Posted on 05/28/2004 11:47:03 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
You ask good questions that make many of this board squirm. I was surprised to see Carl respond to your questions as well as give the analysis he gave. It isn't pretty.
btt
If the Administration began getting the news out to the masses about the links between the terrorists and Iraq between now and the election wouldn't that help them in the end?
Two points: 1) To expose the Iraq/9|11 commections reopens serious speculation regarding Flight 800, OKC and the first WTC bombing--all under Clinton.
2) Ashcroft dropping that Gorelick-approved memo might be interpeted as an indication to certain people they do know and have the power to choose what to do with the information--and when.
It isn't being coy or irresponsible--just leaving a warning.
And let's not forget Al Gore's little about face on airline security after the TWA800....after the big payoff from the airline industry.
I, for one, hope that the connections between the TWA-800/OKC/WTC-1/Clintonistas-Gorelick/Reno comes out just in time for the fall elections!!
I don't think it ever will, in the manner where it will be believed by a lot of people, however I think it may be enough to stay a few left hands.
How so?
Who knows, actually... My view is there are two important pieces missing to the puzzlement that is this antiwar footing the left has taken. In regards to the intelligence failures under the Clinton Administration--it seems the behavior is more akin to enabling the behavior of the militant Whahabbi Islamists more than it was to stop them. Everything--from the support of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims in the Yugoslav wars, the lack of a response to direct attacks by AQ and the bizarre investigatory practices involving the three mentioned cases point to that. It made no sense politically for Clinton to fail to tie OKC to Iraq, or Islamist elements. Instead, it seems that they chose their perp, stuck w/it, made a big story to their short-term political advantage when a larger puzzle was being hidden from plain view. The Ramzi Yousef case laid out precisely future plans of offensive terrorist actions that led in a predictable line to the dramatic attacks of 9|11. For instance, we're talking about a movement led by one of the richest men in the world, well-connected to one of the largest corporate entities in a powerful international industry (I love it when the left whines about Hallibruton/Brown and Root--like the alternative for a big construction contract in the ME is who? Other than the French, it's Bin Ladin Group.) and a trained engineer, with an ability to get other well-trained, and thoughtful individuals to do his bidding. It was no surprise we'd be faced with such a daunting challenge. I'm not going to play up BinLadin as Lex Luthor, but he's pretty darn close.
The eight years of mismanagement, perfidy and seeming enabling allowed AQ, and the movement it has inspired to become an international threat not seen in quite some time.
That's a line that is hard to sell to the public--but I imagine it is one espoused in Washington, privately.
The other disturbing aspect to all this is the intellectual ferment the radical Islamics are from. It's just as much fascism as it is militant Sunni cultism.
marker bump
Exactly! And if they were to confront the *real* forces behind the earlier attacks (from WTC '93 and Somalia through the USS Cole), that would have involved some tough decisions and actions -- and would not have done Clinton any good in the all-important polls and focus groups.
He also got a lot of partisan mileage out of blaming the OKC bombing on "right-wing extremists" and trying to pin it on Rush Limbaugh, et al.
Oh, and as Maddy "The Mad Bomber" Halfbright once said re: how to respond to terrorist attacks, it wasn't "a good time to be bombing Muslims" -- that's when the perjuring rapist was still trying to squeeze a legacy out of Israel and the so-called palis.
Stupid sonofabitch would have had his legacy if he honestly (ha!) confronted islamofascist terrorism and 'splained it all to the soccer sucker moms as he did the "tough things" that Bush has had to face since 9/11/01.
That's why we call it islamofascism!
ping post 33
And we're supposed to what? Take your word for it?
And it's a noticeable lapse when you can't respond to the facts on the ground - that Saddam and AQ had a decade's long relationship which has been documented time and time again by the legal system, the media and defector's own words.
And I notice that you cannot begin to explain away how Saddam had such advance notice of 9/11 that he had an article printed in his own state run newspaper that soon America would be hurting where it hurt before (WTC) and we'd never again sing "New York, New York" without crying.
I concur 100%. I've written the president and members of his administration about this matter out of complete frustration.
Welcome back, prairie, and thanks for the ping.
I think Carl from NewsMax has exactly nailed why the administration has failed to capitalize on this matter, and unfortunately, it is to their detriment.
If there was a such a clear connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, then why is this coming to light in an uncontested civil trial while this administration has repeatedly denied that such a connection exists?
I'll be perfectly willing to accept the notion that this connection exists. But if you go through the events of the last 15 years, you'll understand why nobody in either political party would ever want to admit it.
If Bush believed in a 9/11-Iraq connection, it is more likely that he knew that it was in his own best interests to make sure this connection never saw the light of day.
If I were a Canadian, you'd have a good point there.
You didn't ask me, but I can tell you the reason that I think that Bush has not made a stronger case of the connection between Saddam and 9/11. Bush was told by the CIA, before the war that the Saddam connection was difficult to prove and that the WMD connection was a slam dunk. The left leaning media will claim that if the CIA were wrong on the WMD, they are most likely wrong on the 9/11 connection now, and the president cannot flip-flop on his reasoning. (I know that would be circular logic, but that is what the media does and that is the definition of spin.)
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.