Posted on 08/31/2002 3:07:33 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Friday Aug. 30, 2002; 11:16 p.m. EDT Limbaugh to White House: What About Salman Pak?
Is the Bush administration using all the ammunition at its disposal to convince the American people that war with Iraq is imperative?
Not according to conservative media giant Rush Limbaugh, who chastised the White House Thursday for not spotlighting the issue of Salman Pak, the hijacking school run by Saddam Hussein just south of Baghdad where the 9-11 hijackers likely trained to attack America.
"It's unbelievable that somehow this story remains sequestered," Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners. "I read this story last night and I was amazed."
"There is something called the Republican National Committee and there is the administration," the number one talk host complained. "And look, if I could find this on the Internet, I'm sure the web surfers in the basement of the White House or the Old Executive Office Building could find it too."
Limbaugh proceeded to read at length from a Nov. 11 report in London's Observer newspaper - one of the most respected broadsheets in Great Britain - detailing the accounts of two Salman Pak defectors along with corroborating testimony from a former UN weapons inspector.
Though the Observer's bombshell report has been largely ignored by both the press and the White House in recent months, the similarity between what transpired over the skies of New York and Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11 and the drills at Saddam Hussein's hijacking school offers clear evidence of Iraq's involvement in Osama bin Laden's attacks on America.
The facts uncovered by the Observer have yet to be refuted by any subsequent media investigation. And should they be invoked by the Bush White House, the story could form the basis for a solid argument that attacking Iraq isn't merely a preemptive strike to keep Saddam from getting the bomb, but instead direct retribution against the lone head of state who both financed and helped plan the worst attack on the United States in its history.
NewsMax.com first reviewed the Salman Pak story nearly three weeks ago in a report headlined: "Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9-11."
Some excerpts:
With all the talk about how little evidence the Bush administration has tying Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks, we're more than a little surprised at how quickly reporters, not to mention the White House, seem to have forgotten about Salman Pak.
That's the name of the Iraqi training camp located south of Baghdad where, according to the accounts of at least two Iraqi defectors quoted in the New York Times last November, terrorists from around the world rehearsed airline hijackings aboard a parked Boeing 707 that bore an eerie resemblance to what transpired on 9-11.
"We could see them train around the fuselage," one of the defectors, a five-year veteran of the camp, told the paper. "We could see them practice taking over the plane."
And that's not all.
A few days before the Times report, the London Observer revealed that one of the defectors, a colonel with the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat, had drawn an even more direct link to 9-11.
The former Iraqi agent, codenamed Zeinab, told the paper that one of the highlights of Salman Pak's six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. Like the Sept. 11 hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five, he explained.
Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.
"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counterterrorist training."
"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"
Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab told the Observer that there was a foreigners' camp that was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein.
"It was a nightmare! A very strange experience," the Iraqi agent said. "These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying."
A second defector said that conversations with the hijacker-trainees made it clear they came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco.
"We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States," he added chillingly. "The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this."
Though the Bush administration has been largely silent about Salman Pak, former CIA Director James Woolsey is apparently convinced it was used to rehearse Sept. 11-style hijackings.
In late November he told Fox News Channel's Laurie Dhue:
"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."
Another intriguing coincidence: Salman Pak's hijacking school reportedly opened for business in 1995, the same year al-Qaeda agents in the Philippines hatched a plot to hijack 12 airliners and slam some of them into U.S. landmarks. (End of NewsMax excerpt)
Despite the compelling case of Salman Pak, the shockingly flat-footed Bush public relations team remains mum on the most potent justification for hitting back at Baghdad.
No wonder support for Bush's Iraq attack has dropped to just 51 percent in the latest Gallup poll.
Then bring forth the documents...that is the way it works here on FR. BTW, here is a link for you to check out:
Freeper Resource: What Team Saddam Doesn’t Want You To Know!
Happy Reading!
You have it backwards, sweetie, he was critical up UNTIL he made the documentary, now he's siding with Saddam.
First, in the Spring of 1998 shortly before being pulled out of Iraq, Scott Ritter still believed that Iraq either had WMD, or had the potential to create them with what they had left over from the Gulf War. Remember: Ritter claimed that US Weaponry failed to take out a significant enough portion of Hussein's military machine or capabilities to develop WMD during the Gulf War, in defiance of General Norman Schwartzkopf. Second, we have a clear indication from the Clinton Administration that they were willing to turn a blind eye to Ritter's claims in deference to the CIA, even though the CIA failed miserably to overthrow Hussein in what can only be called a complete, total, breakdown of Operational Intelligence in 1996. No doubt, the de-funding and de-stabilization of America's Intelligence Services during the 8 year reign of terror that was the Clinton Administration contributed to the breakdown of intelligence, the loss of CIA Agents, and the loss of an opportunity to overthrow Saddam Hussein...
