Author Topic: Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?  (Read 4731 times)

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #105 on: June 10, 2004, 08:59:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So does the VP still own a good share of haliburton?

If so you'd rather our troops have substandard service/equipment wich may endanger them than have a "potential" conflict of interest?


he does.

no I'd rather this administration hadn't sent our troops overseas to generate bussines for companies owned by members of that administration.

the issue is not just about who gets these contracts, it is about who set up the situation (read as war), that would make these contracts available?

last extimate I heard we where planing to spend about $25 billion by the end of next year on rebuilding Iraq.  it's no secret that even in a fair competition Halliburton will win a large share of that.  and then on top of that $25B there is the money they make off of suport services for our troops.

now how much would the VPs company(and the VP personally) have made if we had done as most of the world (and the US) had thought we should and stayed the hell out of Iraq?  

again we have no reasons yet given for the war in Iraq.  or at least none that will hold up to more than a few minutes of serious scrutiny, or that was our responsability to under-take.

we are losing men and throwing good money after bad and the only ones gaining own shares in these war-for-proffit companies, and of them Halliburton is one of the biggest, and a signifigant part of it is owned by the VP.  that is the conflict of interest.

we could have acomplished the same thing if we'd have just gave them the keys to Fort knox and a fork-lift.  at least that way we would still have about 850 good Americans still walking this earth with us.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #106 on: June 10, 2004, 09:08:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
so they competed and won a bid for $1.2 B

they where also given a $7 B no-bid contract before the war was even started.

I find it a major conflict of interest to have the VP of our country as a major shareholder in a company that is receiving huge profits from the actions of this administration.  especially when much of those profits are received through no-bid contracts.

these conflicts, combined with Halliburtons generosity to the Bush campaign during the 2000 election, and the fluidness of the reason(s) why this war was necessary, should alarm anyone who is paying attention.

  that kind of blind trust isn't healthy for our nation.


I've already posted this about 4 times, so once again, for those who were not paying attention:

Haliburton was awarded several (bordering on a couple of dozen) no bid contracts by THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION throughout the entire 8 years of that administration.

Why is it we should now exclude a company that has provided required services for the country for decades, in high risk, high security locations and conditions, with or without bids, when often there is no other truly viable company to do the job?

We've already had a soldier (you know, those guys who went overseas and fought, those guys who the idiot frothing at the mouth liberals pretend to be so concerned with) tell us how he and his comrades suffered because a Haliburton subsidiary was given the bums rush because of this bu!!ch!t witchhunt, and replaced with a basically incompetent competitor that did not serve the troops and their needs half as well.

So the truth is, for decades, Haliburton and their subsidiaries have served their country, regardless of the sitting administration, with both bid and no bid contracts. It was perfectly okay for this to go on for the previous administration, but the current administration should be forbidden to use the most qualified company, just as previous administrations have, for the same jobs, under the same type of contracts, and under the same conditions. That is BRILLIANT!!!!
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #107 on: June 10, 2004, 09:14:08 PM »
Captain Virgil Hilts,

Well said. :aok However, even if they see your point I don't think they are going to concede the point...if that makes sense.

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #108 on: June 10, 2004, 09:16:37 PM »
How does that relate to the conflict of interest?

Hows about if Cheney owned mass amounts of shares in some gigantic road construction company, and upon his becoming VP alluhvasudden all these road expansion projects started happening?

Maybe the roads needed work. And maybe Cheney's company was the best for the job. Or, maybe they didn't and maybe Cheney's company wasn't. Who knows?

IMHO, anyone who stands to profit from war should not be allowed a position to create one.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Break out the tinfoil hats!!!!
« Reply #109 on: June 10, 2004, 09:23:01 PM »
The black helicopters are here!!!!!!!

How truly absurd is the notion that Iraq was invaded to provide lucrative no bid contracts for Haliburton?

Get real folks. That has got to be the most absurd line of unadulterated horsech!t I have ever heard.

Let's see here, we have a President with one of the highest ratings in history after the first year of action after 11 September 2001, and a company already providing services for armed forces all over the world and getting lucrative contracts to continue this service. But this extremely popular and successful President and his administration decide to take 18 months leading up to a very controversial, expensive, dangerous, and deadly war. And they do this just so that Haliburton can win huge lucrative contracts.

And you believe Iraq was invaded to make Cheney rich.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Re: Break out the tinfoil hats!!!!
« Reply #110 on: June 10, 2004, 09:27:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
How truly absurd is the notion that Iraq was invaded to provide lucrative no bid contracts for Haliburton?


Laff all ya want. Absurd reason for going to war? You really wanna go there? Hows about you giving us the non-absurd reason? Your "extremely popular presisident" struck out there. So go ahead and give us the non-absurd reason, wiseguy.

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #111 on: June 10, 2004, 09:59:13 PM »
Quote
But this extremely popular and successful President and his administration decide to take 18 months leading up to a very controversial, expensive, dangerous, and deadly war. And they do this just so that Halliburton can win huge lucrative contracts.

And you believe Iraq was invaded to make Cheney rich.


 finally, now you're catching up with the rest of the country.

you see some people where a little faster on the uptake, which accounts for a formerly extremely popular president, not being quite so extremely popular anymore.

I didn't vote for the man the fist time around, and I don't think he's good for our country.  but after 9/11, we traced the alquada terrorists to Afghanistan and had to invade.  I supported that(as most of the country did), and supported Bush, he seemed to be making good decisions.

then they got on to the idea of invading Iraq.  or more accurately they decided to start talking publicly about their plans to invade Iraq.

they saw money to be made and thought they could just toss it in with the whole 'war on terror' package.  I guess they figured we where to stupid to tell one rag-head from another, and would cheer them on without wondering why we where fighting them.

it worked on a lot of people, but some Americans had been paying enough attention to ask why we where going after Iraq.

we got a bunch of different answers, not many made sense and when they fell apart this administration just pulled a new reason out of their ass.
  for the billionth time, let go through some of them again-

1.  it's because they won't cooperate with the UN and follow UN resolutions.

A: thats the UN's job to enforce UN resolutions. and the UN doesn't want us to go in.  you can't go against someones wishes and say your actions are in support of them.  so reason #1 is BS

2. they have WMD that are an immediate threat to our countries security.

A: they haven't been found.  much of the 'proof' that they where there at the time of invasion was found to be unreliable or just plain fabricated.  had they actually had them and were ready to use them, why didn't they use them on us when we invaded?  SH faces a good chance of execution as it is, he had nothing to lose by using these weapons to try and keep his country.

 if you use the argument that he didn't because he was afraid of our reaction, then that would cancel out the whole argument of them being a threat to our security, since he was afraid to use them on us.

to sum up reason #2 is BS

3.  SH is a evil man and should be taken out of office.

A:  simply put it's not our job.  our politicians are elected to look after the best interest of America, not Iraq.  policing other peoples gov'ts is that countries business, not ours.  worst case scenario the UN can deal with it.

sum up reason #3- it is not our war to fight.

4.  this administration ran this war for private reasons, mostly relating to profit.  the war sold to America was just a scam to pull it off.  they used it as a way to drain our Treasury and the only Americans to see any benefit are those who make money off of war.  good men died, wifes are widows, children are fatherless, families separated and members of this administration and their buddy's are richer.

A: and your well thought out reason why this isn't possible is  ":rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl "

well at least you thought it through :rolleyes:

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #112 on: June 10, 2004, 10:01:45 PM »
Would you listen if I did?


Once more. Bush said after 11 September 2001: "ANY nation supporting terrorism will be a candidate for regime change".

Now, read here: http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf
and tell me afterwards how Saddam Hussien's regime was not one of the most constant, consistent, and dedicated backers of terrorism world wide, especially against the United States.

Or, if your are too lazy or otherwise unwilling to go to the article, I'll make an attempt to bring it to you.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #113 on: June 10, 2004, 10:05:45 PM »
Their opposition to Bush has forced  a lot of democratic liberals to say something that I never thought I'd hear them say ...  "I am not my brother's keeper."

