Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (3133)	6/16/2004 2:15:07 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35834

Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network. "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing." U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute. Critics have accused the president and other administration officials of falsely inflating the links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush said Tuesday that Saddam also had ties to Palestinian militant groups and was making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. "We did the absolute right thing in removing him from power, and the world is better off with him not in power," he said. Bush has tried to portray the war in Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism that began with al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks. U.S. officials blame Zarqawi for a series of attacks on U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and others since the American-led invasion of Iraq, including the April beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg and the August 2003 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Before the invasion, U.S. intelligence reports suggested Zarqawi had his leg amputated in a Baghdad hospital after being wounded fighting American forces in Afghanistan. The allegation was part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003, laying out the U.S. case for war. But in April, a senior U.S. official said that report had been called into question: Zarqawi was still thought to have received medical treatment in Baghdad, but reports that he had his leg amputated appeared to have been incorrect, a U.S. official said. Earlier this year, U.S. officials touted what they said was an intercepted letter from Zarqawi to al Qaeda leaders seeking their help in provoking a civil war in Iraq, where the U.S.-led occupation authority is scheduled to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government at month's end. The principal reason cited for the coalition invasion was that Iraq was violating U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The U.N. did not give a final vote to approve the war but the U.S. pointed to previous resolutions that called for "serious consequences" if Iraq did not disarm. Since then, inspectors have turned up some evidence of undeclared weapons research and two chemical artillery shells, but none of the stockpiles that Iraq was accused of maintaining. A total of 833 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion -- more than 500 of them in guerrilla attacks since Bush's May 1, 2003, declaration that "major combat" was over. Bush acknowledged that creating a free society in Iraq is "hard work." "But we'll get there," he said. "And we'll get there because people want to be free. That's why we'll get there. People long to live in freedom." cnn.com

To: abstract who wrote (3133)	6/16/2004 7:43:52 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

LETS GET THAT BOY SOME AIRTIME By Cori Dauber - Ranting Profs blog <font size=4> As you probably know, yesterday the Vice President once again referred to a link between al Queda and Saddam. I wish the White House would do this more regularly, because partisan political issues aside, this question is central to whether people believe the war was justified or not, and as the evidence for the link has gotten stronger, the White House has gotten quieter. As a result they have done absolutely nothing to develop a persuasive case, which not only leaves the argumentative field to others but actually puts them further and further behind, because it leaves the impression that if they had a real case to make they'd make it more aggressively and more regularly. As it is everytime the Veep brings it up he sends opponents into virtual paroxysms, since the mainstream press (among others) are so convinced he's basically lying, that that they also believe that when he mentions it he's manipulating public opinion for partisan purposes. So the Veep's claims are repeated, but just barely, before the media begins to undermine those claims by noting that, well, you know, it isn't like anyone serious believes that. But since the Vice President did, after all, say it, the White House press corps raised the issue today with the President -- no doubt eager for a "gotcha" moment. Would he repudiate his own Veep? or would he himself repeat this discredited, indeed, slightly lunatic idea? In fact, although I'm sure they didn't see it this way, the President hoist the press on their own petard, suggesting that the best evidence for an al Queda-Iraq link was the terrorist Zarqawi, and since their own reporting supports that (although they carefully never explicitly connect the dots) they aren't about to push this story any further at this point. Fox, however, the only network which has ever seriously reported stories pertaining to the possibility of a connection (all you Fox watchers know this, since that PIPA study found your belief in the possibility of a link one reason to label all of you "uninformed" you'll recall) isn't all that interested in dropping the story. As you'll recall, a week or so ago my pet peeve was the fact that despite it having a major publisher, there was apparently no promotional book tour for the excellent book, The Connection. I started that drumbeat when I was only a few chapters in. Now that I'm to all intents and purposes done with it I can tell you that it is absolutely superb -- and there can be no reason I can understand for him not to have gotten more press attention beyond the media just not taking this book seriously because they didn't take its basic thesis seriously and weren't interested at looking at his evidence. Brit Hume takes the President's and Vice President's comments today as a news hook that provides an opportunity to get Hayes on and talking about the book in the interview segment of Special Report (since that show isn't set up, really, to do book tour interviews.) Other shows could use this opportunity to rectify their original mistake. I'm going to guess that they won't. If only because in Martha Raddatz's piece (for ABC) on Zarqawi himself she notes that the President himself today "pointed a finger" at Zarqawi, but she decontextualizes the President's comments completely, in other words noting that the President "fingered" Zarqawi as a major player with responsibility today for many of the worst terrorist strikes in Iraq -- but never bothering to mention the fact that the reason his name even came up in the President's comments was that he was linking the man to al Queda -- and to Saddam both. Worse, far, far worse, Raddatz points out that there was a letter intercepted by American intelligence in February believed to be authored by Zarqawi. But having mentioned that letter, the fact that Zarqawi's strategy to date seems to be following what was promised in that letter, she fails to mention any relationship between Zarqawi and al Queda -- and never bothers to mention the fact that a second letter was found yesterday a letter which apparently says the strategy is failing. How can she mention the one and not the other in a piece on this particular terrorist and not have this piece be considered out and out misleading? This terrorist is telling his colleagues that he believes his strategy is on the brink of failing. Titled "The text of al-Zarqawi's message to Osama bin Laden about holy war in Iraq," the statement appeared on Web sites that have recently carried claims of responsibility for attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. "The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening." The statement says the militant movement in Iraq is racing against time to form battalions that can take control of the country "four months before the formation of the promised Iraqi government, hoping to spoil their plan." It appears to refer to the government that would take office after the elections scheduled for January 2005. That's not a small oversight. That's leaving an audience so uninformed as to be misinformed. <font size=3> rantingprofs.typepad.com.