Please review the Iraq Liberation Act and the speech given by clinton in 1988 explaining why he bomb
Posted By: Observer on 2007-01-05
In Reply to: Yes, very interesting article. Here's one from CNN sm - LVMT
Operation Desert Fox. Bush, nor conservatives, were the first to call for regime change in Iraq. Clinton signed in a LAW calling for just that. I posted the act below. Both sides have called for regime change, only one side made it a law...that would be yours. Can we move on to another subject now?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I appreciate your candid review of the speech....
and the lack of attack.
This is my take on it: The Bush doctrine is comprised of several tenets, not the first of which is the pre-emptive strike to avoid attack issue. He asked a broad question and she asked for clarification, which he refused to provide. So she gave a broad answer. As soon as he identified which part of the doctrine he was referring to, she gave the correct answer. It was obvious he wanted to trap her into saying something, in fact hammered her to make a mistake, which she refused to do. I thought she was very good.
As far as foreign policy neophyte...not any more than Bill Clinton was the first time he ran. That is why he surrounded himelf with people he considered to be foreign policy experts. That is what a President does. If John McCain dropped dead two weeks into the Presidency, she would surround herself with foreign policy experts...the same way every President before her has done. I do not see that as a valid argument.
Obama is as far from a foreign policy expert as he can be, and he knows it, that is why he selected Biden, and we get Obama first chair day 1. You can accept him day 1...I can accept her in the 2nd seat.
She is certainly more versed in energy policy than either of them, which is also extremely important to this country. They would both need advisors in that area.
No one person is well versed in every aspect. That is why there are cabinets and advisors. All Presidents have them and will continue to have them.
What she does bring to the table that none of the others do is experience running a government. She has done it at the local level and she has done it at the state level. That makes her more ready to step in the #1 seat than Obama. No one has to teach her to run a government.
That is why I am comfortable with her. I understand that you are not. I would suggest that if she needs more years before running for public office...so does Barack Obama.
Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts
Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.
June 30, 2005
Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.
Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.
Analysis
Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.
The Bloodshed
Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.
Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?
What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index." The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.
The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.
The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.
Reconstruction Progress
In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:
Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . . Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.
Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.
On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.
Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.
Conclusions or Facts?
The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"
Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.
In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.
Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.
The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.
Terrorism
Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.
Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .
Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.
Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:
Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.
But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.
Osama bin Laden
Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":
Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."
In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.
--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst
Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman
If these are the WMD we went in for, which had been buried since 1988...sm
That's still no justification for war. And this proves what exactly?
Yes I do, 1988 Bush the first. nm
.
I tell you, I didn't know that Pat Robertson tried to get on the republican ticket in 1988...sm
and I was enjoying the 700 club last year. They have some good Christian stories on there and motivational things that I actually liked. That was until one day Pat started talking politics and throwing his opinions around as if they were God's. That show hasn't gotten a rating point from me since then. He's definitely a radical in my book.
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
You left out black liberation theology....
cornerstone of the church.
Go read black liberation theology....
and YOU decide who is the racist. There are black racists. Wright is one...Farrakhan is one...
Are you for socialism, black liberation theology,
redistribution of wealth?
Go and read up on black liberation theology....
as taught by his church of 20 years, and then come back with a straight face and say he considers himself as much black as white. That is racism on THEIR part, not mine.
let's review
Wow, have you ever been brainwashed. That's exactly what a good Democrat/socialist is. What don't you get about the fact that gov't give-aways are paid by the little people! It's called redistribution of wealth. As for the 250K, you still don't get it. It seems very likely that most of us know at least 1 or 2 people who make that much and own a business. What if your offspring worked for one of these people and got let go due to inability to pay the taxes and salaries.
Compare your tax return if this man gets elected to your previous ones. Cripes, what part of the Bush tax cuts expiring doesn't alone compute to more $ coming out of your pocket?
Can anyone honestly justify why both the inheritance and death taxes should be double-taxed? For example, if your family/parents (etc.) paid 25% on those amounts and you get taxed an additional 25% on them, you've just paid 50% taxes! Welcome to the "rich" category, suckers!
its from the national review -
not worth reading, notorious right wing organization.
