 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by tomder55
BTW nice pick up taking Brandon Jacobs from my scrap heap. Maybe I would've kept him if there wasn't talk of both him and Eli being out for extended periods.
You never know who's going to be available, I grabbed Robbie Gould off waivers today on another team and hoping for Vincent Jackson on Sunday. |
||||
|
||||
|
Right, the NY Times shows no favoritism...
The American Spectator So much for being an an equal opportunity advertiser. |
||||
|
||||
|
DemocracyNOW INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
AMY GOODMAN: When Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus whether the strategy in Iraq is making America safer, the four-star general responded by saying, “I don't know.” Later, Petraeus clarified his statement and said Iraq “has very serious implications for our safety and security.” On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd grilled General Petraeus about why he was ordered to testify on September 11 and about the military’s strategy of arming former Sunni insurgents. SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't think it’s a coincidence that this important hearing is taking place on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There seems to be another attempt to link in the mind of a confused public the war in Iraq to the attacks perpetrated on us on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Is this just a big sales job? Please answer this clearly and succinctly, so that the American people can understand: is there and was there any connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq? GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Not that I am aware of, Senator. SEN. ROBERT BYRD: General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, it’s getting to be like the change of seasons around here. Every few months someone from the administration comes up and says, “Just give us six or twelve more months, and things will look better.” Your argument for the surge back in January was that military success would create space for political progress. That didn't work. Now, the new buzzword is “bottom-up.” You’ve talked about military success, but, by the President's own reckoning, that success is meaningless without political reconciliation. Are six months or twelve months really going to make a difference on the big questions. Why should we keep giving you more and more time? Why? Why should we keep giving you more and more time, General Petraeus? You’ve touted success in Anbar province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar province were shooting and killing Americans. Recently they decided they dislike the terrorists there more than they dislike Americans, so they are cooperating with us for the time being, while we give them money and arms. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980s in Afghanistan of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. We all know how that short-term policy hurt our long-term interest. What guarantee can you give us that the tribes in Anbar are not going to turn around and use the guns that we gave them against our troops once they feel we no longer serve their interest? Isn't that a short-sited policy? GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them. What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have -- they were already well enough armed -- at al-Qaeda, because they had come to reject the Taliban-like ideology and barbarity of al-Qaeda in the Euphrates River Valley. AMY GOODMAN: That was General David Petraeus responding to questions from Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. To talk more about the Petraeus hearings, Arun Gupta joins us here in the studio. He’s a reporter and editor of The Indypendent, a bimonthly newspaper based here in New York. His most recent article is called “Meet Gen. David Petraeus: His Militia Strategy Plunged Iraq Into a Civil War, And Now He's Back for More.” Arun Gupta is currently writing a book on the history of the Iraq war that will be published by Haymarket Press. Welcome to Democracy Now! Your assessment of what Petraeus’s message was to Congress? ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think his message is the same thing the Bush administration has been saying for the last four years, which is “stay the course.” And there is no real strategy that the White House has, beyond trying to stave off defeat for the next year, so it can leave the war to its successor. And all this stuff about, “Well, you know, the surge is working, and we're going to draw it down next summer,” again, it’s part of the same kind of treadmill we’ve been on, the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing. Tell us who David Petraeus is. Arun, you’re the first person to mention General Petraeus on our show years ago. ARUN GUPTA: Yeah. What we were talking about two-and-a-half years ago was Petraeus’s role in helping to set up the Special Police Commandos. In 2004, 2005, he was given the mission to train all Iraq military and police forces. And, in fact, in July 2004, Newsweek had this cover of him, saying that Petraeus was going to train Iraqis to take over the fight. Now, the reality is, is that was, of course, a failure, because three years later he was back with an escalation of US forces. Now, one of the key things that Petraeus did was they decided -- him and his command decided -- that they were going to create this paramilitary force, the Special Police Commandos. They armed them. They funded them. They trained them. And they also issued the usual denials: “Oh, we're not giving them any weapons. This is an Iraqi initiative.” And so, now he’s saying the same thing with the Sunni militias. So, anyway, the Special Police Commandos quickly morphed into Shiite death squads that were used against the Sunni insurgency and against Sunnis, in general, throughout Iraq. And this played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had these death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the US, going around killing Sunnis randomly. It generally alienated the Sunni Arab population from the government and drove them into the arms of the resistance. Now what Petraeus is doing is he’s funding and arming these Sunni militias. And there are reports that have stated clearly with these militias saying, like, “Yes, we’re getting weapons from the US government.” And part of it is, is that they do want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is another Sunni-based group. It’s an Iraqi-based group. But their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias. So here we have them, like in 2004, setting