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Part one
« Reply #114 on: June 10, 2004, 10:05:53 PM »
“Inever believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden,
al Qaeda, and Islamist terrorism,” former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright flatly declared in an October 21 essay published in Australia’s
Melbourne Herald Sun.i
“Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it
one,” said Senator Ted Kennedy (D–Massachusetts) on October 16. “We were
told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al Qaeda. It was not.”ii
As President Bush continues to lead America’s involvement in Iraq, he
increasingly is being forced to confront those who dismiss Saddam Hussein’s ties
to terrorism and, thus, belittle a key rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush’s
critics wield a flimsy and disingenuous argument that nonetheless enjoys growing
appeal among a largely hostile press corps. Hussein did not personally order the
September 11 attacks, the fuzzy logic goes, hence he has no significant ties to terrorists,
especially al Qaeda. Consequently, the Iraq war was launched under
bogus assumptions, and, therefore, Bush should be defeated in November 2004.
West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s ranking
Democrat, exemplified this thinking recently when he told the Los Angeles Times
that Iraq’s alleged al Qaeda ties were “tenuous at best and not compelling.”iii In a
September 16 editorial, the L.A. Times slammed Vice President Dick Cheney for
making “sweeping, unproven claims about Saddam Hussein’s connections to terrorism.”
On August 7, former vice president Albert Gore stated flatly, “The evidence
now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin
Laden at all.”iv
All of these claims about a lack of ties between Hussein and terrorists, however,
are untrue, and it is important that debate on this vital issue be informed
by facts. The president
and his national
security team should
devote entire
speeches and publications—
complete with
names, documents,
and visuals, including
the faces of terrorists
and their innocent
victims—to remind
Americans and the
world that Baathist
Iraq was a general
store for terrorists,
complete with cash,
training, lodging, and
medical attention.
Indeed, this magazine
article could serve as a model for the kinds of communications
that the administration regularly should generate
to set the record straight about Hussein and terrorism and
reassert the reasons behind the Iraq mission.
Such an effort to reinvigorate U.S. public diplomacy on
Iraq should be easy. After all, the evidence of Hussein’s
cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant
and increasing, to wit:
Saddam Hussein’s Habitual Support for Terrorists
Both supporters and opponents of Islamic terror have provided
abundant evidence of Hussein’s aid for a wide array
of terrorists. Consider the following.
• Hussein paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families
of Palestinian homicide bombers.
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of
the Palestinian political office, Faroq al Kaddoumi, his decision
to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of
the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,”
Iraq’s former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, announced
at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen
on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later.v
Mahmoud Besharat, who the White House says disbursed
these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said,
“You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being
so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this
distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”vi
Such largesse poured forth until the eve of the Iraq war.
As Knight-Ridder’s Carol Rosenberg reported from
Gaza City last March 13: “In a graduation-style ceremony
Wednesday, the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting
Israelis received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of
appreciation and a kiss on each cheek—compliments of
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” She added: “The certificates
declared the gift from President Saddam Hussein; the checks
were cut at a Gaza branch of the Cairo-Amman bank.”
This festivity, attended by some 400 people and organized
by the then-Baghdad-backed Arab Liberation Front,
occurred March 12, just eight days before American-led
troops crossed the Iraqi frontier.vii
Hussein’s patronage of Palestinian terror proved fatally
fruitful. Between the March 11, 2002, increase in cash incentives
to $25,000 and the March 20, 2003, launch of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured
1,209 people and killed 223 more, including 12 Americans.viii
• According to the U.S. State Department’s May 21,
2002, report on Patterns of Global Terrorism,ix the Abu
Nidal Organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front,
Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Mujahedin-e-
Khalq Organization, and the Palestine Liberation Front
all operated offices or bases in Hussein’s Iraq. Hussein’s
hospitality toward these mass murderers directly violated
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687,
which prohibited him from granting safe haven to or
otherwise sponsoring terrorists.
• Key terrorists enjoyed Hussein’s warmth, some so
recently that Coalition
forces subsequently found
them alive and well and
living in Iraq. Among
them:
• U.S. Special Forces
nabbed Abu Abbas last
April 14 just outside
Baghdad. Abbas masterminded
the October 7–9,
1985, Achille Lauro
cruise ship hijacking in
which Abbas’s men shot
passenger Leon
Klinghoffer, a 69-year
old Manhattan retiree,
then rolled him, wheelchair
and all, into the
Mediterranean. Abbas
briefly was in Italian custody
at the time, but was
released that October 12
because he possessed an
Iraqi diplomatic passport.
Since 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam
Hussein’s protection.x
• Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of
the ANO, surrendered to the First
Marine Division in Baghdad on April 18.
As the Sunday Times of London reported
on August 25, 2002, a Palestinian
source said that al Salahat and Nidal
had furnished Libyan agents the Semtex
bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103
over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December
21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11
on the ground. The 189 Americans murdered
on the sabotaged Boeing 747
included 35 Syracuse University students
who had spent the fall semester in
Scotland and were heading home for
the holidays.xi
• Before fatally shooting himself in the
head with four bullets on August 16,
2002, as straight-faced Baathist officials
claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal
(born Sabri al Banna) had lived in Iraq
since at least 1999. As the Associated
Press’s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on
August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the
ANO said that he entered Iraq “with the
full knowledge and preparations of the
Iraqi authorities.”xii Nidal’s attacks in 20
countries killed 407 people and
wounded 788 more, the U.S. State
Department calculates. Among other
atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb
exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew
from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet
was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people
on board.xiii
• Coalition troops have shut down at least three terrorist
training camps in Iraq, including a base approximately
15 miles southeast of Baghdad, called Salman Pak.xiv
Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors had said that
the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists
sharpened their air piracy skills.xv
“There have been several confirmed sightings of Islamic
fundamentalists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf states
being trained in terror tactics at the Iraqi intelligence camp
at Salman Pak,” said Khidir Hamza, Iraq’s former nuclearweapons
chief, in sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002. “The training
involved assassination, explosions, and hijacking.”xvi
“This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the
whole world,” former Iraqi army captain Sabah Khodada
told PBS’s Frontline TV program in an October 14, 2001
interview.xvii Khodada, who worked at Salman Pak, said,
“Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes,
trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities . . . how
to prepare for suicidal operations.” Khodada added, “We saw
people getting trained to hijack airplanes. . . . They are even
trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives
provided in the plane.” A map of the camp that Khodada
drew from memory for Frontline closely matches satellite
photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.xviii
These facts clearly disprove the above-quoted statements
by Senator Kennedy and the Los Angeles Times and
similar claims made by others. The Bush administration
could advance American interests by busing a few dozen foreign
correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of
Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour.
Network news footage of that might open a few eyes.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #115 on: June 10, 2004, 10:07:38 PM »
rofl... the Hudson Institute?

