Skip to comments.
Building the case against Iraq
telegraph uk ^
| 10/26/01
Posted on 10/25/2001 11:23:33 PM PDT by knak
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Travis McGee
Very Important Post.
I agree. Frankly I think that if we ever want peace we have to go far beyond removing Saddam, but we arent going to do the things I think we should do. At least not yet. As you said early on, it would take a couple more 9/11 level events before we will really get serious. For now we still dont want to offend anyone. Blah.
By the way, if I can get a good flame war going we will keep this thread bumped all day. ;-)
patent
21
posted on
10/26/2001 7:33:20 AM PDT
by
patent
To: knak
The Iranians think it comes from Iraq too:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chief adviser to Iran's supreme leader, said on Friday the United States was paying the price for supplying anthrax to Iraq, which fought a bitter war with the Islamic Republic in the 1980s. ``They knew anthrax was not a conventional weapon of war, but they supplied it to Iraq ... Now anthrax which they themselves sent to this region is back to haunt them,'' Rafsanjani told worshippers gathered for weekly prayers at Tehran University.
As do apparently the Czechs and the Germans from what I have read on FR today.
22
posted on
10/26/2001 7:35:30 AM PDT
by
Loopy
To: Loopy; *Anthrax_Scare_List
Yes, the Iranians think Iraq is behind the anthrax. And Woolsey said on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday show that he thinks Iran is providing the U.S. with intelligence in the war on terror. And Arnaud de Borchgrave went on to say, later in the show, that he knew for a fact that Iran was providing such intelligence, and that he even knew the identity of the Iranian contact man.
To: knak; OKCSubmariner; BlueDogDemo; Fred Mertz; Plummz
The Clinton administration, he said, had had "a propensity sometimes to reason backwards from public relations to policy, to the facts one was looking at". This had resulted in the question of Iraqi involvement in the World Trade Centre bombing of 1993 being pushed aside.
So Jim Woolsey, who was director of the CIA at the time, is well aware that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the WTC. I wonder what he knows about OKC.
To: aristeides
LOL, I trust the Iranians more than I do Woolsey.
25
posted on
10/26/2001 7:48:38 AM PDT
by
Loopy
To: Loopy
President Bush is speaking live on C-SPAN right now. He just explicitly connected the anthrax with the terrorists.
To: Sabertooth
The Clinton administration, he said, had had "a propensity sometimes to reason backwards from public relations to policy, to the facts one was looking at." Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush Snr in 1993. He had also defied UN mandates by developing weapons of mass destruction. He added: "In my judgment that's enough."
President Clinton's response to the assassination attempt was "to shoot some Cruise missiles back into empty buildings in the middle of the night" but this type of limited, ineffective action had been discredited by September 11.
To: aristeides
Can you be a little more explicit? I don't have C-Span in my office and no one has posted a Breaking News thread yet.
28
posted on
10/26/2001 8:25:46 AM PDT
by
Loopy
To: truth_seeker
We went nuclear when they went biological. The only question remaining is whether Bush has the courage that Truman had. Nuclear doesn't have to be vastly dirty and heavy megatonage anymore. There are smaller, cleaner nuclear weapons available. We must make clear the cost of biological, chemical or nuclear attacks on our soil and we must make it clear immediately.
29
posted on
10/26/2001 8:27:06 AM PDT
by
stryker
To: Loopy
The signing statement seems not to have been posted yet on the
White House site. But it almost certainly will be posted there later today. I don't remember the president's exact words.
To: aristeides; thinden; t-shirt; Wallaby; Uncle Bill; BlueDogDemo; golitely; LSJohn; Judge Parker...
Woolsey probably knows what Wolfowitz knows about OKC (Iraq) and likely even more.
Also Woolsey's wife, traveled with Mike McNulty when he filmed and interviewed for his Waco documentary "Rules of Engagement" according to General Benton Partin. Partin visited with Mrs. Woolsey when she came with McNulty as he filmed and interviewed Partin for the documentary.
To: Travis McGee
Uhhh Ohhhh ! Seems what weve been saying about the Clintonista's has flowered from a seed to a full blown "Bush" ;o)
Stay Safe....
32
posted on
10/26/2001 9:11:55 AM PDT
by
Squantos
To: Squantos
If this is true, We should not delay
33
posted on
10/26/2001 9:16:56 AM PDT
by
JIM O
To: knak
Focusing solely on proof that would be admissible in a court of law would be a mistake. Something some of us nonlawyers have beens saying for years.
This is an excellent article. Woolsey has been at the forefront of Iraq-did-it thinking and it is most reassuring that he now has some sort of official role to play.
Lawyer-boy Clinton's legacy is nil. The only thing that will save him is lying by the historians and as this thing unfolds that will become impossible.
34
posted on
10/26/2001 9:25:57 AM PDT
by
aculeus
To: OKCSubmariner
very insightful, OKCsub. why would ms. woolsey have any interest in waco or partin?
35
posted on
10/26/2001 11:09:33 AM PDT
by
thinden
To: Travis McGee; knak; aristeides
These are strong statements from Woolsey!
I listened to the O'Reilly interview and for me ,
Woolsey's comments didn't come across
as strong as this article portrays them.
What he has said is still very important, of course.
To: OKCSubmariner; dawnal
I didn't know that about Mrs. Woolsey. Interesting.
I don't remember. Can somebody please remind me when Jim Woolsey left his job as Director of Central Intelligence. Had he left that job by the time of Waco? Anybody know what Woolsey thinks of Waco now?
I did get the impression, when I was posting the interviews of Gordon Novel, that the CIA, Novel, and William Colby did not approve of what the Clinton administration and the FBI did at Waco.
To: aculeus
Hey, don't sweep all lawyers in. Woolsey is a lawyer, I am a lawyer, and my former boss at the Pentagon, the chief deputy general counsel in DOD, who had the highest opinion of Woolsey, was also a lawyer.
Being a lawyer can mean you see the faults in the legal system.
To: knak
Here's what's missing: spies. Spies can tell you who is doing what, and from there you can nail them down. We have eliminated spies because of what Rodney King told Clinton: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? That the Clintons are even daring to show their faces is amazing. Look for the boos to get louder and louder every time they appear. I hope Hill doesn't think she can go to a World Series game without being humiliated. Some say it's rude, but think of what they have done. They have weakened our defenses to the point where we are vulnerable from the outside and from within. Our news anchors are even against us. The Clintons were themselves a deadly form of anthrax.
39
posted on
10/26/2001 3:05:08 PM PDT
by
Vinomori
To: aristeides
Being a lawyer can mean you see the faults in the legal system. I wish you were a majority, but I've lived too long (and had too many encounters with lawyers at FR) to have much respect for the typical US attorney.
Sorry.
40
posted on
10/26/2001 4:48:12 PM PDT
by
aculeus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson