Richard Clarke was captured in Pakistan? I suspected the Al Queda link, but I thought he was in a U.S. not so asleeper cell.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Reinvention Convention isn't over I guess.
That doesn't change the fact that Al-Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas all lived in Baghdad for years.
It is obvious that when Al Qaeda terroists agree with the New York Times they are telling the truth when they disagree they are lying.
No kidding.....either way, the Administration is WRONG and Bush lied.....doesn't matter to the LIBS.
Yeah? So what if he recanted? He let it slip before he had a chance to talk to the NYT lawyers.
It doesn't matter. Resolution 1441 was clear. A mass murderer will someday hang. That is good for the world.
New York Times...
garbage out... garbage out.
And why are they talking so freely to the New York Times about "highly classified" reports from the CIA? And "still-secret parts" of the Senate Intelligence Committee report?
Would these "intelligence officials" be the same as those who have shared "secrets" with the likes of the Times, Post and Newsday in the past? Would they happen to be associates of Mr. Ambassador and Ms. Secret Agent?
I smell rodents (and that would be with an apostrophe and a capital R).
wrong again. read what the 9/11 has to say in the report
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182042/posts
Golly. When did the NYT report the claim that had to be retracted? There are multiple sources, btw, of a link betwee AQ & Iraq.
NY Times -- unnamed sources -- trash.
I believe lawyers call this "assuming facts not in evidence."
What is Zarqawi? Al-Qaeda trained, living in Iraq, trained in the use of chemical weapons.
There would have been no reason this Al-Qaeda operative would have implicated Iraq in the first place unless there was some truth to it. Some evidence would not be substantiated but in a case like this the premise would be the more important issue considering this individual was not in Iraq himself. This could be disinformation purposely put out there by the CIA to the NY Times for the way the treated Tenet then exposing the NY Times as the liars they are.
Could it possibly be this guy is lying to take away legitimacy from a claim that would support the effort in Iraq? Why should would he lie then? He had no motive. He has all the motive in the world now to discredit the liberation of Iraq to help his fellow Al qaeda brothers fighting there now. But the media who didn't find this guy's claims credible enough to report when he was making charges of Iraq's collaboration with Al Qaeda will suddenly find this guy a fountain of truth now that he supports their anti-liberation of Iraq biases.
The Bush Administration has been taking knocks for not having made al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden the priority Mr. Berger said it was during the Clinton years.
Yet neither Attorney General Ashcroft nor National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice even saw this Clarke report until after the 9/11 terrorists had struck.
Perhaps if they had, America would have been on a more aggressive footing earlier on. At the least, releasing the Clarke after-action report now would provide better context for weighing such ongoing political accusations as the charge that the Bush Administration's concern about Iraq was simply a fantasy of a "neoconservative" cabal.
Toward that end we can't help but note page 134 of the Commission report, which documents a proposal early in 1999 to send a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to gather intelligence on where bin Laden was hiding out.
Clarke objected on the grounds that Pakistani intelligence would tip bin Laden off that the U.S. was planning a bombing mission.
Armed with this knowledge," the Commission quotes Mr. Clarke as saying, "old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."
Is that the same secular Baghdad that we are told would never cooperate with Islamist al Qaeda?
Right around the time he became one of the first "foreign leaders" to endorse John Kerry?