|
||||
|
Title: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Svenn on Nov 15th, 2003, 3:55pm I am now reading the newspapers here in Norway. They say that USA is loosing more GOOD soldiers there then USA did the 3 first years in Vietnam. If thats true my question then is: Is it worth that? Can the Iraque disaster develope to a "new"Vietnam-war". The news here says also that USA is loosing more GOOD soldiers after your president declared that the war was over Let there be no question who`s side Im on Im just conserned about what i read in the news here. No matter what ,we has to agree on 1 thing and that is that there is NO winners in a war. Hope im not getting in to "deep shit"here,im just a bit concerned what i`m reading Svenn |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by jonny on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:00pm on 11/15/03 at 15:55:38, Svenn wrote:
Thats Bullshit!! Ill let the Nam vets explain if they care too, I wasent there. ..............................jonny Edit....Svenn, do they say how many the Americans are killing or is it just how many Americans are dying? |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 9erfan on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:05pm Svenn, It's true that we have lost A LOT of soldiers since Bush declared the war in Iraq to be over. It's very upsetting and things have to change soon. I don't believe we have lost any where near the number of soldiers that we lost in Vietnam. That's crazy! But, I'm not a vet so I also can't speak with authority on the subject... Virginia |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Svenn on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:08pm I said that USA is up until to day in Iraque have LOST more good soldiers in Iraque then they did THE FIRST 3 YEARS in Vietnam Jonny NOT THE VIETNAMWAR Total And for the record I only refering to what i read in the newspaper here Svenn |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by jonny on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:14pm I know what you are saying, Svenn. Does the newspaper tell you how many the Americans have killed? how many of the enemy? Or is it just the American body count that they report on? ...................................jonny |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Svenn on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:18pm Just the american body count |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by jonny on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:21pm Thats what the media is doing here to and it pisses me the fuck off!! BASTARDS .................................jonny |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Svenn on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:22pm Dont shot me Jonny.Just telling you what i read over here |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by jonny on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:27pm Svenn my brother....im not mad at you, im mad at the American media for only reporting American deaths and not how many enemy our boys killed. I know we are killing ten to twenty of them to every dude we lose, but the fucks dont report that. ..............................jonny Edit |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by brain_cramps on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:27pm Interesting article on that subject. http://www.lies.com/blog/archives/001316.html |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by jonny on Nov 15th, 2003, 4:55pm Very good link, Grant. Makes me, Hmmmmmm ............................................jonny |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 15th, 2003, 5:02pm Oh my. It sounds plausible that we have lost more men in Iraq than in the first 3 years of Nam. It was well before we really got deep into the mess. Is it another Vietnam? Not really. Vietnam was pretty much a civil war at first. Europe was happy to let us work on Vietnam for awhile...Yikes, what a mess we were handed. The one way it is like Vietnam is that it makes no difference to compare body counts. Doesn’t mean a thing to them. Comparing dead and maimed children is no fun either. I read that Bush & Co. are thinking of bringing home 100,000 troops in 2004.....right in time for the election of course.......Sadly, I think it's a bad idea. I can't deny the world is better off without Saddam though. Now that we are there we need the men. Fewer troops only make it more dangerous for those who remain. How nice it would be if a new Iraq happens but if it does, it's gonna cost us lots more time, money and some more dead people. It's just the way it is. It has probably become one of those things where leaving now would be worse than staying. The good guys never seem to get a break. I don’t like it but I think it’s true. By the way, it's harder to find news like this in our papers. Too much of our media has to play ball some with corporate owners; especially TV. Oslo papers probably don’t have this problem so give Svenn some wiggle room. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by River_Rat on Nov 15th, 2003, 5:05pm I don't even know what to say about all that, I voted for George W. and I know we needed to to do something, But I'm not smart enough to know what. One thing I do know is if someone tried to kill my dad I would do what ever I had to, to nail that f u c k e r what do ya think, do you think George was just getting revenge? LEE |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by kim on Nov 15th, 2003, 5:30pm Media ...........why take a stroll .........happens all the time. Global support for this current situation LIENS toward the "u-no-what"...........why would the GLOBAL news relfect anything BUT. Read the books, learn the history and try as hard as you can to think .......think..........think. It takes a lot of time and energy and most of all it takes independent thought. Something the media abhores. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Unsolved on Nov 15th, 2003, 6:04pm on 11/15/03 at 16:27:46, jonny wrote:
Sad to say, but sometimes the others (like the vietnamese) find this ratio acceptable. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 15th, 2003, 6:14pm Is Dubyua getting some revenge? I suppose there's some of that but I don't think he'd invade for that alone. George has a only a few people he listens to. Certainly Carl Rove, and he pays even more attention to Dick Cheney. Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith are in the mix too. These are the guys who got the ball rolling, and I think too hastily and with bad intelligence. Saddam isn't bin Laden but people don't seem to care. They don't read history either. Kim's right. I wish Bush had just parked the Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf and told the creep it was there to stay. Even Saddam and his thugs would realize they'd be toast if they farted sideways. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by kim on Nov 15th, 2003, 6:28pm makes me nervous when media influenced dialogue - like a high wind across a barren corn field turns the head of a fickle masss bownd and tetermined to swing like a penjulim the objectives they never learned in the first place. Times are tense and victory is not fantasmagoric. I know not one that ever was. Difficult times force dificult solutions and none are accomplished in the way we would expect, much less write as journalists about. Better to stroke our pen in the face of the one writing the words - it's easier and make us more popular - more "visual". Time bends and morphs. It goes round in circles and I am tired of the same ole argument - for we never learn the anwswer and we never produce the solution; in fact i'm quite sure we have not even asked the right questions. We squawk and tear at ourselves until something else comes along to divert our attention; and so - it goes. Sensen :D |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 15th, 2003, 6:48pm http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/ZOUNDS.png At a loss, Charlie ;) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by kim on Nov 15th, 2003, 7:33pm (smile.......) sorta......Charlie, Brian is tinkerin on guitar right now. Guess wat he's pickin at............ He is playing a beautiful interpretation of the song from "Deer Hunter"............it really is lovely and kinda lonely sound, full of hope, let down and trying to put everything into perspective.................... We gotta find a way to each other* |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by BobG on Nov 15th, 2003, 8:28pm Svenn, your newspapers are as full of crap as ours are in in the USA. Charlie is right. And so is Kim (I think) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Patrick_A on Nov 15th, 2003, 9:03pm on 11/15/03 at 17:02:06, Charlie wrote:
Up front it may have seemed like a Civil War, but in truth it was one of the outcomes of the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Democracy vs Communism! Patrick |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Ree on Nov 15th, 2003, 9:05pm Why doesnt everyone here talk to someone that has been over there... or been in the conflicts in Afghanistan. I have done that this week and Im out of any of these conversations from now on... so each of you that actually think you know what it is that is going on... grab a veteran... have a chat... God bless these kids that love the people of Iraq and ARE trying to help them. God forgive the people that put Ak47's in the arms of 10 year olds. God protect us all from terrorism near and far... ree |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by kim on Nov 15th, 2003, 9:26pm Ree, i understand. Not one person here has spoken AGAINST our troops ....so please don't bring that up in this discussion....we are all exhausted ....we are wanting the same thing .in the end....we just feel like tawkin together, quiet like on how to get there............okay? You are not the only one...........*don't mean to sound mean* i read a lot. I think on the stuff happening now and how it got to be this way......i think what shall we do to make it better.............all. the. time. I prik my ears at every outburst and litergy..........and it ALL makes me sad, it smacks of discontent and i fear the futire.....i see the circle turning. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by ClusterChuck on Nov 15th, 2003, 10:06pm Ree, I love you, dear, but on this one, I have to disagree with you. I am SO proud of your son, and what he has done, and continues to do for our country. But, unfortunately, virtually every veteran will tell you the same thing. The veteran sees what is happening in the field, what is happening on that particular battle ground, but other than that, they are treated as mushrooms: Kept in the dark, and fed shit! It was the same during Vietnam, and most likely all other conflicts/wars. Young, brave, patriotic men (and women) were out there sacrificing their lives, and had no idea what was really going on over the whole sphere. The "pee-ons" were just told to do something, and not the reasons why. As has been said many times before, we would have a lot fewer wars if the old men that make the decisions were put out there on the front line. Chuck |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Cerberus on Nov 16th, 2003, 12:52am Svenn, I don't know what the "stats" are on this recently. We are and have lost quite a few soldiers since the "Over" declaration. As many as the first 3 years of Nam? NOT LIKELY! Again, not sure of the "stats". Worth it ? I reckon its relative, is it worth it to remove a genocidal maniac from power? When there are no more Americans dying in Iraq then we'll count the cost and decide if it was worth it. I wasn't in Nam, I wasn't in the gulf in the 90's, and I wasn't there this time either. If I have to decide now if it was worth it, I am not qualified. I DO SO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL EFFORT GIVEN AND ALL COST COUNTED/ING. Our G.I.'s Rock. TO those home and still there......................THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! Ramon |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 16th, 2003, 1:18am Vietnam had a lot to do with French colonialism too. Hard place to be after the War. Damn Chinese still are pains in the ass. Actually, in many cases the ones who really understand what it's about are our troops. They see so much more. We're all proud of what they do. They deserve all the support they can get. As always, old men send young men off to war. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by BarbaraD on Nov 16th, 2003, 6:22am As one who went through WW11, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Gulf War and had loved ones in each, I don't think the whole of the middle east is worth one American Life! I want to see every solider OUT of the middle east NOW! Our troops should be guarding "OUR BOUDARIES" not those of the rest of the world. Ree, I pray for your boys each day, but I want to see them home in our country, not putting their lives on the line for people who will NOT appreciate it. Oh, I know the argument - we're making the world safe for democracy. Well, the middle east doesn't want democracy, it never has had it and never will. 100 years from now they'll still be doing the same things under a dictatorship that they're doing today. In all the middle eastern countries, Iraq was the most westernized - even under a dictatorship. My husband lived there for years and worked with the Iraquian people. What we don't understand here in America is that people in other parts of the world have a different mindset than we do. They have their traditions that we're trying to upset - change if you will. Back a couple hundred years ago, a little "oppressed" country decided it wanted freedom from a "Big Bully King" and, with NO HELP from a major power, took over their country and formed what we call a democracy. That was what WE wanted and it's what we DID ourselves. The events of 9-11 shook our country to the core and now it seems we're out for revenge. I personally think we should be tending to things in our country that we neglected so another 9-11 will NOT happen instead of running all over the world trying to democracize everyone else. But as to our troops, I support each mother's child in uniform and wish them all Godspeed. Hugs BD |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by ClusterChuck on Nov 16th, 2003, 8:55am on 11/16/03 at 06:22:57, BarbaraD wrote:
Barbara, I like most of what you said, but, believe it or not, the French gave a "little" help to that oppressed country ... Chuck |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Ree on Nov 16th, 2003, 9:33am Kim I wasnt getting rough on anyone and still Im talking calm here (anyone thats met me knows I am very calm contrary to popular belief hereLOL) all I was saying is not to listen to the media and to maybe listen to the voice of someone that has actually been over there... they really DO THINK that they are helping the cause. Regardless of what the media says... It is all in the eye of the beholder............ I don't start fights Kimmie... so go back and in a quiet spent mother voice feeling that your son that was never supposed to see war and did... read my post again honey... Love ya girly Ree (whose giving up this forum for lack of being understood constantly) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by BarbaraD on Nov 16th, 2003, 9:51am You're right Charlie - the French did step in at the end, but we've been paying for it ever since. And Ree, no one is misunderstanding you honey, it's just that everyone has their own opinions. I think we all SUPPORT our troops, we just don't like WAR! Hugs BD |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Ree on Nov 16th, 2003, 1:15pm I hear ya !!! BD... thanks for the support!!!! love Ree |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by cathy on Nov 16th, 2003, 2:41pm [smiley=curtain.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Ree on Nov 16th, 2003, 6:26pm on 11/16/03 at 14:41:02, cathy wrote:
that was uncalled for... |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by eyes_afire on Nov 16th, 2003, 7:05pm In the interest of uncovering facts, I believe Svenn is referring to this recent report: http://chblue.com/artman/publish/printer_3497.shtml But always be careful with such soundbites, often the writer can 'make' the statistics show what they're trying to prove. I'm not making a political statement one way or the other, but was just curious about the numbers myself. This article gives another viewpoint: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7760921p-8700003c.html A bit dated: http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/stories/20030731/localnews/559972.html A Century of Bloodshed: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm For the history buffs, and the curious: http://www.vva.org/about_the_war.htm --- Steve |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Jimmy_B on Nov 17th, 2003, 10:14am Is any War worth a Single life? Ask anyone this question & the answer will probably always be. "It depends on whose life." 10,000 lives could be worth it, if they were nameless soldiers. But 1 would be too much, if it was your son. We need to get that Bastard "Hussein" before this will end & the sooner the better. Let's get some intelligence on where that sorry SOB is.... Jim |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Kirk on Nov 17th, 2003, 12:39pm Depends on where they want to place the first three years of the Viet Nam war I suppose. We had Military involved there in the 50s. The whole mess there was more complicated than Democracy vs. Communism. I suspect Iraq will turn out that way also. Atleast its dry over there and they usually seem to have decent line of fire. FYI my dad was a Marine in Korea, I was a Marine in Viet Nam and my son was a Marine in the Balkans. If my grandson decides to become one, I know three people who will try to slap some sense into him. We have enough medals. TTFN Kirk |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by TomM on Nov 17th, 2003, 3:52pm On Friday, I had the pleasure of listening to Captain Timothy J. McGee, USN. Captain McGee recently returned from a one-year deployment to Baghdad, Iraq, working directly for L. Paul Bremer under the auspices of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command who spoke to a group of veterans in my office. Captain McGee currently serves as vice commander, Chief of Naval Research. He was clear on a few points: 1) the media is reporting what makes "Good Headlines" not the whole truth. 2) There are many facets to this war; we can not and will not just up and leave because our men/women are dying. 3) We are doing much greater harm (please read into that statement) to the opposition than is being shown to us. 4) it is in everyone’s best interest to make Iraq a global economy. 5) we are not there to make a "democracy" . Many other points we made but I do not have the space to discuss them. My humble opinion and a few facts from an O-6 who returned from Iraq 2.5 weeks ago. TomM |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Major_Headcase on Nov 17th, 2003, 4:21pm I'll add my [smiley=twocents.gif] worth here ... "Democracy" per se can only be created and sustained by a people that truly desire it ... our own colonial rebellion is a good example. "Democracy" is not a system that can be forced on a people from without, it must come from within. And right now, I don't think the basic culture of Iraq (or the MidEast in general) really craves a secular western-style democracy. Their cultural psyche just isn't geared for it. In my opinion, most Iraqis would prefer a "benevolent theocracy". Because I believe that, I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we can force democracy down the throats of a culture that doesn't A) respect it, B) understand it, or C) want it forced on them from the Christian West. I'm afraid this war will epitomize the old saying; "no good deed goes unpunished". With the best of intentions going in, America is going to come out of it in debt up to its eyebrows, with less international support, with more new enemies, and only a bloody scorecard to show for it. EVERY AMERICAN DEATH IN IRAQ IS ONE TOO MANY. "Bring 'em Home Now!" And btw, besides the Media's silence on Iraqi combat deaths, its silence on Iraqi CIVILIAN deaths is truly disgusting. Red Cross estimates are now between 8,000 and 10,000 since the invasion ... ie "collateral" casualties. That's obscene and never even gets mentioned ... and one question, how come GW has never attended even one of the 100's of military funerals held due to this invasion? Shows his true level of respect for our fighting men and women ... -John |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by jonny on Nov 17th, 2003, 4:30pm on 11/17/03 at 16:21:16, Major_Headcase wrote:
Should he attend all of them? One by one? Seems to me that he would be more of a distraction at these funerals. I guess you could fill in as president while hes attending all these funerals. Get real ................................jonny |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by BarbaraD on Nov 17th, 2003, 4:41pm You know, instead of getting into a heated argument here... wouldn't it be better to write your congressmen and senators and let THEM know how you feel? After all they control the purse strings. This is getting us no where and may cause some hard feelings. Everyone has an opinion, but let's don't get angry at each other when one expresses his/her opinion. Hugs BD |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by TomM on Nov 17th, 2003, 4:49pm on 11/17/03 at 16:21:16, Major_Headcase wrote:
We are not there to force democracy down anyone's throat. If you believe that, fine. I beleive we are not. TomM |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 17th, 2003, 6:48pm The French didn't come in after us, we were there after them, pretty much. Kirk's right, it began for us in the fifties. The line in the sand cost a lot. The media does not cover the good stuff in Iraq. It's not sexy and not news to them. There's nothing new there. We need a an old style documentary on this stuff. We're not the bad guys here. Naive but not bad...as is so often the case. Iraq isn't going please anybody. It would be nice though if every time some suicide bomb or rocket attack took place if there weren't Iraquis around tickled pink. That isn't reported much either. Media could pay some attention to the more than 1,800 veterans that have been through Walter Reed Hospital alone. That is a no no it seems. Dammit: Every generation seems to get stuck with this kind of thing. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 17th, 2003, 11:23pm The US has yet to loose as many brave men and women in Iraq as we lost innocent citizens on 9/11. If this prevents another 9/11 (which it is I believe if you don’t that is your own preference) I’m all for it. You must take the fight to the enemy. Fight them on their own ground. They say Al’kayda is going to Iraq and causing problems there. That is far better than them causing problems in the US or else ware in the world (well maybe not france ;)). The rest of the world is safer because of the US and British, and they want to bitch at us about it. What a bunch of A Holes. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 17th, 2003, 11:37pm It's pretty certain that Saddam didn't have bin Laden on speed dial. bin Laden is even too weird for the Baaths. Can't find bin Laden? Get Saddam and WMDs. Oops. Still, the world is better off without Saddam in power but sadly, this thing has probably been like a recruiting poster for these bastards. Nothing is ever easy. >:( Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 18th, 2003, 12:38am new report out last week or so alkada and saddam had definite ties. maybe not on speed dial but knew how to get in touch..... check back in the papers everyone even the french thought he had WMD they just wanted inspectors to find them and keep their oil contracts they made with a person who killed about 300,000 of his own people in the last 10 years or so. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by TomM on Nov 18th, 2003, 8:03am More food for thought. We are fighting this over THERE. This next statement will certainly stick the poker in the hornets nest so here it goes: Better the innocent Iraqi's die on their soil than innocent Americans on ours much like September 11, 2001. This IS related to that fateful day. WMD??? What do you call Mustard Gas? How about the Mobile Bio/Chem factory? You don't got that shit unless you got WMD. Here is my analogy. I have 3 propellers in my garage; I have life jackets; I have 2 ship to shore radios; I own a boat. Do you have any propellers, lifejackets, ship to shore radios? If your answer is 'No', then you don't own a boat. Yes, I am simplifying the math a tad but it adds up to me. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by floridian on Nov 18th, 2003, 11:02am How about the mobile bio/chem factory?? According to MI6, the two trucks were for producing hydrogen for weather balloons. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,973195,00.html On the other hand, if you want to get alarmed about something, consider the thousands of chemical plants in big cities in the US that have large amounts of very toxic materials and little to no security. If you are a guerilla, why develop strength when you can use your enemies massive strength. Why try to develop missiles when fuel laden planes are already at hand? |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Kirk on Nov 18th, 2003, 11:42am We're there. So be it. Congress just authorized 87 billion dollers to help the Iragi's rebuild. OK Congess dropped 14.5 billion from the Veterans Medical Care budget. My comment is unprintable. I just recieved a letter from the VA saying my prescription for Imitrex has been lowered to one a month. I can (barely) come up with the money to buy my own, but what about the other disabled veterans out there. Just thought I'd throw that into the mix. Kirk: Senior Vice Commander Chapt. 16 D.A.V. (Oregon) TTFN |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by floridian on Nov 18th, 2003, 12:00pm Kirk is pointing to a real and serious problem. This from the Disabled American Veterans website. http://www.dav.org/news/news_20030910.html Quote:
|
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by TomM on Nov 18th, 2003, 12:11pm I'm a DAV but lucky enough to have good insurance and good incomes from my wife and me. A year ago I decided to only vote for politicians who are veterans. The bastards (politicians) who are not veterans have not a clue when it comes to service related disabilities. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 18th, 2003, 6:43pm Quote:
You need to look at something besides 19th Century FOX News and reading The Standard. There may be WMDs there and believe me, if they find them, the big papers will fall all over themselves getting the story. This meathead did indeed kill his own citizens and I think it's true about the mustard gas which is deadly and has been around since WWI as a weapon. I also think the French weren't particular when dealing with Iraq. If you think they were careless, just give Halliburton and the other robber barons some time. I'm with Kirk and Tom. It's criminal the way we treat our military. I have more admiration for our armed forces than most anyone. Would that we all be as good neighbors and decent human beings. We treat them like dirt and force their families into near poverty. It's beyond disgusting. Bush & Co. admit they are trying to kill the New Deal by starving it but doing it to the VA and the military should be impeachable. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:47am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drudge's Special Reports DrudgeReportArchives.com Drudge Manifesto Today's DrudgeReport.com Time Line | Recent Headlines | Recent Pictures | Headlines by Popularity or Topics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Closed From the November 24, 2003 issue of the WEEKLY STANDARD: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes 11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11 OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies. According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis. The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq." The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors." One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details: 4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes. A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:49am 5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader. Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government." Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq. This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran). Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s: 8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti. 9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others. And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source: |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:50am 10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required. The analysis of those events follows: The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation. IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A "former senior Iraqi intelligence officer" reported that "the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad's point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz." 11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . . 14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz. That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998. According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:52am 15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan. 16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998. 17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998. 18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction. An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports: Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations. Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally." INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda." The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999. 23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden. Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir: |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:54am 24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee. One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole. 25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement." 26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training. The analysis of this report follows. CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons." Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999: 27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia. And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence. The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office. And the commentary: CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information. It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts. Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time. Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks: |
||||
|
Title: e: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:56am 31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel. The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11. Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq. 37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere. 38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions. The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance." CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror; that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely "exaggerated" for political purposes; that hawks "cherry-picked" bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public. Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look at the administration's "exaggeration of intelligence." Said Levin: "The question is whether or not they exaggerated intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that there's a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was there a basis for that?" |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 2:57am There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Gore's recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new "evidence" that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really? One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process. So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive. One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again. Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted. The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn't make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq. Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out. But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans. Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get the FREE Alexa Toolbar: Google web search, Popup Manager and much more... Matt Drudge does not own, operate or maintain this site. He is not responsible for it in any way. Drudge's E-mail drudge@drudgereport.com Archive's Ad Sales Bugs and Broken Links | Link Decay | RSS Feed | webmaster@drudgereportarchives.com |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by 12gagueblast on Nov 19th, 2003, 3:01am I know I know the DOD made up the memo and leaked it to save face. ;) i don't think so but your free to think what you will. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P by the way i think our troops should be treated better too. sorry i would have put a link to the site but i dont know how to do that. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by Charlie on Nov 19th, 2003, 8:07am Matt Drudge is all I need. Anything associated Drudge is suspect and never objective. Not worth my time. He falls into the neo con bunch. As I have said before: It's okay to be a conservative. It's not okay to be nuts. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Usa VS Iraque NONCLUSTER Post by TomM on Nov 19th, 2003, 8:15am Everyone can associate themselves to a group and within that group some are not treated well be it by the government, society, or the opposite sex. I am a DAV but you would not know it by the way I dress, the house I live in, nor the cars I drive. I am lucky but I also have worked very hard to have the perks that I own. I remember the days when I made $12k a year, having a BK Whopper was a big deal and considered "Dinner Out" (even if it has 40 grams of fat--yum yum), and a drive down the Coastal Highway was the only entertainment we could afford. Let's not forget the big picture, that is a better quality of life for EVERYONE, the pursuit of happiness, and the freedoms granted us by our Constitiution. We fight and do what we do for the better of mankind in general. My not so humble thoughts. TomM |
||||
|
Title: Case Open Post by floridian on Nov 19th, 2003, 9:41am Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |