Ted Re...And if true.
Of course it is true. You just can't concede when you are wrong, can you?
what does that say about conditions in Palestine that guys who have their whole lives in front of them go for such a ploy?
That is another discussion. This discussion was about Saddam and whether he supported terrorists. The fact that he would take advantage of down on their luck families, by helping to convince one of their members to commit suicide, to further Saddam cause, is another reason the brutal dictator should have been taken out.
Okay. Besides Saddam, what other organizations have we gone after?
Al Qaeda, as I explained in my answer.
What makes you think the insurgents will allow it?
As I said in my previous post,Al Qaeda isn't allowing it, if they can help it. And that is exactly what the US wants; that Al Qaeda has to attack heavily armed soldiers, with the ability to have and use air power, in their lands, fighting on our terms. Its a brilliant strategy, if it works. So far, Al Qaeda hasn't been able to effect another 9/11 for over 2 yrs, can't attack our soldiers without heavy loses, and now has resorted to attacking Iraqi civilians. The big question, is how long Al Qaeda will continue this losing gambit, before, of after they are irreconcievably damaged.
What you say sounds good but you forget that al Qaeda is not this monolithic org. but rather a series of cells, none of which are a mirror reflection of the other..
So. That is all the more reason Al Qaeda is fighting out of their element in Iraq. Their small cells haven't been able to win one victory in either Afghanistan or Iraq. To win a battle, and inflict some real damage, Al Qaeda just might try to consolidate their forces, as N. Vietman did in the Tet offensive. However, things will be different this time, from Tet, as we have better survellance, more powerful troops, and more open terrain.
Duh! Isn't that what I just said?
Yes, I misread your statement.
You talk like the Muslim hate for America is this pet peeve and that after a few deaths they will get over it. It would be nice if you're right. However, I doubt it.
Why would you doubt it? It is human nature, to want peace and prosperity. Now if the clerics in SA, and Sistani in Iraq, both call for peace, and outlaw terrorism, you could see and end to the terror. Especially if Sharon withdraws behinde the wall, and disbands all housing settlements on the Palestinian side of the wall. And the word is that Sharon will withdraw behind the wall, in the name of security, and all settlers who stay on the other side, will do so at their own risk.
Let me put that into more graphic terms. Seventy per cent of the world doesn't have indoor plumbing....that means they have to run down to the local brook or communal well to get their water. They defecate in their backyards. Forty percent of the world's population lives in 80 semi arid and arid countries..........they hardly ever have enough water and many die from malnutrition and dehydration. Much of this poverty is centered in the Muslim world.
Don't you think they know that, and that they want all of those things also, and the way to get it is to create a peaceful democracy. What make you think, they want us to live as poorly as they are. Its just the opposite, they want the things we have.
We have no friends in the Middle East. Al Qaeda has a huge resource of population from which to draw.
Yes, Billy boy let Al Qaeda get bigger than life, in the ME, by refusing to stand up to them. Things will change in time.
What point? That you think Al Qaeda can only be beaten one way.
That al Qaeda is the real enemy.
Al Qaeda is only one of our enemies. By taking out Saddam, I have shown how it just might kill two birds with one stone.
You and Bush can lie to yourselves but the world sees it for what it is.......a pre emptive war.
Are you talking about the whole world, or the world in your little dream world, where everybody feeds on anger; and the real becomes surreal.
This is the latest version of a story that's been going around for months. If they had definitive proof, the White House would be all over it like bees on honey.......they're desperate. In the meantime, I'll stick with what I think is the truth.
To bad. You should have seen it as the truth, as Cheney just verified last week, that it was the best version made public. You will note that the critics don't dispute the accuracy of the info.; just hat Cheney shouldn't have confirmed the accuracy of it, and that it was raw intelligence, not filtered intelligence. Reportedly, they have found some documents, in Iraq, backing up part of the Standard's version. Don't laugh, as France taking oil bribes was rumored, 2 yrs ago, and just now it has been confirmed.
Critics blast Cheney for linking al Qaeda to Iraq
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer / Scripps Howard News Service
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- Critics are blasting Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent interview with the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, in which he said the “best source of information” about alleged connections between Iraq and al Qaeda was a magazine article that the Pentagon already had called “inaccurate” and based on “deplorable” intelligence leaks.
In an interview before his recent fundraising trip to Denver, Cheney was asked about past statements alleging a connection between the former Iraqi regime and the terrorist group behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Cheney cited alleged ties going back to the early 1990s and said once U.S. officials sift through data and evidence discovered since the war, “We’ll find ample evidence confirming the link ... between al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services.”
He also referred a reporter to a recent article in the Weekly Standard “that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago.”
“That’s your best source of information,” Cheney said.
That angers administration critics, since the magazine article Cheney cited was based on potentially illegal leaks of classified documents and had prompted a terse rebuke from the Pentagon when it was published in November.
“I think it’s obscene that the vice president of the United States would say that the ’best source of information’ on his claims is a document that his own administration has discredited and condemned,” said David Sirota of the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group founded by John Podesta, former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton.
Cheney and his press secretary were traveling and did not return messages seeking comment Thursday and Friday.
Much of the controversial article, titled “Case Closed,” was based on materials sent from Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Attached to the letter were classified reports the committee requested about the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
After the magazine article was published, the Department of Defense issued a press release saying “news reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.”
The release said that the reports attached to Feith’s letter were based on raw intelligence from the CIA, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency, and were “not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.”
The release concluded: “Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.”
“As the Department of Defense clarified, the Weekly Standard article was based on raw intelligence, which can be misleading to those not in intelligence analysis, and might cause the public to come to flawed conclusions,” said Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute terrorism watchdog group.
The controversy over the Rocky Mountain News interview was cited Friday in the Washington Post, which reported last year that CIA and congressional leaders were considering an investigation into the source of the original leak of intelligence materials.
Two left-leaning Web-logs had already linked to the News transcript of the Cheney interview, which is available online at www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/politics/article/0,1299,DRMN_35_2565269,00.html
Critics blast Cheney for linking al Qaeda to Iraq
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer / Scripps Howard News Service
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- Critics are blasting Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent interview with the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, in which he said the “best source of information” about alleged connections between Iraq and al Qaeda was a magazine article that the Pentagon already had called “inaccurate” and based on “deplorable” intelligence leaks.
In an interview before his recent fundraising trip to Denver, Cheney was asked about past statements alleging a connection between the former Iraqi regime and the terrorist group behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Cheney cited alleged ties going back to the early 1990s and said once U.S. officials sift through data and evidence discovered since the war, “We’ll find ample evidence confirming the link ... between al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services.”
He also referred a reporter to a recent article in the Weekly Standard “that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago.”
“That’s your best source of information,” Cheney said.
That angers administration critics, since the magazine article Cheney cited was based on potentially illegal leaks of classified documents and had prompted a terse rebuke from the Pentagon when it was published in November.
“I think it’s obscene that the vice president of the United States would say that the ’best source of information’ on his claims is a document that his own administration has discredited and condemned,” said David Sirota of the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group founded by John Podesta, former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton.
Cheney and his press secretary were traveling and did not return messages seeking comment Thursday and Friday.
Much of the controversial article, titled “Case Closed,” was based on materials sent from Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Attached to the letter were classified reports the committee requested about the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
After the magazine article was published, the Department of Defense issued a press release saying “news reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.”
The release said that the reports attached to Feith’s letter were based on raw intelligence from the CIA, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency, and were “not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.”
The release concluded: “Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.”
“As the Department of Defense clarified, the Weekly Standard article was based on raw intelligence, which can be misleading to those not in intelligence analysis, and might cause the public to come to flawed conclusions,” said Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute terrorism watchdog group.
The controversy over the Rocky Mountain News interview was cited Friday in the Washington Post, which reported last year that CIA and congressional leaders were considering an investigation into the source of the original leak of intelligence materials.
Two left-leaning Web-logs had already linked to the News transcript of the Cheney interview, which is available online at www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/politics/article/0,1299,DRMN_35_2565269,00.html
washtimes.com |
