CASE CLOSED (Osama-Saddam Link Proved in Intel Cmte Brief)

Weekly Standard ^ | Nov 14, 2003 | Stephen Hayes

[nutmeg]

ping!

[nutmeg]

This thread is not Rhode Island-related, but definitely bookmark-worthy!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Rhode Island ping list.

[nutmeg]

This thread is not Vermont-related, but definitely bookmark-worthy!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Vermont ping list.

[Pubbie]

The best that can be said of No-Balls Matthews is that he isn't as bad as this guy:

[nutmeg]

This thread is not New Hampshire-related, but definitely bookmark-worthy!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent New Hampshire ping list.

[nutmeg]

This thread is not Maine-related, but definitely bookmark-worthy!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Maine ping list.

[nutmeg]

ping!

[armymarinemom]

Check out the link to the publication of the post that I put up from the Iraqi Communist Party. They were complaining about Ansar Al Islam for quite some time.

Terroist must be extracted!!

The site has some interesting reading on it's archives.

[JustPiper]

Jay Rockefeller didn't bother to leak this now did he?

[WOSG]

This is all too late to do any good."

Wrong IMHO. Write to your Congressman.
Write letters to the editor.

Bookmark and send to friends and others.

This IS the smoking gun - Saddam DID support terrorists including Al Quaeda.

Did you remember that loony media "bubble" in September when they were oh so worried that many Americans believed the "incorrect" story that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

At the time I wanted to say: Absense of evidence is not always evidence of absense.

Now I want to say: WHEN WILL THE MEDIA GIVE US THE *WHOLE* TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT?

[TexKat]

This is an old article and I do not know whether it has ever been posted here on FR, but it is a good read and so true.

New world disorder

Arnaud de Borchgrave

Almost any English-language newspaper anywhere in the developing world carries more foreign news than America's top two or three dailies combined. Since the end of the Cold War, the constant melodrama of trivia, from Tonya Harding to Monica Lewinsky and from O.J. Simpson to Gary Condit, blinded us to the new forces shaping the developing world.

In a comparable news period, Harding garnered more ink and airtime than the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 that collapsed the Soviet empire and its communist ideology. Following the twin victories in the Cold War and the Gulf War, editors and TV producers, in their infinite wisdom, decided that Americans don't care about foreign news and focused instead on less expensive to cover domestic melodramas.

For the major conglomerates and mega-companies that own the media giants, the bottom line reigned supreme. The public good was a quaint concept relegated to academic debates, as was the journalistic duty of taking what's important and making it interesting. Stains on Monica's dress became more important than the growing popularity of Osama Bin Laden in the slums of Muslim capitals.

Prior to September 11, ABC World News Tonight frequently reduced the rest of the world to a single foreign news item, more often than not of marginal importance. As the New York Times' Maureen Dowd put it, "It's somewhat embarrassing that we didn't look outward sooner, that foreign wars got less TV air time than the war against wrinkles."

The fact that Osama Bin Laden was running a global terror network in some 60 countries was unknown by 99 percent of Americans; or that Pakistan's Islamic schools (madrasas) are producing an endless supply of recruits for terrorist training in Afghanistan; or that Pakistan's crassly ignorant religious leaders are promoting Bin Laden's hatred of America; or that fanatics have won the hearts and minds of the Muslim masses while they chloroformed the silent majority into submission.

And CBS's Dan Rather wondered out loud on Larry King Live, "How did we get sucker punched?" The dumbing down of the media was the slippery slope that led to the dumbing down of America.

For 10 years following the end of the Cold War, three administrations (including two Clinton terms) saw only the global triumph of democratic capitalism. Unbeknown to the media, globalization became shorthand for American economic and cultural imperialism for countless millions, not only in the developing world, but also in developed European countries, from Seattle two years ago to Genoa last July.

Anti-capitalist demonstrations were duly noted, but the dots were never connected to the forces that now lionize Bin Laden.

For most of the developing world, it was still a matter of how to put food on the family table, not twice or three times, but once a day. Muslim clerics from Indonesia to Pakistan, the world's two most populous Islamic states, and from Egypt to Morocco, tell their impoverished flocks that America lives in the lap of luxury by the sweat of their brow.

And to add insult to injury, they say that America is supplying billions in military hardware to Israel to keep the Palestinians enslaved. All the ingredients for the "Clash of Civilizations," posited by Professor Samuel Huntington in his famous book, have slowly hardened without the ever-alert mass media machine taking notice.

September 11 snapped Rip Van Winkle policy wonks out of a long post-Cold War sleep. They suddenly advocated a "belt of democracy" to wean the masses away from a clergy that doubles in brass as witchdoctors.