My turn:

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Part two
« Reply #116 on: June 10, 2004, 10:08:45 PM »
Saddam Hussein’s al Qaeda Connections
As for Hussein’s supposedly imaginary ties to al Qaeda, consider
these disturbing facts:
• The Philippine government expelled Hisham al
Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq’s Manila embassy,
on February 13, 2003. Cell phone records indicate that
the Iraqi diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and
Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and
just after their al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group
conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf’s
nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring
23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special
Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age
40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the Christian Science
Monitor last February 26, those phone records bolster
Sali’s claim in a November 2002 TV interview that the
Iraqi diplomat had offered these Muslim extremists
Baghdad’s help with joint missions.xix
• The Weekly Standard’s intrepid reporter Stephen F.
Hayes noted in the magazine’s July 11, 2003, issue that
the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper published
by Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, had revealed a terrorist connection
in what it called a “List of Honor” published a few months
earlier.xx The paper’s November 14, 2002, edition gave the
names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis and included the following
passage: “Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence offi-
cer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama
bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.” That name,
Hayes wrote, “matches that of Iraq’s then-ambassador to
Islamabad.”
Carter-appointed federal appeals judge Gilbert S. Merritt discovered
this document in Baghdad while helping rebuild Iraq’s
legal system. He wrote in the June 25 issue of the Tennessean
that two of his Iraqi colleagues remember secret police agents
removing that embarrassing edition from newsstands and con-
fiscating copies of it from private homes.xxi The paper was not
published for the next 10 days. Judge Merritt theorized that the
“impulsive and somewhat unbalanced” Uday may have showcased
these dedicated Baathists to “make them more loyal and
supportive of the regime” as war
loomed.
• Abu Musab al Zarqawi, formerly
the director of an al Qaeda training
base in Afghanistan, fled to
Iraq after being injured as the
Taliban fell. He received medical
care and convalesced for two
months in Baghdad. He then
opened an Ansar al Islam terrorist
training camp in northern Iraq
and arranged the October 2002
assassination of U.S. diplomat
Lawrence Foley in Amman,
Jordan.
• Although Iraqi Ramzi Yousef,
ringleader of the February 26,
1993, World Trade Center (WTC)
bombing plot, fled the United
States on Pakistani papers, he
came to America on an Iraqi passport.
• As Richard Miniter, author of this
year’s bestseller Losing bin Laden,
reported on September 25, 2003,
on the Tech Central Station webpage,
“U.S. forces recently discovered
a cache of documents in
Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown,
which shows Iraq gave [al Qaeda
member] Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a
monthly salary.” The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been
charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb
that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and
injuring 1,042 individuals.xxii Indicted by federal prosecutors as
a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin is on the FBI’s Most-
Wanted Terrorists list.xxiii ABC News confirmed, on July 27,
1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled
freely and visited his father’s home almost daily.xxiv
• Near Iraq’s border with Syria last April 25, U.S. troops captured
Farouk Hijazi, Hussein’s former ambassador to Turkey and suspected
liaison between Iraq and al Qaeda. Under interrogation,
Stephen Hayes reports, Hijazi “admitted meeting with senior al
Qaeda leaders at Saddam’s behest in 1994.”xxv
• While sifting through the Mukhabarat’s bombed ruins last April
26, the Toronto Star’s Mitch Potter, the
London Daily Telegraph’s Inigo Gilmore, and
their translator discovered a memo in the
intelligence service’s accounting department.
Dated February 19, 1998, and marked “Top
Secret and Urgent,” the document said that
the agency would pay “all the travel and hotel
expenses 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 Saudi opposition leader, about the
future of our relationship with him, and to
achieve a direct meeting with him.” The
memo’s three references to bin Laden were
obscured crudely with correction fluid.xxvi
These facts directly refute the claims of
Senator Rockefeller and Secretary Albright mentioned
at the top of this article. The ties between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are clear and compelling.