In 1998 during an interview on NBC TV, Scott Ritter called his former UNSCOM boss Richard Butler "an honest, objective, independent United Nations official." In 2002 during a Today Show interview, Scott Ritter said ""Richard Butler on the other hand is contradictable across the board"…"Kaidia Hamza and Richard Butler are a fraud and a liar respectively" September 16th, 2002) So what happened between 1998 and 2002, when Scott Ritter seemingly, magically changed his mind about Saddam Hussein and Iraq?
In 1999, Scott Ritter was approached by a Detroit area businessman with links to Saddam Hussein, to make a film about the "devasting effects" that U.N. Sanctions have had on Iraq. Ritter completed the film in July of 2000. Ritter was paid $400,000 to complete a one person, two camera, ninety-minute "documentary." Was Scott Ritter "bought and paid for" to change his story by Saddam Hussein? Scott Ritter claims he made no money on the documentary, but did he? On September 13th 2002, Scott Ritter was interviewed by CNN's Paula Zahn. In the interview, Zahn asked Ritter if he thought $400,000 was an "unusual amount" of money to film a documentary. Ritter's response was "no" he didn't think the amount was high. Ritter then went on to say that "other funding sources" had also been located to help pay the expenses of the trip. These sources include anti-war movements such as "not in our name" and the "Institute For Public Accuracy" a San Francisco based organization with ties to "The Workers Party of America" and the "Socialist Workers Party" and at the forefront of mobilizing and organizing Anti War protests. Ironic that the "Institute For Public Accuracy's" communications director is named Sam Husseini.
The Boeing 707 is actually rather stale news. It's just getting re-publicized.
Speaking of new publicity, the Czechs are again insisting that their own evidence of the connection between Atta and Iraqi intelligence is pretty solid.
***
We also know of a prominent Al Qaeda bad guy who moves freely within Iraq and even operates a chemical weapons production facility in Northern Iraq. (The Kurds have been aware of this facility for some time, and the Taliban was reportedly aware of the chemical weapons connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.) Does this prove that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack? No, but it solidly supports the theory of a meaningful Al Qaeda linkage to Iraq. And I think that's all we really need--since the Al Qaeda definitely did attack us on 9/11.
***
"Saddam invaded his own neighbors, Iran and Kuwait"... not a valid argument for War under Christian Just War theory (and never was). Iran and Kuwait are not US States, therefore I do not have the right to send someone else's son to die on their behalf.
I agree that this is not ordinarily regarded as a justification for war. But it can get complicated. (For example, if there were a mutual defense treaty between us and those other countries, however, I think that would completely change the picture. "Iran and Kuwait" would become "us," so to speak.)
"Saddam might develop Weapons of Mass Destruction"... not a valid argument for War under Christian Just War theory. The fact that you and your neighbor don't get along, and he might buy a gun tomorrow, does not actually make shooting him today a Jesus-like Moral Action.
With all due respect, this argument by analogy suffers from the fact that it's just "you versus him." I think the more interesting, more ugly scenario involves a bad guy who somehow reveals to you that he is going to acquire a gun and murder your entire family when you are asleep.
Add to this the idea that you have called the police and they have laughed at you.
"Saddam gassed his own citizens, etc!!" Morally atrocious, certainly. However, Iraq's citizens are not US citizens any more than Iranian or Kuwaitis are... not a valid argument for War under Christian Just War theory.
This is one of the failings of Just War Theory, in my opinion.
To illustrate: Can a group of volunteers go help the poor Iraqis by forcibly deposing Saddam? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Aquinas addressed that scenario. (Are we not "all of one blood" anyway? And what about the Chaldean Christians who are suffering?)
***
As an aside, I will point out that even if you and I both conclude that the attack on Iraq is justified, the Vatican is NOT GOING TO COME AROUND.
Isn't that interesting?
Sadaam will use any and all means to destroy those he wishes to destroy. He may contain radical Islam in his own country in order to protect himself from overthrow, but don't think for a moment he wouldn't use those terrorists to attack someone else!
OP and I are both completely Reformed in our theology. (OP is an Orthodox Presbyterian.) And I should point out that the RCC is by no means more ardently, actively opposed to abortion than are the Orthodox Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
(My own local church actually founded a Crisis Pregnancy Center. OP's church is similarly active against abortion.)
FWIW, I stood on the front lines of the "Summer of Mercy" Operation Rescue crusade against Tiller's Late-Term Abortion Clinic in the hot sun of Wichita 1991.
We withstood nearly 3,000 arrests before the Government Police finally broke our lines.
Where, may I ask, were you?
Nowhere to be found? All talk and NO ACTION?
Forgive my bitterness. But there are few things which left such a bad taste upon my young palate, those twelve unhappy years ago, as watching practically the entire American "Church" (excepting most Orthodox Presbyterians, many Calvinist Baptists, and a few Traditionalist Catholics) turn their collective backs on those of us in Operation Rescue.
I wasn't even an Orthodox Presbyterian communicant member at the time.
I am now... largely because I remember those days.
Where were you?
If I have been "skeptical" towards this War, it's not because I'm kneeling down and kissing the Pope's Ring, MHGinTN. I reject your unfounded aspersions.
I have been "skeptical" towards this War, because I think that killing people is generally a BAD THING. Why do you think I was IN Operation Rescue in the first place? It certainly wasn't for the "legal benefits".
War is a BAD THING. Killing lots of people is UNDESIRABLE. The Christian should not approach War from a "neutral bias". The Christian's starting point should be one of profound skepticism and opposition towards War -- any War. And if a Christian is going to support a War, he better have an incredibly damn good reason.
There are lots of Canon Law requirements to establish a Justification for War which were laid down in the Middle Ages by the Roman Scholastic theologians (who were not, after all, always wrong. Even a stopped clock is right 14 times a week). I look forward to addressing some of those Canon Law requirements in my response to my good friend "the_doc"s thoughtful post to me on the subject.
But for now, I'm gonna lay aside the Canon Law and turn to the emotional requirements for a Just War.
If you can't do that, your "Reasons" aren't good enough.
Best, OP
You didn't offend my Beliefs. That woulda pissed me off.
You merely offended my Person. That's a pretty trivial thing, and is dispensed easily enough with a short, sharp rebuke (as was my intent).
Apology accepted. No harm, no foul.
As to "brothers of a differing opinion"... we are currently brethren of differing opinion -- not necessarily insurmountable differences.
As I said before, my position on War is simply that killing tens of thousands of human beings is generally a BAD THING. If a Christian is going to support such an atrocity, he better have a Good Reason.
And he better not be persuaded by jingoistic Propaganda; killing tens of thousand of people oughtta at least require the evidence of FACTS.
The Iraqi "Salman Pak" terrorist camp is the closest thing I have read to a "Good Reason" for War in the last 14 months. It's the closest thing to a Material Link to 9-11 which I have seen. IF entirely True (and it seems to be pretty well-evidenced, from what we have), it's the closest thing to a Materal Link between Hussein and Al-Queda "skyjacker" training.
I'm not opposed to the label "Anti-War". I generally AM. I generally think that a Christian SHOULD BE.
For me, it boils down to what I said -- if I am going to support the killing of Tens of Thousands of human beings, I wanna be able to look Jesus Christ in the eye and tell him why I have reason to support such a "necessary evil".
If I can't... then I can't support it.
Excellent answer, OP.
My response to the Lord..."They had already killed thousands of my fellow citizens. They were preparing to kill more."
The Lord would say, "Ahhh...the Exodus 22 and Romans 13 explanation."
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed"
Romans 13: 4...But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
Per'Zackly. FACTS and SCRIPTURE, if you have any case to make. Or else you have NO case.
I may agree or disagree, but Gimme Scripture. Gimme Exodus 22 and Romans 13, not Jingoistic Propaganda.
Back to the Bible. Back to the Bible. In all Ethical Questions, in all Political Considerations.
Back to the Bible, and the Bible Alone. Not "feelings", not "common sense", not "realpolitik". Back to the Bible -- or nothing at all. A regimen which the "American Church" has largely forgotten. (IMHO, as always)
If you noticed in my earlier post, former CIA director Woolsey pointed out that an Iraqi journalist wrote 3 months BEFORE 9/11 that we would be hit.
A July 21, 2001 article in an Egyptian newspaper article headlined, "America, an Obsession with Osama bin Laden" indicated that Baghdad knew what was coming three months later, the former U.S. intelligence chief told the court. The report, written by an Iraqi, predicted bin Laden would target both New York City and the Pentagon.
Woolsey noted a line in the story that predicted bin Laden would "strike America on the arm that is already hurting," explaining that the phrase was likely a reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
Mix that with Salman Pak. It's a heady brew.
Everything else is horse-crap.
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.