Well, you should review Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
maybe you should review the above posts?!
--
Who should be bomb next?
Check thsi out..I hope it works, if not check out Crooks and Liars website and watch it there. People are asked which country we should bomb next and they actually name other countries!! And their knowledge of geography is frightening. If I was asked..what country should be bomb and invade next I would say NONE, LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! Amazing.
Who would you bomb next?
CNNN (not US) asks people On the Streets of America who they would bomb next.
Video-Wmp Bittorrent-WMP
Video-QT- Bittorrent-QT
during your extensive Bible review.....
And your extensive knowledge on how much of a sin homosexuality part is, did you miss the part on how judging others is also a sin, and how a SIN IS A SIN in the eyes of God, no sin is more pertinent than the other?
Marmann, I think you need to do a little history review....
//
Thank you for explaining that...
Wondered how it passed the Democrats! Thought it was some kind of conspiracy on both sides, which would be a disaster. He wants this to stay as part of "law of the land" which is a terrific fear for everyone who loves real "freedom" and not the Bush type of "freedom spread around the world" LOL! Give me plain old freedom here in the United States. If Iraq, or any other sovereign nation, wants freedom, they should fight for it themselves, or at least ASK to let us bomb them....I'm sorry, that's my sense of humor...:) terrible, terrible.
Thanks for explaining it to me..... sm
I can see I may have upset you and I didn't mean to. Your opinion is your own, of course, but I would disagree with when an embryo starts to live. Being "radically pro-life" as I said I was, I naturally believe that a baby is a baby at conception. But that's just my belief. The truth of the matter is that the heart starts to beat at around the 21st day from conception, so with a beating heart, would that not be considered a living person?
There really is no need to answer me because I don't want to get into a battle over when life begins because our view points are so vastly different and feelings could be hurt. Thank you for sharing your point of view with me. It does help me understand the different mindsets as they relate to abortion.
Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...
... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people.
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough. 
Looks like you do not want to take a stab at explaining
Buffet and Soros manipulated the entire economic picture all by their lonesome. If all you want to do is cram more socialist rhetoric into the dialog, then it is a waste of time to address it....especially since it is coming from a faction of votes who do not have the foggiest notion of the meaning of the term, much less the historical structure of their own tax system. BTDT.
Sm does not need your help explaining her motives.
x
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
Conservative Sites for Non-Bomb-Throwers
I'm posting this again, since it got lost in the shuffle.
I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less. I will probably just ignore it. These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers. If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me). The show itself is very funny in my opinion. Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people. I've become very good friends with a couple people from there. I found out one of them lives in the same city as me. Talk about a small world! Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:
There are many more. Here are a few off the top of my head:
townhall.com
heritage.org
pajamastv.com
newsbusters.org
tammybruce.com
nationalreview.com
hotair.com
michellemalkin.com
newt.org
Of course, let us not forget:
rushlimbaugh.com
marklevinshow.com
hannity.com
anncoulter.com
lauraingraham.com
Another thing many don't know is that The History Channel is owned/run by libs, so watch with caution. I personally prefer War Stories with Oliver North on FNC. Tammy Bruce was formerly president (or whatever they call it) of NOW, but not now. She has a very interesting story to tell about their ways of doing business. I wonder if any libs will look into this. And imagine this, a conservative lesbian!
So enjoy, you few conservatives!
Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,
The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple.
Conservative Sites for Non-Bomb-Throwers
I'm posting this again, since it got lost in the shuffle.