Despite the White House’s inexplicable insistence
to the contrary, tantalizing clues suggest that
Saddam Hussein’s jaw might not have dropped to
the floor when fireballs erupted from the Twin
Towers two years ago.
• His Salman Pak terror camp taught terrorists
how to hijack passenger jets with cutlery, as
noted earlier.
• On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir—
an Iraqi VIP facilitator reportedly dispatched
from Baghdad’s embassy in Malaysia—greeted
Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala
Lampur’s airport, where he worked. He then
escorted them to a local hotel, where these
September 11 hijackers met with 9-11 conspirators
Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash.
Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes,
Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar
on September 17, 2001, six days after al
Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American
Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing
216 people. Soon after he was apprehended,
authorities discovered documents on Shakir’s
person and in his apartment connecting him to
the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation
Bojinka,” al Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12
jets simultaneously over the Pacific.xxvii
• Although the Bush administration has
expressed doubts, the Czech government
stands by its claim that September 11 leader
Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001
with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al Ani, an Iraqi
diplomat/intelligence agent. In a February 24
letter to James Beasley Jr., a Philadelphia
lawyer who represents the families of two
Twin Towers casualties, Czech UN Ambassador
Hynek Kmonicek embraced an October 26,
2001, statement by Czech Interior Minister Stanislav
Gross:
In this moment we can confirm, that during the
next stay of Mr. Muhammad [sic] Atta in the
Czech Republic, there was the contact with the
official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani,
Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd
April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on
the basis of activities which were not compatible
with the diplomatic status.”xxviii
Al Ani was expelled two weeks after the suspected
meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of
Radio Free Europe’s Prague headquarters. That building
also happened to house America’s anti-Baathist station,
Radio Free Iraq. The Czech government continues
to claim, in short, that the 9-11 mastermind Atta met
with at least one Iraqi intelligence official in the
months during which the attacks were orchestrated.
• A Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge, Harold
Baer, ordered Hussein, his ousted regime, Osama bin
Laden, and others to pay $104 million in damages to
the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas
(clients of Beasley, the aforementioned attorney), both
of whom were killed in the Twin Towers along with
2,750 others. “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown,
albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that
Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al
Qaeda,” Baer ruled. An airtight case? Perhaps not, but
the court found that there was sufficient evidence to tie
Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks and
secure a May 7 federal judgment against him.xxix
If one takes the time to connect these dots—as is the
professional duty of journalists and politicians who address
this matter—a clear portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as
a sugar daddy to global terrorists including al Qaeda and
even the 9-11 conspirators. As Americans grow increasingly
restless about Washington’s continuing military presence in
Iraq, to say nothing of what people think overseas, the
administration ought to paint this picture. So why won’t
they?
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Part three
« Reply #117 on: June 10, 2004, 10:10:10 PM »
One Bush administration communications specialist told me
that the government is bashful about all of this because
these links are difficult to prove. And indeed they are. But
prosecuting the informational battle in the War on Terrorism
is not like prosecuting a Mafia don, which typically requires
rock-solid exhibits such as wiretap intercepts, hidden-camera
footage, DNA samples, and the testimony of deep-cover
“Mob rats.” On the contrary, it is important to emphasize, as
strongly as possible, that the United States need not—and in
fact should not—hold itself to courtroom standards of evidence
