Posted on 08/02/2002 6:11:03 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that suspected Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohammed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, a possible indication that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terror attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
If they make the 9/11-Iraq link Bush is already authorized by Congress to use miliary force against them. If not, he needs Congressional approval which he'd get easily....even from the Senate.
Well, actually no. If Bush goes to the Senate, he has to go to Robert Byrd. Which means that the whole damn war will have to be run out of West Virginia. When we open up new bomb and airplane factories in WV, you know a deal has been struck.^_^
But seriously, the White House has known about the April, 2001 meeting for some time. They just kept it in their pocket for use at an opportune time.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
No doubt about it.
In short it is finally time to bring the sheeple into the war. Is it a necessary war. Again teh answer is yes but I do think the govt. should have been more up front about it.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
They weren't kicked out. They were told to leave, because Hussein had hamstrung their inspection efforts -- refusing access to various sites.
However, they had been sitting on their hands in a Baghdad hotel for several months under these very conditions. But they weren't told to leave, and the bombing didn't start, until the House was preparing to meet in special session in order to consider articles of impeachment.
It was probably just a coincidence...
They is also some talk about advising everybody not to go outside without a.) mosquito repellant and b.) long-sleeve shirts and long pants.
WNV Mark 2.0?
Obviously. The POTUS needs to know whether Saddam did 9-11 or not. He doesn't get his intelligence by reading Newsweek -- his sources are little better than that. Bush has known the answer to this question, "yes" or "no," since last September. And, if you have been playing close attention to the words and actions of Bush and Cheney since that time, it's been pretty obvious that the answer wasn't "no."
I was just wondering the same thing.
They is also some talk about advising everybody not to go outside without a.) mosquito repellant and b.) long-sleeve shirts and long pants.
Not a bad idea in Louisiana in any case, LOL. Those mosquitos on the bayou are really something.
Folks are willing to bomb Saddam without any evidence, yet Saudi Arabia has killed a couple thousand Americans and holds telethons for the Palestinians who then in turn kill Americans in Israel.
The logic to bomb Iraq because we don't like Saddam because he may prove to be a future danger to us would be akin to Afghanistan having bombed us last year because they feared we were going to bomb them in the future.
Talk about what's really telling. W seems hellbent on going after his daddy's enemy no matter the consequences.
because if they quoted someone specifically, we would all know that they were interviewing the janitorial crew at the cia. everyone has an opinion, but those in the know typically keep their mouths shut when national security is at stake.
the lat has a paper to run and needs to make money. if they held to high ethical standards, then they would report the truth, which does not sell very well to the mass market.
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.