I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less. I will probably just ignore it. These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers. If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me). The show itself is very funny in my opinion. Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people. I've become very good friends with a couple people from there. I found out one of them lives in the same city as me. Talk about a small world! Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:
There are many more. Here are a few off the top of my head:
townhall.com
heritage.org
pajamastv.com
newsbusters.org
tammybruce.com
nationalreview.com
hotair.com
michellemalkin.com
newt.org
Of course, let us not forget:
rushlimbaugh.com
marklevinshow.com
hannity.com
anncoulter.com
lauraingraham.com
Another thing many don't know is that The History Channel is owned/run by libs, so watch with caution. I personally prefer War Stories with Oliver North on FNC. Tammy Bruce was formerly president (or whatever they call it) of NOW, but not now. She has a very interesting story to tell about their ways of doing business. I wonder if any libs will look into this. And imagine this, a conservative lesbian!
So enjoy, you few conservatives!
Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,
The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple.
If Netanyahu continues to bomb Gaza,
then Obama has to do some action, words are not enough anymore regarding this conflict.
Most probably Obama, as he is a wise guy, he will curtail US' financial and weapon support to Israel.
Obama will not start the bombing and he will not torture.
Google has an official explaining for it.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html
Don't waste your breath explaining it to them
They will only interpret everything you say as bashing. All logic is lost on some people.
Obama was explaining to his fundraisers
why PA et. al. were not showing their support for him, going for Hilary, and he told them the truth. I am from PA, and people around here are bitter that their jobs are outsourced and having financial problems. The importance of his statement is that he was/is exactly right, and he does have his finger on the pulse of the people and does relate to common folks. That's the point of "cling to their guns and religion." He was not being condescending or demeaning, just trying to explain to his fundraisers why he was not doing so well in PA.
As for writing two books "before he accomplished anything," seems to me you are bitter and cling to your religion and guns. What the h--- is wrong with writing books, with being intelligent? Is being intelligent and able to write two books a curse? Give me a break with the phony accusations.
Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case...sm
Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case
April 15, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter/ dnewbart@suntimes.com
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has been hit with a series of bomb threats since leading a charge to get shock jock Don Imus fired.
Jackson said he fielded a call Saturday morning urging him to watch his back and warning him to stay away from Rainbow/PUSH headquarters on the South Side.
Friday, a Jackson staffer took a call from someone who claimed to have planted a bomb at the headquarters at 50th and Drexel. The building was evacuated about 12:30 p.m., and police swept the building with bomb-sniffing dogs. Nothing was found.
Jackson said he has received 10 to 12 threats starting Wednesday or Thursday. The calls have gone to his office, his home and his cell phone. Although he hasn't fielded most of the calls, he said he believes there are different people behind them.
A police spokeswoman said an investigation is ongoing.
In New York, meanwhile, WCBSTV.com reported the Rev. Al Sharpton has also received death threats after criticizing Imus.
Imus was fired from his radio show for calling members of the Rutgers women's basketball team nappy-headed hos.
Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force
into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy.
Thanks to their last fiasco when they tried this in Lebanon, Hezbollah has an 80+% approval rating among Lebanese factions (13 points higher than O) and its support among Lebanese Sunni Sunni, Christians and Druze soared in 2006. Their demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors, especially in the aftermath of Israel's failed massacre, when protests against PM Siniora sent his approval ratings into a deep-6.
Hezbollah was given veto power in the parliment via the Doha Agreement in 2008 and under its newly formed National Unity Government, Hezbollah gained the Labor Minister's appointment and holds 11 out of 30 seats, or slightly over one-third alongside Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Maronites, Armenians, Shia, Sunni and Druz.
So you see, instead of giving Hezbollah the boot, Israel legitimized their standing the Lebanese government.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932008_Lebanese_political_protests
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/UnityGovernmentEN.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
The prior poster was explaining the church ministries
those ministries were consistent with Obama's life experiences, his political career and his current campaign platform. Voters like a consistent candidate with a consistent message, a concept that seems to elude many McCain supporters and certainly goes right over the heads of his campaign managers.
The previous poster was implying that perhaps members of the congregation, both past and present, find value and purpose in those ministries and often choose to participate in the church ministries that service their immediate communities and benefit those who are in the most need wherein, according to Matthew's gospel, the Spirit of Jesus dwells. Some of us really like that about Obama and find it admirable that he embodies this decidedly Christian principle and understands that that we all will be judged by the measure of how we treat the least among us.