up these Shiite militias, and now he’s setting up these Sunni militias to fight these Shiite militias. And what it portends is just an absolute disaster for Iraq. And, of course, it will also be used as justification: “Well, we can't leave because a bloodbath will result.” But we’re not looking at the fact that it’s the US that’s creating this bloodbath. ARUN GUPTA: Also during his tenure, 190,000 weapons went missing. These were Pentagon weapons that were supposed to go to Iraqi Security Forces. A report came out last month stating that there was no proper bookkeeping done. There were more weapons, but what it found was that 190,000 assault rifles and handguns, along with all sorts of body armor and other military equipment, had just completely gone off track. There were no records of it kept. Such simple things as recording the serial numbers were not done. And, of course, the fear is that this is just going to turn up all sorts of places. The Turkish government has already claimed that it has seized more than 1,000 of these guns in Turkey that are being used by anyone, from criminal enterprises to anti-government militants. And there’s also reports that they’ve turned up as far away as Italy. So -- and this was part of the Petraeus strategy, that he was just throwing all this money and weapons and aid at the Special Police Commandos, because they were so desperate to create a strategy to defeat the Sunni insurgency. And, of course, by the time he left his mission in 2005 of training Iraqis, there was only one battalion that was considered ready. In one year, that’s what his work amounted to. And now a report just came out, a commission set up by Congress of four retired US generals, in which they stated that the National Police, which is what the Special Police Commandos are now known as, the National Police are so corrupt, so riven with sectarianism, they’re so hated by the public, the Iraqi military and other police services, that they should just be completely disbanded. And yet, none of this is being talked about in Congress or the media. ARUN GUPTA: I don't think there is any real credibility in terms of talking about what Iran is involved with, because this administration clearly has been trying to stoke a war against Iran. And it also beggars the imagination that somehow Iran is going to be supplying groups that it’s hostile with, whether it's Sunni insurgents in Iraq or whether it's the Taliban, who it went to war with in the 1990s. So I think this is just part of the administration's drumbeat to create some sort of military action against Iran before it leaves office. ARUN GUPTA: I think they missed a great opportunity, in terms of focusing on Petraeus’s past record, because he's been given a free pass, that he’s someone who has great credibility and impartiality, rather than, you know, really revealing that he played this critical role in stoking the civil war. But more so, you know, what we need to focus on is how Petraeus and Crocker are really just trying to play down the clock so that the Bush administration doesn't have to have a significant withdrawal, so it could dump the problem on his successor, probably a Democratic president, and then leave them the enormous burden of figuring out what to do with Iraq. |
||||
|
||||
|
Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter Inter Press Service Wednesday 12 September 2007 Washington - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting. Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an -kissing little chicken" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress. Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible. Fallon also expressed great skepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' " One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" - a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy. Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge --------- |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by MarthaA
On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd grilled General Petraeus about why he was ordered to testify on September 11 and about the military’s strategy of arming former Sunni insurgents.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't think it’s a coincidence that this important hearing is taking place on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There seems to be another attempt to link in the mind of a confused public the war in Iraq to the attacks perpetrated on us on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Is this just a big sales job? Please answer this clearly and succinctly, so that the American people can understand: is there and was there any connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq? GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Not that I am aware of, Senator.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, it’s getting to be like the change of seasons around here. Every few months someone from the administration comes up and says, “Just give us six or twelve more months, and things will look better.”
Your argument for the surge back in January was that military success would create space for political progress. That didn't work. Now, the new buzzword is “bottom-up.” You’ve talked about military success, but, by the President's own reckoning, that success is meaningless without political reconciliation. Are six months or twelve months really going to make a difference on the big questions. Why should we keep giving you more and more time? Why? Why should we keep giving you more and more time, General Petraeus?
You’ve touted success in Anbar province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar province were shooting and killing Americans. Recently they decided they dislike the terrorists there more than they dislike Americans, so they are cooperating with us for the time being, while we give them money and arms. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980s in Afghanistan of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. We all know how that short-term policy hurt our long-term interest. What guarantee can you give us that the tribes in Anbar are not going to turn around and use the guns that we gave them against our troops once they feel we no longer serve their interest? Isn't that a short-sited policy?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them. What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have -- they were already well enough armed -- at al-Qaeda, because they had come to reject the Taliban-like ideology and barbarity of al-Qaeda in the Euphrates River Valley.
PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them.
