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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184197)	3/27/2006 4:31:48 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Interesting quotes, Ed...Where did you find them? And you're right...."you'd better be right as well....." Glass houses, you know.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184197)	3/27/2006 4:40:08 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

BTW, its ODD, that no one has posted this today: Moussaoui Says He Was to Hijack 5th Plane Mar 27 3:58 PM US/Eastern Email this story breitbart.com By MATTHEW BARAKAT Associated Press Writer ALEXANDRIA, Va. Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House. Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom. His account was in stark contrast to his previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release an Egyptian sheik imprisoned on separate terrorist convictions. On Dec. 22, 2001, Reid was subdued by passengers when he attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. The plane was diverted to Boston, where it landed safely. Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen. "You lied because you wanted to conceal that you were a member of al- Qaida?" prosecutor Rob Spencer asked. "That's correct," Moussaoui said. Spencer: "You lied so the plan could go forward?" Moussaoui: "That's correct." The exchange could be key to the government's case that the attacks might have been averted if Moussaoui had been more cooperative following his arrest. Moussaoui told the court he knew the attacks were to take place some time after August 2001 and bought a radio so he could hear them unfold. Specifically, he said he knew the World Trade Center was going to be attacked, but he asserted he was not part of that plot and didn't know the details. Nineteen men pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington in the worst act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil. "I had knowledge that the Twin Towers would be hit," Moussaoui said. "I didn't know the details of this." Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son Christian died at the World Trade Center, said "at least there would have been a chance" to head off the attacks if Moussaoui had told investigators in August 2001 what she heard him admit in court Monday. "I was convinced that this man was only a heartbeat away from taking the controls of a plane," she said. Asked by his lawyer why he signed his guilty plea in April as "the 20th hijacker," Moussaoui replied: "Because everybody used to refer to me as the 20th hijacker and it was a bit of fun." Before Moussaoui took the stand, his lawyers made a last attempt to stop him from testifying. Defense attorney Gerald Zerkin argued that his client would not be a competent witness because he has contempt for the court, only recognizes Islamic law and therefore "the affirmation he undertakes would be meaningless." Moussaoui at first denied he was to have been a fifth hijack pilot but under cross examination spoke of the plan to attack the White House. He said Reid was the only person he knew for sure would have been on that mission, but others were discussed. Reid pleaded guilty in October 2002 to trying to blow up Flight 63 and was sentenced to life in prison. Moussaoui testified that at one point he was excluded from pre- hijacking operations because he had gotten in trouble with his al- Qaida superiors on a 2000 trip to Malaysia. He said it was only after he was called back to Afghanistan and talked with Osama bin Laden that he was approved again for the operation. "My position was, like you say, under review." The 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 hijacked and crashed four airliners, killing nearly 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on the planes. The intended target of the plane that crashed into a Pennsylvania field remains unknown. Moussaoui testified for nearly three hours, ending his time on the stand by declaring his gratitude that he was an al-Qaida member. When Spencer asked him if he was also grateful to have been the fifth pilot, the defendant merely said: "I'm grateful." Moussaoui's lawyer asked him whether he thought anything in his testimony or court proceedings would affect his fate. He replied: "I believe in destiny. God gives life and death. I just have to speak the truth and God will take care of the rest." Before Moussaoui took the stand, the court heard testimony that two months before the attacks a CIA deputy chief waited in vain for permission to tell the FBI about a "very high interest" al-Qaida operative who became one of the hijackers. The official, a senior figure in the CIA's Laden unit, said he sought authorization on July 13, 2001, to send information to the FBI but got no response for 10 days, then asked again. As it turned out, the information on Khalid al-Mihdhar did not reach the FBI until late August. At the time, CIA officers needed permission from a special unit before passing certain intelligence on to the FBI. The official was identified only as John. His written testimony was read into the record. "John's" testimony was part of the defense's case that federal authorities missed multiple opportunities to catch hijackers and perhaps thwart the 9/11 plot. His testimony included an e-mail sent by FBI supervisor Michael Maltbie discussing Moussaoui but playing down his terrorist connections. Maltbie's e-mail said "there's no indication that (Moussaoui) had plans for any nefarious activity." He sent that e-mail to the CIA even after receiving a lengthy memo from the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui and suspected him of being a terrorist with plans to hijack aircraft. Prosecutors argue that Moussaoui, a French citizen, thwarted a prime opportunity to track down the 9/11 hijackers and possibly unravel the plot when he was arrested and lied. Had Moussaoui confessed, the FBI could have pursued leads that would have led them to most of the hijackers, government witnesses have testified. To win the death penalty, prosecutors must first prove that Moussaoui's actions _ specifically, his lies _ were directly responsible for at least one death on Sept. 11. If they fail, Moussaoui would get life in prison. ___ Associated Press writers Michael J. Sniffen and Amy Westfeldt contributed to this report.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184197)	3/27/2006 9:11:19 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

It Didn’t Work ____________________________________________________________ By William Buckley Jr. NR Editor at Large February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m. "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America." One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries. Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats. A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed. One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism. Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy. He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. (c) 2006 Universal Press Syndicate nationalreview.com

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184197)	3/27/2006 9:16:41 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why doesn't CONgress have the balls (and the courage) to do what is right...? They must prosecute Bush, Cheney and ALL the NeoCONS in the Administration who lied to take our nation into a tragic war in Iraq. Any Fortune 500 CEO who operated like Bush would have been removed LONG AGO. CONgress has totally failed to act as an effective Board of directors for this country. Illegal wire-tapping, thousands of young soldiers dead and wounded, hundreds of billions in unnecessary debt, our country's reputation has been severely damaged and WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS...? Where does the buck stop...? -s2@TheCaptainOfOurShipIsUnfitForCommand.com

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184197)	3/28/2006 1:15:30 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

War Hawks Show Callous Disregard For Our Working-Class Troops by Cynthia Tucker* Published on Monday, March 27, 2006 by the Baltimore Sun (Maryland) The average American understands that soldiers who fought in Vietnam were unfairly blamed for a war they did not start, for lies they did not tell, for mismanaged battle plans they could not salvage. So we're determined not to make that mistake again. This time around, most of us salute our soldiers. Even determined peace activists, for the most part, are committed to two things - ending American involvement in Iraq and honoring the soldiers who volunteered to serve there. In a bitterly divided country, the vast majority of us agree that rank-and-file troops should not be held accountable for the politics that led to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Ironically, there is something else most of us agree on, whether in red states or blue: We don't want our loved ones to go to war. Three years ago, when the invasion of Iraq was still widely supported in the United States, the prospect of a military draft was not. Whether Democrats, Republicans or independents, most Americans - especially among the affluent classes - were virulently opposed to the idea that their sons and daughters might be forced to serve the nation's military. We still are. The politics of discussing a draft became this weird during the last election cycle: Conservatives savaged anybody who suggested the possibility of military conscription as a whiny appeaser who really wanted to end the war. OK. Let's unravel that. If it is a given that a draft would have been so unpopular that it would have ended support for the war in Iraq, what does that say? Doesn't it suggest that many of those who so easily supported this war in the beginning did so because it didn't affect them or their families? Military recruits are pulled largely from the nation's working class - from those whose economic prospects are less than stellar, from high school graduates who know they have little chance of affording college tuition, from young parents whose civilian jobs don't come with health insurance. Enlisted men and women tend to come from households earning $32,000 to $33,500, according to a 1999 Defense Department study. (The median American income is $43,300.) This is not a truth the middle class is eager to confront. Ah, but they volunteered, you say. Yes, they did. All the more reason to honor their commitment by making sure they aren't cannon fodder in a dubious cause. They took to heart the common platitudes and easy slogans about duty and honor and service while many who are wealthier did not. Soldiers shouldn't be ill-used simply because they believed in their country and its leaders. And they have been ill-used. They were sent to fight on a false pretext - that Mr. Hussein was linked to 9/11 - by civilian leaders who refused to plan for anything but quick and certain victory. Of course, combat veterans were rare among the armchair hawks in Congress and the White House who rallied the nation for war. Vice President Dick Cheney has said he had "other priorities" during the war in Vietnam. And President Bush ... well, that story is well known. Even if you credit him with conscientiousness and brilliance as a National Guard pilot, he never left the United States. Their callousness about other people's children aside, it's not just Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush whom I hold responsible for the deaths of more than 2,300 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It's also men such as Sen. John Kerry and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Vietnam veterans who had seen young men die in combat. They knew better than to take the nation to war on the wings of a lie. That they did was not only unjust, it was immoral. *Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. © 2006 The Baltimore Sun commondreams.org