Unfortunately, masses that can't read or write – Pakistan is 70 percent illiterate - have been led to believe that democracy is the smokescreen behind which the evil American empire advances its pawns. Obscurantist theocracy is the mullahs' vessel of choice to keep the masses at sea in the real world.

General Hameed Gul, the retired Pakistani intelligence chief who plays Svengali as "strategic adviser" to the country's extremist religious formations, points to the feudal regimes of the Gulf to prove to his clerical followers that even America is not really serious about democracy as a global model.

The retired general is also a friend and admirer of Osama Bin Laden and his son-in-law Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban's "Supreme Leader of the Faithful."

The ruling royal families of the Gulf are the third most hated by the "fundos" (local jargon for fundamentalists) after the United States and Israel. For democracy to be meaningful to the masses, the divine right of rulers in the Gulf would have to morph into constitutional monarchies as unifying symbols over non-royal governments elected by popular mandate.

The ruler of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, buys time by subsidizing the Qatar-based Al Jazeera TV station that acts as a mouthpiece for Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates keep their flat-earth clerics at bay by ladling out largess to Pakistan's madrasas.

Democracies have proved time and again that it takes a major international crisis to get them out of their preferred state of denial. Hopefully this time mainstream media will remain focused on the new world disorder.

Courtesy of United Press International

[WOSG]

Like Tom Daschle, you sound 'deeply saddened' by this blow to the hopes of the defeatist Democrats. "Are we this desperate?" Why dont you ask Howard Dean that. He's sounding desperate already.

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

[webber]

"People need to be brought on charges for leaking information. Just think is something is leaked that causes the deaths of tens, or hundreds, of military personel, or civilians."

Among these "people" you refer to are the demonrats that spew disinformation and lies for Al Qaeda and the other terrorists cells to use to encourage fellow terrorists to continue the fight because now they have allies in America called "liberal Demonrats".

[JustPiper]

Yet more clarification on what most of us already knew

And then some...

[WOSG]

You dont have to reach the Bush-haters, only ordinary Americans who put up the flags after 9/11 and want America to win the war on terror. (that's about 75% of Americans, excluding leftist vermin and anti-american puddin'-heads. The Left will *never* admit anything true that undermines their case; they defended Alger Hiss for 50 years and it turns out he was a commie spy after all, the highest ranking US official since Benedict Arnold to commit treason. So dont worry about their various games of goal-post moving. Convince the 'real Americans' this is right thing.)

Keep the argument simple:

1. Saddam supported Al Quaeda and terrorism generally. We have PLENTY of proof.

2. Bush declared after 9/11 that the War on Terror was a war against terrorists AND THOSE WHO HAROBRED AND SUPPORTED THEM.

3. Because of #1 and #2, regime change in Iraq was the right thing.

4. We have additional strong reasons for ending Saddam's regime in terms of the WMD threat, saving Iraq from tyranny and changing political systems to 'drain the swamps of terrorism' as well. In all areas, we've found enough horrors (killing fields) and threats (bio-toxins) to justify our action amply.

Conclusion: Those who support the liberation of Iraq are in the right, those who dont are wrong. Vote accordingly.

QED

[WOSG]

This is the inverse of WMDs. we had intelligence on both, but intelligence is never perfect. You guess-timate what's really there by extrapolating from what evidence you have.

The Iraqi intelligence-terrorist connection is MUCH LARGER AND STRONGER AND MORE SIGNIFICANT than we were led to believe prior to the war.

[WOSG]

Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really?

Gore is not telling the truth.

[cars for sale]

only difference in these two is weight

[nightowl]

Tony Snow is not leaving FOX News Channel, he is just not doing his Fox News Sunday show anymore. He is starting his own talk radio show at the beginning of the year, but will still be doing Weekend Live on the weekends on FOX and will probably sit in for Brit Hume on Special Report on Friday's.

[nightowl]

TUESDAY, September 11, 1991. Does anyone know what happened on that day? President George Herbert Walker Bush addressed a Joint Session of Congress in prime time about kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Is it a coincidence that 10 years to the day on another Tuesday, September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the United States & murdered over 3,000 innocent civilians?

I think not and when I hear Carl Levin & Jay Rockefeller & other traitorous Democrats say their is no link between Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden, it should makes us all angry or fearful. These Senators sit on the Intelligence Committee and they are either liars or ignorant. Either reason for their behavior in this situation can kill people.

I've know this for a while, but I had forgotten where I read it. I looked it up tonight & found it in "A World Transformed" by George H.W. Bush & Brent Scrowcroft on Page 369-370.

What do ya'll think?