What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have, they were already well-enough armed, at Al Qaida because they had come to reject the Taliban like ideology and barbarity of Al Qaida in the Euphrates River Valley. And at this point, their salaries in Anbar Province, of the vast majority of these individuals are being paid by the central Iraqi government because they have been picked up as members, have either joined the army or joined local police forces up and down the Euphrates River Valley. So, there is a connection to a national chain of command and to a national salary structure that does give considerable leverage to the national government over those individuals. It's very significant, again, that they have taken on Al Qaida, because although I have not sought to connect Al Qaida with 9/11 -- Al Qaida Iraq with 9/11 in any respect, Al Qaida is very much part of the sectarian violence. They are really the most barbaric and lethal accelerant on the Sunni-Arab side and within Baghdad, in particular, the element that has -- had been trying to carry out the displacement of Shia, until, in fact, our forces have increasingly dealt with them there. There's still work to be done in those neighborhoods against Al Qaeda, and certainly very much against Shia militia as well.
ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think his message is the same thing the Bush administration has been saying for the last four years, which is “stay the course.” And there is no real strategy that the White House has, beyond trying to stave off defeat for the next year, so it can leave the war to its successor. And all this stuff about, “Well, you know, the surge is working, and we're going to draw it down next summer,” again, it’s part of the same kind of treadmill we’ve been on, the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Road2DC
General David Petraeus testified before Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, four days before the deadline for his report to Congress on the War in Iraq. You can say whatever, but the BUSH administration HOLDING testimony regarding the war in Iraq on 9/11 to give the appearance to those who do not choose to think, that the war in Iraq surely had something to do with the 9/11 attack on the WTC and the Pentagon is and was unconscionable. Thank God, General Petraeus made it clear that the BUSH administration's war in Iraq has and had nothing what so ever to do with the attack on 9/11/01; in that Petraeus did well. On Saturday, September 15, 2007 Washington D.C. will be the site of what promises to be the largest protest ever against the Iraq War. |
||||
|
||||
|
Martha I will be paying attention to this rallly instead
 I think it was very approriate that the testimony occurred on 9-11 . I wrote this to my cousin who is serving on the General's staff in Baghdad after General Petraeus'testimony . The libs are all over the exchange between departing Republican Senator John Warner and General Petraeus. Evidenty it is big news (probably front page tomorrow) that when asked if the surge is was making us safer ,the General of course answered in the only way he honestly could . He said he doesn't know . But since I'm not under oath in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I'll take a stab at it. Today is the 6th anniversary of the attacks on the US on 9-11-2001 . OBL has since been chased into a cave where he is perfecting that Animal Planet love scene with a goat,generously applying Grecian Formula to his rat nest beard,and occasionally producing youtube quality rants on video tape . His last message was a rambling diatribe that strays in many ways from the consistent messages that were his fatwas of the 1990s.He has been rendered irrelevent . We live in a world where all it takes for jihadists to deploy is get some phoney papers and an air ticket to their target of choice. Given that they have all these abundant choices to choose from ;they choose to take that flight to Damascus and hike across the border where they foolishly take on the best Army in the world instead of a shopping mall in hometown USA. .In the process, they hastening their departure to their harem in the sky. Since the surge the General reported there have been detained or killed nearly 100 key leaders and 2,500 rank-and-file fighters.On 9-11 there were 19 of them . They are being killed there instead of here. Given that fact the question appears to be rhetorical . Kudos to the General and to y'all ! BTW there was clearly a working relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. That was not the reason for removing Saddam . But the administration unfortunately underplayed it. See below |
||||
|
||||
|
The 9/11 Commission report tells us in detail that the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11 were set in motion in December 1998. They report that interrogations of the plot's mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, demonstrate that the plot was set in motion in "late 98 early 99" at a meeting in Khandahar, Afghanistan. This also happens to be the time that Iraq came under bombardment by the United States. The timing is no accident.
