating Ron Reagan on MSNBC.here's a transcript of the heart of Hitchen's rant:

Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

Obviously, Ron doesn't want to hear things that might challenge his world view.

How could Hitch be so insensitive?


29 posted on 03/10/2008 10:11:57 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Chgogal

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/

ABC News Report at link.

The report was similar to numerous accounts in the worldwide press following Operation Desert Fox. That Clinton-ordered air campaign lasted from December 16 to December 19, 1998. Its purpose was to degrade Saddam’s WMD and intelligence capabilities. Reports from more recent years indicate that the campaign nearly plunged Saddam’s regime into chaos. In any event, Saddam’s response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam’s most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime’s terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in “The Four-Day War.” Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam’s conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.

The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.

The reports from late 1998 and early 1999 are tough for naysayers to explain away for a variety of reasons, but that hasn’t stopped them from trying. For example, last year’s Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda (the report was written, primarily, by a former John Kerry for President campaigner) unhesitatingly cited Hijazi’s testimony, in which he claimed that he did not meet with bin Laden again after a lone incident in the mid 1990’s. The Senate Intelligence report did not cite any of the voluminous reporting, by ABC News and other outlets, following the meeting in December 1998. Obviously, that reporting demonstrates Hijazi is a liar. I asked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff about this after the report came out. They said they didn’t have any evidence that contradicted Hijazi’s testimony and that is why they cited it unquestioningly. I think that is a good demonstration of the ignorance or bias or both that clouds this issue.

Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden’s possible “boogie to Baghdad.” A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam’s VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies’ Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media’s late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.

Such is the state of affairs in today’s Washington establishment.


30 posted on 03/10/2008 10:14:26 PM PDT by roses of sharon (Who will be McCain's maverick?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson