Thanks
Posted on 06/02/2004 11:41:36 AM PDT by Eurotwit
too early. they will not be able to turn away from the saddam trial.
Well, hello. The truth is starting to seep out.
(Even if this is an older article)
John Loftus is also talking about the Saddam trial to offer lots of revelations.
But Bush is cutting is way too close in my opinion. Summer is generally a time when people don't pay attention to alot of news, and if it comes too close to the election, it looks like an October surprise stunt and loses credibility.
Boy they sure spiked that story when it came out.... time to resurface it I say!
This can't come too soon or it will be supplanted by something else (as incredible as that sounds) before the election. Heck, capturing Saddam was old news a week after it happened. Don't forget Padilla. He's probably John Doe 2.
Don't fret. It's all coming together. Hopefully the folks who lost loved ones at OKC will get some terror relief akin to the folks at WTC.
ah crap it is old news. well anyway I stand by my prediction.
Whether or not people pay attention to the Saddam trial, it will produce tons of soundbites, videoclips, and talking points with which Bush can bash the Democrats all fall long. He can just take clips of Pelosi, Kennedy, and Gore and put them side by side with Saddam testifying. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
Yeah, and then the Iranian agent was assassinated by the Iranians for being so dumb.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
That and hundreds of other links below. Also, today, House Congressional members read into the record the fact that Clinton in the late 90's talked repeatedly about the deal that OBL and Saddam struck.
OBL agreed not to attack Iraq if Saddam would train the terrorists in WMD usage.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1127451/posts?page=1
Was he? I haven't read that yet.
Saddam, reportedly, is a Frank Sinatra fan.
I wonder if this will make it into Allawi's speech to Congress? Wouldn't that be a hoot.
Now that this comes out, this is the best explaination of what happened.
It's time for him to stand up and shout it again now that more might pay attention to him.
forget the OKC stuff. If that's what comes out of this Saddam trial - its not going to accrue to Bush's benefit. The media will only talk about why McVeigh was allowed to be executed then.
McVeigh admitted his guilt and refused stays. He was the trigger man. No problem there. The problem is the govt didn't know he was working with Feyadeen through Phillipines radicals and master plotter Yousef (presently this is conjecture). It can work out ok even with him gone.
we know that. the media will spin it otherwise.
The O'Reilly Factor Wed. 8 pm / 11 pm ET - Will a new report finally prove the link between Saddam and Usama? Bill gets the truth from author Stephen Hayes.
Saddam himself could publicly spill the entire story and the media in the US would still do everything it could to portray the situation as otherwise.
Thanks
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.