My best guess is that the previous poster does not necessarily believe that Christian evangelical pastors of any and all colors are exactly void of fanaticism, bigotry and hatred. Rev Wright certainly may have appeal to some members of that congregation whose core beliefs he reflects, just as John Hagee has a certain appeal to some of his congregation. Having said that, there is still no direct evidence that Hagee reflects McCain's core beliefs any more than there is evidence that Wright reflects Obama's...except in the minds of those who are in charge of the hate patrol.
It doesnt work. Link explaining some things.
nm
"kill him" speech is not acceptable free speech - it is against the law - nm
x
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.
Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.
I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.
Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.
Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.
Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.
For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.
A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.
A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.
Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.
Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.
There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.
It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.
The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.
Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.
Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
___
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.
why are we in iraq?
I think the reasons we are in Iraq were said best at the Downing Street Memo hearing held by Representative Conyers and attended by Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan (mother of a son killed in Iraq), Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA analyst and Mr. Bonifaz, attorney. We are there because of *OIL* - Oil, Israel and Location. We need to get out of Iraq NOW. Bush lied to America and the world. There were no WMD, which most of us enlightened people knew, there was no threat from a country broken down by sanctions we placed on it after the Gulf War. Bush needs to be impeached..Just my 2 cents, folks..
why are we in Iraq?
BUSH---Bring our boys back home...they don't need to be there to get killed...and every day there are more and
more....lucky Bush had daughters...or maybe he would ha ve the boys home by now..but he got away doing things so, his daughters if they were sons...would too....
LETS START A WAR WITH BUSH
BRING OUR BOYS BACK HOME!!!!
Iraq
Gee, wasnt one of the many reasons Bush and Blair told America and England for invading a soverign country was that it would make us safer?? Doesnt the warmonger in the White House still say that?? Lying once again..It has made us less safe and has caused a few terrorists to grow to thousands around the world that hate us totally and want to destroy us. Thanks, Bush, you screwed up again.
Why we're really in Iraq.
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:59:47 -0700
By Russ Baker
Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.
In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush’s ghostwriter after Bush’s handlers concluded that the candidate’s views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.
According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.
The revelations on Bush’s attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush’s grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.
Herskowitz also revealed the following:
-In 2003, Bush’s father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son’s invasion of Iraq.
-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been “excused.”
-Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
-Bush described his own business ventures as “floundering” before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews—in which he expressed consternation that Bush’s true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people —Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.
Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. “I don’t know anybody that’s ever said a bad word about Mickey,” said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz’s account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.
One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. “I can’t go near this,” he said.
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”
Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.”
Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.
“I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. “He said, ‘No I haven’t, and I won’t, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.’ Brent would not have talked to him without the old man’s okaying it.” Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush’s administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.
Herskowitz’s revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush’s pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,” wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ [Bush] grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,” said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.’s father…It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush’s first big clinker. ”
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.
Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush’s father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)
In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush’s staff expressed displeasure —often over Herskowitz’s use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush’s own words to describe the Texan’s unprofitable business ventures, writing: “the companies were floundering”. “I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, ‘You’ve got some wrong information.’ I didn’t bother to say, ‘Well you know where it came from.’ [The lawyer] said, ‘We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.’ ”
In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz’s account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. “The lawyer called me and said, ‘Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.’ ”
“They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it,” he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.
According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard – and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was “excused.” This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush’s claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama – though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial “rewards” for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.
Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 – which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane – military or civilian – again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.
In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush’s father to write a book about the current president’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. “Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his office…He said, ‘I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.’ ”
“He said to me, ‘I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it’s amazing how many times something good will come out of it.’ I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], ‘Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?’ He said yes.”
That book, Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush, was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family’s perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate “as-told-to” author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz’s other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.
After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. “I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying ‘Watch your back.’ ”
Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing – a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself – it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.
So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush’s true feelings.
“He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake,” Herskowitz said. “That was one of the keys to being a leader.”
URL: http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
Iraq.
I wonder if any conservatives have noticed that this adminstration is not allowing "live combat" on TV, like they did when President Bush, Sr. was president and we were whipping butt. I received horrible, horrible pictures this week, how they have to dig big holes in the sand, to protect their eyes from sand damage, not to mention being shot upon at the same time. How could anyone come on here and flame J. Carter, a man, not the smartest, but who has built thousands of homes for needy people AT HOME and not worried about foreign policy, which his failed, but my goodness, the current president is doing no better. I have actual war pictures from my nephew, infantry in Iraq, this adminstration does not want the American people to know how brutal this war is - if they did CNN would be permitted to be in there with their cameras, and yet right wingers wave the flag and don't have a clue of the bloodshed - until it is their own and it WILL come to that. I guarantee you, there will be a drastic change of heart when one of their's dies over there.
Iraq war
I agree, no war. But, look, has anyone really done research on the Muslims and their plan for all of us infidels? Even if we hadn't gone to war, they would still be doing their terrorist thing. Yes, there are some Muslims who are peaceful, but Muhammad was a piece of crap and so are most of the men who belong to that, ah, religion? Whatever, don't think that by not reacting they won't terrorize. That's the mistake some European countries are making. I've lived in Europe and I know what the Muslims are like firsthand. Having said that, we have plenty of our own sh*t right here in the U.S. I still kiss the ground when I return home from other countries! Believe this, there will be no more peace, only government take-over in the name of peace, and we, the people, will lose our freedom.
Iraq better off, LOL
and..we are any better in Iraq now? We are allowing them to vote for a constitution which is controlled by religious fanatics, aligned with Iran, which takes away rights women had under Saddam..We have allowed the Taliban to come back into Afghanistan and they are now running for office..the opium trade in Afghanistan is thriving, Osama, our **real** enemy is still on the loose..sooo....what did we accomplish? Nothing. At least under Saddam, they had security, electricity, jobs, clean bacteria free water, knowing what the future held..the Iraqis have nothing now because of the USA..We are gonna invade and bring democracy to a foreign country..How naive..How stupid..You do not bring democracy into a country by invading it and forcing your beliefs upon it..OMG, idiotic and we are paying a severe price for it now..Frankly, I think the only ones who should be paying a price for this debacle are Bush and his administration..they ought to be tried as war criminals and tarred and feathered..then given to the relatives who lost loved ones in this immoral war and let them do what they want..
Iraq....
was stable? I guess as long as you're not the one having your tongue ripped out, or you're not a 9-year-old boy languishing in a filthy prison, I guess it was stable. Okay. Saddam was a known keg of dynamite. If you don't think he wouldn't have liked to see us dead as much as any other terrorist would, you're delusional. He did pay money to every family who sent forth a suicide bomber in Israel. Sounds like a terrorist to me. Again, without using those wonderful 20/20 hindsight glasses, would you be willing to take a chance in a post 9/11 world, given the intelligence available AT THE TIME? I wouldn't. And, the administration never ever said that he was linked to 9/11. That's something a huge chunk of the ingnorant in this country think, but never heard.
Iraq
Germany didn't attack us in World War II, either; Japan did. Who did we go after first, though? The evil was the same and had to be dealt with, regardless of which country attacked us. It really boggles my mind as to why you think the people in Iraq are less deserving of being freed from the grips of a brutal tyrant than the people in Bosnia and Yugoslavia? If you think Saddam and his epitomy-of-evil sons didn't commit atrocities, what news outlets have you been getting your information from? You would have to be living in la-la land not to know these facts. Our troops have uncovered thousands of dead bodies buried in mass graves since going to Iraq, victims of Saddam's cruel and outright savage regime. As far as President Clinton and Bosnia, I supported his going to free those oppressed people from that brutal dictator they were under. I'm a humanitarian and a patriot and don't believe in playing politics during war like you democrats do. By the way, Clinton promised when he sent our troops to Bosnia that they would all be home by Christmas of that year, but guess what? We still have troops there and he had several years to bring them back but didn't. As far as our troops being deployed all over the world under Clinton, he had our troops spread so thin, and he did this himself and did not inherit the problem, that we didn't even have enough troops here at home to support us if we were attacked. This is per the military themselves, not my report.
The problem with you democrats is that you are being fed talking points from a group of news media outlets so biased they are about to fall over the cliff from leaning left. You are being lied to by them, and I admonish you to get the facts, not their talking points. Don't let them do your thinking for you. Research and get the truth for yourself. The media outlets you listen to have an agenda - to make this country lose this war against terror, but mainly to make this country into a socialist nation. This has been their agenda for years and years and you are being dumbed-down by them because of your gullibility. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, wake up!!
By the way, there were over 100,000 terrorists prior to our going to war against them, so 17,000 is quite an achievement I would say. Do you want them living in your neighborhood, having access to the schools, shopping malls, and supermarkets in your neighborhood, because that's what you'll have if we don't win this war.
Iraq. sm
Now that the islamofascists see Iraq as their cause celebre' we can ill afford to lose there. This is one fight we absolutely must win. Our denizens of hatred have been here since the 60s. Their agenda has only gotten stronger and they keep it close to their hearts. Visit the campus of nearly every institution of higher learning and you will find them. They are the ones who after 9/11 made statements, such as Ward Churchill, that the WTC was full of little Eichmanns' who deserved their death. Or as Chomsky has said, with glee, that we are finally getting what we had coming. They will settle for no less than hopefully dozens of mushroom clouds in American cities. They have their dancing shoes on.
Bad in Iraq...
The President has never said it was not bad in Iraq. He says it constantly. What he did say was that we had to stay the course, and by that he meant not abandon Iraq until they could handle their own security. He did not mean that nothing should change. He admits that things could have been done better....of course he does. Things could have been done better in every conflict this country has been involved in. Hindsight is always 20/20. Military advisors of both political bent had input into going into Iraq and the result of such is as much their responsibility as anyone's. And need I remind you that the President alone can't send soldiers to war...Congress has to do that, and Congress did, with the same information the President had, no matter how much the left wants to deny that. I still believe and will always believe that us being in Iraq is what has kept Al Qaeda from making worse and bigger attacks on our own soil. They are afraid that this country under this President's leadership might come into other Arab countries searching for them if they did, and what they DO NOT want is American boots on more of their soil. I believe strongly that we did the right thing. What I think that is happening now is that perhaps the President is losing some of his resolve because of political pressure. I hope that is not the case. We would be much better served if we tried to come up with a consensus as an answer....if the Democrats really cared about fixing the situation they would have put forth ideas in the years before the election other than cut and run. But that would not be politically expedient...it was to their political benefit for the situation to remain bad. And THAT, my friends, is SAD. And yes, I recognize that it has happened on both sides, and the fact that it has become more important to elect a party than to take care of this country as a whole is also SAD. That is what happens when moral decline permeates a society, when it becomes about me, me, me, or little groups of us, us, us, and power; and MUCH LESS to do with the wellbeing of the country as a whole. And that is exactly what has happened. ALL groups hold some responsibility. It used to be God, Family, Country. Now God is out, Family is out, and Country is on the way out. Heartbreaking.
We went to war with Iraq because the...
stated policy of this country was that if attacked we would go after the terrorists and the states who supported them. And Saddam was linked to 9-11, though the liberal media did manage to pretty much squash that by not reporting extensively on it. See below.
Saddam supported terrorists monetarily, he gave them refuge. He paid bounties to suicide bombers' families. Saddam provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists, one being Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours. At one point, they segregated the Jewish passengers on board. One of them was a 69-year-old New York retiree named Leon Klinghoffer. He happened to be confined to a wheelchair. Without mercy, Abu Abbas’ men shot Klinghoffer, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport.
How do we know this?
The source for this information is not Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. It is none other than Bettino Craxi. At that time, he was Italy’s prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.” Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. After political parties furiously withdrew from Craxi’s coalition, the Italian government collapsed. After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003.
Another is Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq’s embassy in Manila. The Philippine government expelled him on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda’s de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they 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 one American. That American was U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the February 26, 2003 Christian Science Monitor, those tell-tale cell phone records bolster the televised claim by Hamsiraji Sali, a top Abu Sayyaf terrorist, that the Iraqi diplomat had offered this group of Islamo-fascists Baghdad’s help with joint missions.
Beyond cash and diplomatic help, Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living.
Abu Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people. Among the five Americans that Abu Nidal murdered that day was John Buonocore III, a 20-year-old Fairleigh Dickinson College student who had studied in Rome that fall semester. Buonocore was shot in the back while checking in for his flight home. He had hoped to return to Wilmington, Delaware to help his father celebrate his 50th birthday.
The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum:
Americans killed in the Abu Nidal Organization's December 27, 1985 attack on Rome's airport:
*John Buonocore III, 20, of Wilmington, Delaware
*Frederick Gage of Madison, Wisconsin
*Natasha Simpson, 11, of New York
*Don Maland of New Port Richey, Florida
*Elena Tomarello, 67, of Naples, Florida
The New York Times, December 29, 1985
American executed during ANO's 1986 hijacking of a Pan Am jet at Karachi, Pakistan's airport:
*Rajesh Kumar of Huntington Beach, California
The New York Times, September 7, 1986
Americans slaughtered in ANO's September 8, 1974 bombing of a TWA jet over the Ionian Sea en route from Israel to Greece, killing all 88 aboard:
*Eitan Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Seldon Bard of Tuckahoe, New York
*Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, Connecticut
*Jon L. Cheshire of Old Lyme, Connecticut
*Jeremiah Hadley of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Katherine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, New York
*Frederick Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey
*Don H. Holliday of Mahwah, New Jersey
*Dr. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
*Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts
The New York Times, September 10, 1974
If there is any justice here, perhaps it is the fact that Abu Nidal died in August 2002. Saddam Hussein’s government claimed that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head — four times.
So far, we have documented that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists (many with al-Qaeda links) responsible for international mayhem and even the incidental deaths of Americans. But is there any evidence that Iraq sheltered those responsible for attacks on America?
Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin. This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.
Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.” Since Iraq was liberated, Yasin remains at large.
Medical Treatment for Terrorists
Saddam Hussein’s general store for terrorists included medical care, too.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of Lawrence Foley. Foley was a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan who worked on international development projects. For that transgression, he was gunned down and killed in his driveway at home.
According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care.
The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.
Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”
He added: “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.”
He continued: “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.”
Does that sound familiar?
A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for “Frontline” closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.
General Vincent Brooks, who briefed reporters throughout the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, had his own observations about Saddam Hussein's terrorist pedagogy. Speaking at an April 6, 2003 press conference, General Brooks said: “The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak.”
An al-Qaeda Link?
So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Al-Qaeda link? Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing a foreign government service, page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. 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 The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared.
Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.
Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents 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. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.
Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too. While skeptics dismiss this encounter, Czech intelligence found Al-Ani's appointment calendar in Iraq's Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein's defeat. Al-Ani's diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with Hamburg student. Maybe, in a massive coincidence, Al-Ani dined with a young scholar and chatted about Hegel and Nietzsche. Or perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta to discuss more practical matters. The Czech government sticks to their contention that they did observe this Iraqi diplomat meeting with Mohamed Atta just five months before 9-11. As Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek explained in a letter to Philadelphia attorney James Beasley, Jr.: “In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad 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.” Al-Ani was kicked out of Prague for casing the headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Iraq, presumably because he wanted to blow them up. Of course, we know what happened next. Mohamed Atta and his henchmen went to airports on the East Coast. Within just three hours, he and the other pilots were in the air, about to reshape history. He and his evil colleagues turned this lovely vista of America's premier city into a towering inferno. They stole 2,749 innocent souls from the American family and decapitated the most powerful skyline man ever built.
Would This Hold Up in Court?
So would any or all of these ties between Iraq and terrorism or Iraq and al-Qaeda, in particular, withstand judicial scrutiny? That’s the question the families of two of those murdered at the World Trade Center wondered. The survivors of George Eric Smith, a 38-year-old senior business analyst with SunGard Asset Management Systems and the family of Timothy Soulas, age 35, a foreign currency specialist with Cantor Fitzgerald, sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages connected to the murders of their loved ones.
The federal trial judge was Harold Baer, Jr. a Clinton appointee. He took testimony from Clinton-designated CIA director James Woolsey and American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign. Baer learned about the Salman Pak camp, and considered other evidence of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda. To be fair, Baer did not hear Hussein’s side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.
As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.
As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:
“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.” This lead to the following headline from the CBS: “Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked.” Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.
Saddam Hussein was a living threat to American national security and the safety of the civilized world.
well then I should say pro war in Iraq...sm
Excuse me for pointing out that some folks are pro - war, and let me rephrase that to pro - military action in Iraq (which happened to lead to war).
This is an old pic I have seen floating around, and I don't agree with it. Just become some liberals writers have come out on record hating the troops, doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. Matter of fact, conservative media, writers, etc who repost it ad nauseum are just as guilty of bringing down the morale of the troops IMHO.
9-11 and Iraq---
are related. When I see video footage of Mohamed Atta meeting with one of Hussein's generals in the weeks before the attack, I don't write that off as a coincidence. WHen they found that 747 in the desert in Iraq, fully equipped, I don't think it was there a a tourist attraction. I rather think it was there to train hijackers. But if some want to ignore that, let them. It is definitely their right. I just don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that Hussein definitely had ties, and most likely money, in the 9-11 attack. And I also believe that Bush believed that, his advisors believed that, and that Congress believed that (liberals and conservatives alike) because they voted to go to war. Bush did not do it by himself. Of course, now that elections are upon us, the liberals are backpedaling 100 mph just like they did before...I voted for it before I voted against it...oh I just authorized use of force, didn't mean he had to USE it, yada yada. Please. I am so tired of the buck passing.
My head is not in the sand...my posts have demonstrated that. I believe the reason to go in was a good one. I believe the response of the Iraqi people was overestimated. If they had held onto the feeling they had when they were dancing in the streets and pulling down Hussein's likenesses all over Baghdad, it would have been a different story. If Iran had not bankrolled terrorists and intervened...if, if, if. No one knows how a war is going to go. However, one thing I do know...we have not been attacked on our own soil since we went into Iraq. I do NOT think that would have been the case had we not gone in. I still stand by the idea that it set Al Qaeda back on its heels. They did not expect that. They expected a Bill Clinton-like response in Somalia. We would just whimper and lick our wounds and wait for the next hit. Perhaps you do not worry about buses, trains, malls being bombed. Perhaps you think we are isolated and that will never happen here. Perhaps you still think Iraq has nothing to do with all that.
And no, love won't cure terrorism. Fighting will not cure it, but it will certainly deter it. Would you rather terrorists kill our soldiers in the streets of New York? Los Angeles? Dubuque Iowa? Tulsa Oklahoma? Would it be easier for you to take if they were dying here at the hands of terrorists? Would you be willing to fight then? Just wondering.
Maybe he should go to Iraq and
get hit with shoes, too. That might wake him up. LOL
I agree that he is arrogant and I've never seen this in my lifetime. It sets a new precedence [sic] (I'm tired) for this to happen every election. What I really like about him is the way he "wiggles" when he takes questions and you can see him just trying to find the correct words to fit the question without answering it.
Only time will tell...and for you bashers, this is my opinion. I am going to "sort of" give him a try but the first itsy bitsy mistake he makes, I'll be all over it with glee.
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with
The Bush administration's disastrous foreign policy and national security decisions post-9/11 lost us more allies and more consitutional rights than we gained in retribution.
|