except when appearing before domestic or international
judges. The administration merely has to demonstrate
its claims and refute those of its opponents, not convict
Saddam Hussein before a jury of his peers.
Moreover, those who argue that Hussein was no terror
master do not hold themselves to such lofty standards of
proof, as the examples noted earlier demonstrate. The
appropriate standard of evidence, then, to be entirely fair to
both sides in this controversy, is not that of a trial, but
rather that of a hearing on whether a criminal suspect
should be indicted. In this respect, the “prosecution” defi-
nitely has a prima facie case that Hussein’s Iraq indeed was
a haven for terrorists until the moment U.S. troops invaded.
Terrorist attacks, of course, are meant to be at least as
shadowy as Cosa Nostra hit jobs. Although this makes
metaphysical proof elusive, it is possible
to reach reliable conclusions about
such matters, even conclusions solid
enough to justify military intervention.
Hence, the White House and its
relevant agencies owe it to the
American people to highlight what
they know about Saddam Hussein and
terrorism, even if some (though not
all) of this damning evidence is only
circumstantial.
Assuming that he wishes to influence
domestic and global opinion,
President Bush and his administration
immediately should guide Americans
and the world through these sometimes-
murky specifics and identify the
patterns and conclusions that have
arisen. Although the former Iraqi dictator
never may endure a courtroom
cross-examination, plenty of evidence
clearly exists in the public record (and
more should be declassified) to con-
firm that Saddam Hussein’s ouster,
Iraq’s liberation, and its current rehabilitation
were and are vital phases of
the continuing War on Terrorism. An
American failure in Iraq, conversely,
could reinstate the ancien regime and
restore Iraq’s status as Terror Central
Station.
President Bush and his top advisers
urgently need to present this case,
not haphazardly, but systematically
and in as comprehensive, well-documented,
and well-illustrated a fashion
as their vast resources will allow.
New York commentator Deroy
Murdock is a columnist with the
Scripps Howard News Service and a
Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic
Research Foundation in Fairfax,
Virginia. This piece amplifies an earlier
version on National Review Online.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #118 on: June 10, 2004, 10:17:03 PM »
Capt Apothy with all his libralism would still rather see US GIs killed in action because of poor equipment than a possible conflict of interest w/ the VP.  Nope you havnt said it but you havnt denied it either.  You let your cold hatred of the pres. get in the way of morals and better judgment.  I really wish librals could take their blinders off for a minute every now and then.

I see more librals now quaking in their boots because the war in Iraq is actually going better....a better Iraq might equal four more years of Bush....and they'd rather see it the other way around.

When I read in the paper the other day that the Marines lost the battle of Faluja (spelling) I knew it was over for them.  They have resorted to re-writing history as it happens just to suit their needs.  Its tragic that these Americans think this way but oh well...that's them.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 10:20:05 PM by Gunslinger »

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #119 on: June 10, 2004, 10:17:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
rofl... the Hudson Institute?

My turn:

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl


Okay hotshot, you're so damned smart, prove it all wrong. Come on, show us your dazzling brilliance. Prove the article is false. Can you? Show us how your souces are better. Show us how they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq for the express purpose of awarding lucrative contracts to Cheney Haliburton and its subsidiaries. Prove it. Back your baseless paranoid assumptions and theories up with something you seem to be EXTREMELY short on. FACTS

Show us, if you can, that Saddam Hussien was NOT exactly what the article says he was. And that there was no need to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussien because he was supporting terrorism.

And the article is just found at the Hudson Institue. It was originally written for the National Review Online.

Oh, by the way, did you READ  the article, or did you just dismiss it out of hand because YOU  don't LIKE the source?
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe