can_o_worms <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote:

According to the magazine, the Ghurairy tale was one of 108 stories the
Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi, who was exiled from Iraq, planted in
the American and British media

The lefties do some planting of their own.

It's not a matter of petty party politics other than the special
interests that they both kowtow to. It's a politicized CIA thing.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war

Your site snipped the last part of the paragraph:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these" (refering to
contacts that "MAY have occured in 1999 during a period of reported
"strains with the Taliban") "or the earlier contacts" (solicited by al
Qaida) "ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq
cooperated with al Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks
against the United States."

Lack of proof is proof again?

Hello? The piont was:

THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!
THE PRESS LIED about what the 9-11 commission said!!!!

Got it now?


I'm sure you'll now point out this does not prove Saddam had 100 nuclear
weapons.

Page 66, section 2.5
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

can_o_worms wrote:

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:57:35 -0700,

Black Elk <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

In November 2001, just two months after the terrorist attacks......

I remember the original story first broke BEFORE the 9-11 attacks.
Almost nobody paid it much attention to it, but I remembered it.

The high-ranking Iraqi military officer claimed he had witnessed terrorist
training camps in Iraq where Islamic militants learned how to hijack
airplanes.

Since all the hijackers conducted the attacks in the same way, they
almost certainly got trained somewhere, by somebody, didn't they?

"Somewhere" doesn't point to Iraq.
Insofar as flight training is concerned: They were trained by Flight
Schools located in U.S.

According to the magazine, the Ghurairy tale was one of 108 stories the
Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi, who was exiled from Iraq, planted in
the American and British media

The lefties do some planting of their own.

It's not a matter of petty party politics other than the special
interests that they both kowtow to. It's a politicized CIA thing.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war

He obviously had a major role in helping sell the war to the American
people. Thanks to the deceptions, which a compliant American press didn't
uncover, some 69 percent of the American public believed that Saddam had a
role in the 9/11 attacks.

I think you're doing the hoodwinking. The 9-11 comission found ties
between Saddam and al Qaeda btw.

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3439/911commtieslies2vb.jpg

Your site snipped the last part of the paragraph:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these" (refering to
contacts that "MAY have occured in 1999 during a period of reported
strains with the Taliban") "or the earlier contacts" (solicited by al
Qaida) "ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq
cooperated with al Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks
against the United States."

end of quote.

Page 66, section 2.5
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

BTW
We are talking about the same CIA that subcontracts propaganda
dissemination (without oversight) by "public relations" firms such as
the Rendon Group.

You have no evidence whatsoever to justify a war that has since been
deemed both unnecessary and unprofitable for the U.S. at large.

"Most authorities agree--and the precedents are in accord--that an
impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable.
Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in
disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is
generally regarded as grounds for impeachment." - Dean John D. Feerick,

Fordham University School of Law, 1984,


"The basic theoretical standard employed in the United States is that
an impeachment can be sought for any acts that damage the integrity of
government, affect the governmental process, undermine the degree of
public confidence, and prove a lack of capability to perform
constitutional duties. A violation of law is not needed, but
additionally all violations of law may not amount to an impeachable
offense."
<http://www.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=186259>


"The American experience with impeachment, which is summarized above,
reflects the principle that impeachable conduct need not be criminal.
Of the thirteen impeachments voted by the House since 1789, at least
ten involved one or more allegations that did not charge a violation of

criminal law." -Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment: a
report written and released by the Judiciary Committee, 1974
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories...>

Making statements based upon the best intelligence available at the
time, on national TV, and those statements not being totally accurate,
is not either breaking the law or lying.

"That President George W. Bush comes to power with the intention of
invading Iraq is a fact not open to dispute.

Pleased with the image of
himself as a military hero, and having spoken, more than once, about
seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein for the tyrant's alleged attempt to
"kill my Dad," he appoints to high office in his administration a
cadre of warrior intellectuals, chief among them Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, known to be eager for the glories of imperial
conquest.[2] At the first meeting of the new National Security Council
on January 30, 2001, most of the people in the room discuss the
possibility of preemptive blitzkrieg against Baghdad.[3] In March the
Pentagon circulates a document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi
Oil Field Contracts"; the supporting maps indicate the properties of
interest to various European governments and American corporations. Six

months later, early in the afternoon of September 11, the smoke still
rising from the Pentagon's western facade, Secretary Rumsfeld tells his

staff to fetch intelligence briefings (the "best info fast...go
massive; sweep it all up; things related and not") that will justify
an attack on Iraq. By chance the next day in the White House basement,
Richard A. Clarke, national coordinator for security and
counterterrorism, encounters President Bush, who tells him to "see if
Saddam did this." Nine days later, at a private dinner upstairs in
the White House, the President informs his guest, the British prime
minister, Tony Blair, that "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we
must come back to Iraq."


"By November 13, 2001, the Taliban have been rousted out of Kabul in
Afghanistan, but our intelligence agencies have yet to discover proofs
of Saddam Hussein's acquaintance with Al Qaeda.[4] President Bush isn't

convinced. On November 21, at the end of a National Security Council
meeting, he says to Secretary Rumsfeld, "What have you got in terms
of plans for Iraq?...I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it
secret."


"The Conyers report doesn't return to the President's focus on Iraq
until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of
Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, "*****
Saddam. We're taking him out." At a Senate Republican Policy lunch
that same month on Capitol Hill, Vice President ***** Cheney informs the

assembled company that it is no longer a question of if the United
States will attack Iraq, it's only a question of when. The vice
president doesn't bring up the question of why, the answer to which is
a work in progress. By now the administration knows, or at least has
reason to know, that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11
attacks on New York and Washington, that Iraq doesn't possess weapons
of mass destruction sufficiently ominous to warrant concern, that the
regime destined to be changed poses no imminent threat, certainly not
to the United States, probably not to any country defended by more than

four batteries of light artillery. Such at least is the conclusion of
the British intelligence agencies that can find no credible evidence to

support the theory of Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda or international
terrorism; "even the best survey of WMD programs will not show much
advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile and CW/BW weapons
fronts..." A series of notes and memoranda passing back and forth
between the British Cabinet Office in London and its correspondents in
Washington during the spring and summer of 2002 address the problem of
inventing a pretext for a war so fondly desired by the Bush
Administration that Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6, finds

the interested parties in Washington fixing "the intelligence and the
facts...around the policy." The American enthusiasm for regime
change, "undimmed" in the mind of Condoleezza Rice, presents
complications.


"Although Blair has told Bush, probably in the autumn of 2001, that
Britain will join the American military putsch in Iraq, he needs
"legal justification" for the maneuver-something noble and
inspiring to say to Parliament and the British public. No justification

"currently exists." Neither Britain nor the United States is being
attacked by Iraq, which eliminates the excuse of self-defense; nor is
the Iraqi government currently sponsoring a program of genocide. Which
leaves as the only option the "wrong-footing" of Saddam. If under
the auspices of the United Nations he can be presented with an
ultimatum requiring him to show that Iraq possesses weapons that don't
exist, his refusal to comply can be taken as proof that he does, in
fact, possess such weapons.[5]


"Over the next few months, while the British government continues to
look for ways to "wrong-foot" Saddam and suborn the U.N., various
operatives loyal to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld bend
to the task of fixing the facts, distributing alms to dubious Iraqi
informants in return for map coordinates of Saddam's monstrous weapons,

proofs of stored poisons, of mobile chemical laboratories, of unmanned
vehicles capable of bringing missiles to Jerusalem.[6]


"By early August the Bush Administration has sufficient confidence in
its doomsday story to sell it to the American public. Instructed to
come up with awesome text and shocking images, the White House Iraq
Group hits upon the phrase "mushroom cloud" and prepares a White
Paper describing the "grave and gathering danger" posed by Iraq's
nuclear arsenal.[7] The objective is three-fold-to magnify the fear
of Saddam Hussein, to present President Bush as the Christian savior of

the American people, a man of conscience who never in life would lead
the country into an unjust war, and to provide a platform of
star-spangled patriotism for Republican candidates in the November
congressional elections.[8]


"2. In January of 1998 the neoconservative Washington think tank The
Project for the New American Century (which counts among its founding
members ***** Cheney) sent a letter to Bill Clinton demanding "the
removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" with a strong-minded
"willingness to undertake military action." Together with Rumsfeld,
six of the other seventeen signatories became members of the Bush's
first administration-Elliott Abrams (now George W. Bush's deputy
national security advisor), Richard Armitage (deputy secretary of state

from 2001 to 2005), John Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the U.N.),
Richard Perle (chairman of the Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2003),

Paul Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005), Robert
Zoellick (now deputy secretary of state). President Clinton responded
to the request by signing the Iraq Liberation Act, for which Congress
appropriated $97 million for various clandestine operations inside the
borders of Iraq. Two years later, in September 2000, The Project for
the New American Century issued a document noting that the
"unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification" for the presence of the substantial American force in
the Persian Gulf.


"3. In a subsequent interview on 60 Minutes, Paul O'Neill, present in
the meeting as the newly appointed secretary of the treasury,
remembered being surprised by the degree of certainty: "From the very
beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person
and that he needed to go.... It was all about finding a way to do
it."


"4. As early as September 20, Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense
for policy, drafted a memo suggesting that in retaliation for the
September 11 attacks the United States should consider hitting
terrorists outside the Middle East in the initial offensive, or perhaps

deliberately selecting a non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.


"5. Abstracts of the notes and memoranda, known collectively as "The
Downing Street Minutes," were published in the Sunday Times (London)
in May 2005; their authenticity was undisputed by the British
government.


"6. The work didn't go unnoticed by people in the CIA, the Pentagon,
and the State Department accustomed to making distinctions between a
well-dressed rumor and a naked lie. In the spring of 2004, talking to a

reporter from Vanity Fair, Greg Thielmann, the State Department officer

responsible for assessing the threats of nuclear proliferation, said,
"The American public was seriously misled. The Administration
twisted, distorted and simplified intelligence in a way that led
Americans to seriously misunderstand the nature of the Iraq threat. I'm
not sure I can think of a worse act against the people in a democracy
than a President distorting critical classified information."


"7. The Group counted among its copywriters Karl Rove, senior political

strategist, Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, ***** Cheney's
chief of staff.


"8. Card later told the New York Times that "from a marketing point
of view...you don't introduce new products in August."
<http://harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html>

"Most authorities agree--and the precedents are in accord--that an
impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable.
Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in
disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is
generally regarded as grounds for impeachment." - Dean John D. Feerick,

Fordham University School of Law, 1984,

"Andrew Olsen" <wordy44@hotmaiI.com> wrote in message
news:ijpr02p657nu6hfm2lnpb49i909r2do9cd@4ax.com...

Yep. They all learned to fly Jumbo 767s in the mountains of

Afghanistan.<bfg>

"Jumbo" and "767" do not go together.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:01:39 -0800, Andrew Olsen <wordy44@hotmaiI.com> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:57:35 -0700,

The high-ranking Iraqi military officer claimed he had witnessed terrorist
training camps in Iraq where Islamic militants learned how to hijack
airplanes.

Since all the hijackers conducted the attacks in the same way, they
almost certainly got trained somewhere, by somebody, didn't they?

Yep. They all learned to fly Jumbo 767s in the mountains of Afghanistan.<bfg>

But in reality they were trained by several American flight schools in
Florida. When is Bush going to bomb Florida?