Against All Enemies.........

[J'Pol]

I have always been of the opinion that the previous ruling regime in Iraq and the top people ( I refrain from using leaders as that type of cellular "organisation" do not have leaders per se) in Al Qaeda co-operated with each other. I also believe that Iraq provided funding for them.

I know others feel entirely differently. In an attempt to avoid any protracted debate on the subject, let me say at this juncture this is merely an opinion based more on feeling than fact. I cannot provide links to any website which supports this view. I am sure they are there, I just don't know the URLs.

[leftism]

I have always been of the opinion that the previous ruling regime in Iraq and the top people ( I refrain from using leaders as that type of cellular "organisation" do not have leaders per se) in Al Qaeda co-operated with each other. I also believe that Iraq provided funding for them.

I know others feel entirely differently. In an attempt to avoid any protracted debate on the subject, let me say at this juncture this is merely an opinion based more on feeling than fact.

Your entitled to your opinion J'Pol but I don't think it's likely for a number of reasons.

If this were the case Bush and Blair would be screaming it from the rooftops. Saddam also brutally oppressed many Muslims while he was in power.

If there were any solid evidence linking Al-Queda to Iraq you'd probably need to look no further than www.whitehouse.gov or www.number-10.gov.uk .

[Rat Faced]

They did have support in Iraq...

In the north of the country.. ie The Kurds



I still find it incredible that Saddam is being linked by some to the Allies of the people he was supressing....


Someone remarked once:

"You dont need to be friends, just coz you wanna f*ck the same Bitch"

That seems to be the situation re: Saddam, Bin Laden and the USA.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@25 March 2004 - 11:27

Your entitled to your opinion J'Pol...

Hmmmmmmm.

[Rat Faced]

Lifting the Shroud

March 23, 2004

By PAUL KRUGMAN



From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."

On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.

Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.

Source..... New York Times

[j2k4]

So-

Your mind is utterly closed to any other possibility, yes?

Something worth adding:

60 Minutes is a Sunday night newsmagazine which airs on CBS here in the U.S.

CBS is considered to be (by myself and people like me) a liberal media source.

The show is divided into three segments of more-or-less equal length including commercials.

Rare indeed is the case when an individual or a subject is alloted 2/3 of the entire hour; the last time I remember it happening was during a show devoted to 9/11, and in that case the entire hour was, if memory serves, given over to that subject.

Mr.Clarke garnered two segments of the show on which he appeared, and, given the subject matter, perhaps this fact does not warrant additional note, unless...

...you are aware of the conflict-of-interest represented by CBS's fawning treatment of Clarke combined with it's concurrent interest in the publishing house handling Clarke's vaunted book.

Check it out; google it if you like.

I didn't do that, as I don't live, die, or try to hang an argument on the crap one finds on the 'net.

There are other places to get information.

[Rat Faced]

I aint judging..

Like J'Pol, i dont know the man and never heard of him until this thread, truth be known.

Im merely putting down what i came across on my travels....which wasnt a search for info about this


I cant stand Bush, which is well known...for stuff i do know about, however as i have said before US Domestic politics is way beyond me.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 March 2004 - 12:16
I aint judging..

Like J'Pol, i dont know the man and never heard of him until this thread, truth be known.

Im merely putting down what i came across on my travels....which wasnt a search for info about this


I cant stand Bush, which is well known...for stuff i do know about, however as i have said before US Domestic politics is way beyond me.

It is beyond me also, but I can speak with some knowledge of it.

Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by leftism@

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol...

Hmmmmmmm.
[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.[/quote]

Can you believe that someone this old...

Image Resized
[img]http://server6.uploadit.org/files/clocker-Visitpost.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

is this petty and immature?

You must lead a very pathetic and lonely life j2, you have my deepest sympathies

[ilw]

is that serious and if so which one??