Well, well, well...what we got here>>

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Monday, June 21, 2004 1:25 p.m. EDT
Media in Denial Over 9/11 Commish Lehman's Revelation

Once again, the press is being disingenuous when it comes to information disseminated by the 9/11 Commission, this time in its coverage of a 9/11 Commissioner's revelation yesterday that a top al Qaida operative was also a high ranking member of Saddam Hussein's most elite military unit.

"There's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written," Lehman announced Sunday on "Meet the Press."

Story Continues Below



He explained that documents uncovered in Baghdad "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."
Actually, the only thing new about this intelligence is that the 9/11 Commission, along with the mainstream press, is finally paying attention to it. In fact, as "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert certainly had to know, the Wall Street Journal reported on these very same documents three weeks ago.

"One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work," reported the Journal on May 27. "Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel."

Another bit of deviousness by the press is the way reporters are covering Lehman's not-so-new revelation. The New York Daily News, for instance, headlined it's report: "Iraq-al Qaeda Link Teases 9/11 Panel."

But this particular Iraqi officer's membership in al Qaida does much, much more than establish a link between Iraq and al Qaida. As the same Journal report noted:

"This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda 'summit' in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned."

That's right. After months and months of media assurances that there was no link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission is now reviewing evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.

To be fair to the press, even Lehman seemed not to appreciate the significance of his announcement, telling "Meet the Press" he still had no evidence of an Iraq-9/11 link.

Then there are those Commission members, like Richard Ben Veniste, who won't accept an Iraq- 9/11 link unless videotape emerges of Saddam at the controls of one of the hijacked planes.

"Take it to the bank, there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11," Ben Veniste announced haughtily while sitting next to Lehman on the same broadcast. "Let's put that to bed. That's what our commission found. . . . We looked at everything available. No connection between Iraq and the 9/11 catastrophe."

Don't look now, Mr. Ben Veniste, but some relevant evidence pointing to Saddam's involvement in 9/11 just became "available."
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
168
Tokens
lol, maybe if you actually watched meet the press you would've seen how the president and v.p. are totally out of the loop.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
So if a member of Saddam's military having connections to Al Qaeda means that Saddam is connected to Al Qaeda, then does this mean that if a member of the U.S. military was collaborating with and aiding Al Qaeda that there would be a link between George W. Bush and Al Qaeda?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
What about the Saudis, any connections there?
What about Pakistan?
What about the CIA?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I just finished reading about this on another site and SO knew you'd be all over this. First, it might prove a connection with some members of Saddam's government, although not necessarily with Saddam himself. However, it is a post-mortem discovery and teh fact that the intelligence used to invade Iraqwas speculative is and should be worrisome to all of us.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,729
Tokens
I love the reaction by the lunatic lefties on this board. It is incredible that they can with apparently a straight face that there is a distinction between Saddam and his government, as if he doesn't control every single minute aspect of it. You can take it to the bank, if one of Saddam's officers was an Al Quada member, he sure as hell knew about it and gave full authorization.

But yet when a few prison guards abuse prisoners in Iraq, obviously Bush clearly is responsible.

The correct thing to do, rather than sounding like brainless morons who can't possibly deviate from the party line, would be to admit jumping to ridiculous conclusions last week and that the hysteria was purely because of hatred for Bush rather than rational thought.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
Well no, I would agree that just because some prisoner abuse was occurring, that doesn't mean that Bush knew (Rumsfeld on the other hand...). Likewise, a member of his military could have been involved in Al Qaeda without Saddam's involvement.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,729
Tokens
"Likewise, a member of his military could have been involved in Al Qaeda without Saddam's involvement."

Read the above article again.

""One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work," reported the Journal on May 27. "Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel."

This is not just "a member of his military."

I don't understand why admitting that there appears to be some connection between Saddam and Osama is so difficult that it must be avoided at all costs, regardless of how ridiculous the arguement sounds.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Uh yeah, you guys justified a war and all the other fibs now. Have a party.

party.gif
 

Hard work never killed anyone, but why chance it?
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
939
Tokens
Saddam's kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 100,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000)

Reason enough for taking Saddam out.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
How many were killed in Ghana? How about Cambodia? How about Sudan as we speak? China surely has killed as many in the time Saddam ruled. I agree Saddam was a terrible person and don't disagree too much with taking him out, but this line of thinking sure seems like a lousy excuse. We were lied to and still are being lied to, that is the issue here. In my mind the issue of should we have been in Iraq is yesterday's news and we certainly can't go back and change much of it now.
 

Hard work never killed anyone, but why chance it?
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
939
Tokens
My Sister, who is/was 100% against the war, hits me with, "many are getting slaughtered around the world, are we supposed to be able to fight for all of them?"

We can try. Saddam was as good as place to start as any.

Btw, she works for one of the Texas Tobacco Five lawyers. Attended parties with Clinton in Houston. Hates Bush. Her vote doesn't count.
 

Hard work never killed anyone, but why chance it?
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
939
Tokens
And I realize this involved much more than coming to the aid of those oppressed by Saddam. Someone was going to pay for 911. Maybe all the wrong reasons, maybe...but taking him out was a good thing. Period!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
And don't forget the 17 phoney baloney UN resolutions against Iraq over 12years.The UN with their scamming of oil for food and double agents and other assorted pygamyis and rats,and what has the UN done in these other countries that you people mention?...You tin foil hat conspiracy liberals can come up with all kinds of shit against Bush...but god forbid Saddam being any way associeted with a fantical group that would love to destroy the US.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
You crack me up Patriot. Here there is one guy, yet you could come up with a whole roster of neocons that were associated with Saddam, pictures and all. You wouldn't exactly have to do some high level analysis and database matching to find this info out. And they didn't mess around with peons like Colonels, they went to the chief himself.

Like I said, fine go throw a party about your big find, it isn't like it matters much anymore. Find us a solution to the problems that are faced now, don't have Bush and Cheney go around saying "trust us" when they haven't done a thing to earn it on this subject.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
CNN (and to my knowledge, only CNN as it's the only American newsstation I watch) was reporting last night that two 'US Officials' said that this particular claim was untrue. There were no specific details, although something about their being two men with the same name and that this is a case of "mistaken identity."

Whatever that means.

Regardless, you could find out that Bin Laden and Saddam used to meet every Friday for a picnic lunch with sweet, gentle kisses and it still wouldn't be why Bush et al wanted to go to war. It has everything to do with amassing an extraordinary military machine vis à vis the creation of a mass enemy (Saddam is just the beginning) for the PNAC cronies and, to a lesser degree, the 'rapture' for Bush and Ashcroft.

Just my opinion, of course, but women are never wrong.
icon_wink.gif
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,245
Messages
13,565,899
Members
100,775
Latest member
thakurslony
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com