The commission reported that the only time Osama bin Laden was in Khandahar during the time of "late 98 early 99" was between December 18 and December 24, 1998, after he gave an interview to ABC News in which he declared that "To seek to possess the weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out and I thank God for enabling us to do that. And if I seek to acquire these weapons I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." The Timing Reports from multiple sources indicate that immediately after his press conference and interview, bin Laden left Khandahar and he didn't reappear until February 1999 when another capture/kill attempt was debated and missed. Why was the 9/11 plot set in motion at that time? Bin Laden had been bombing Americans at hotels and embassies with increasingly large attacks since 1992. Khalid Sheik Mohammed's plan of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings had been developed before 1995 and known to bin Laden since 1996. So what made him suddenly take that leap to authorizing an attack on the scale and complexity of 9/11? We must recall that in December of 1998, the United States was being politically torn apart by an impeachment of its President. The U.S. was involved militarily in the Balkans as well as Iraq. The United States had come to blows with Iraq over Saddam's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. In early December of 1998, the threat from Al Qaeda seemed no more-or less-than usual, and when President Clinton was given his December 4, 1998, Presidential Daily Brief with the CIA article titled, "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks," the threat was concerning, but not unusually so. The Plot Something changed on December 17, 1998. All of a sudden Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and CIA Director George Tenet held an emergency meeting to discuss a new terrorist threat. On December 16, 1998, the United States had begun bombing Iraq with Operation Desert Fox. Sometime between the 17th and 18th, al Qaeda's strategic planner and number two man, Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, issued a proclamation: "…we openly and loudly declare that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nations in Iraq, since the crimes committed by the United States against our Islamic nation will not go unpunished." Was this just another militant Islamic threat that got America's counter-terrorism leaders to hold an emergency meeting or was it something larger? Hindsight is 20-20, and today we know that the 9/11 plot was being set in motion. Al Qaeda had vowed to retaliate against the United States if the United States bombed Iraq, and when Iraq was in fact bombed, the 9/11 plot was set in motion sometime within the next 150 hours. According to numerous U.S. media sources, including ABC News, Time, Newsweek, and The Guardian, the threat of Al Qaeda retaliation upon the U.S. was more than sympathy. It was cooperation. All four reported that on or about December 21, 1998, (right in the middle of the 150-hour period when the plot was apparently set in motion) Iraq asked bin Laden to move his headquarters to Iraq. The 9/11 Commission confirms this as well. Those same four media sources also declared that in the days when the 9/11 plot was set in motion, Iraq and bin Laden had decided to work together. The Guardian reported, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to U.S. intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Khandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq." Hijazi was reported to have traveled through five American aircraft carrier battle groups, thousands of American aircraft, through Pakistan, and into the winter mountains of Khandahar, Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, and he was described by the Italian newspaper, The Corriere della Sera, as "…the person who has been responsible for nurturing Iraq's ties with the fundamentalist warriors since 1994." In February 1999, An Arab intelligence officer who knew Saddam Hussein personally predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." At the same time, Saddam himself—long described as too secular to work with Islamic radicals—called for Islamic Militants to fight on his behalf: "Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values." A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama" quoted a U.S. official as saying, "We have evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet—a strike on Washington or possibly New York City in an eye-for-an-eye retaliation." A State Department aide said, "We've hit his headquarters, now he hits ours." ABC News did the most extensive piece on the Iraq/bin Laden meeting, with correspondent Sheila MacVicar going into detail about the cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden. The conclusion is inescapable that the 9/11 plot was set in motion, at the very least, in retaliation for America's war on Saddam, and likely at the direct urging of Saddam via Iraq's Faruq Hijazi. If the reports of the day are any indication, the deal was made in exchange for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. States sponsor terrorism as a means of deniable attack, and since Saddam and bin Laden both had vested interests in attacking the U.S. as well as maintaining deniability, it's likely these killers would lie about it as well. Similarly, terrorists and spies alike compartmentalize compromising information, and so the 9/11 attackers likely never knew about Saddam and bin Laden's private deal—even Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably didn't know about Hijazi's meeting with bin Laden at the time the plot was set in motion. But thanks to our own mass media, we know. All that we had to do was "connect the dots." July 21, 2001 the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin. The article predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.” The same column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” ;an apparent reference to the Sinatra song “New York, New York”. Zell Miller read that Iraqi newspaper article on the floor of the Senate. Here is a confirming article by CNN from 1999 that Saddam offered bin Ladin asylum . CNN - Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown - February 13, 1999
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Saddam link to Bin Laden | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited Investigative reporter Laurie Mylroie has for years linked Sadaam to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: laurie mylroie More below |
||||
|
||||
|
Since the invasion Iraqi documents have been found that confirms the connection .
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore Last Updated: 12:14pm BST 27/04/2003 Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime. Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat. They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa. Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents. One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit. A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service. It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames. The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials. The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence." Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime. A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda. |
||||
|
||||
|
DLC/REPUBLICAN "GREATER GOOD" Does NOT Include the Greater Population
Here is the GREATER GOOD for which All REPUBLICANS and the DLC NEW DEMOCRATS, disguised as NDN and NDC, REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT Candidates are doing all possible to bring about, a globalized HAVE and HAVE NOT SYSTEM, the DLC REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATS in cooperation with the REPUBLICANS have a secret plan of borrowing an ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY, a sufficient amount of money to be able to break the governments, of, by and for the combined people of the United States and all other countries DOWN FOREVER, bankrupting governments where only the HAVES will be in control of the HAVE NOTS; all over the world. GRAVEL told us that the Treasury Dept. leaders called him in and told him that the debt for the United States is not 9 TRILLION; but 59 TRILLION, and GRAVEL had the courage to tell the American people. No other candidate had the courage to tell the American people the enormity of the debt being womped on us. GRAVEL HAS GRIT and needs to be our next president of the United States and leader of the FREE WORLD. WE THE PEOPLE, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, MUST get a leader, like Mike Gravel, that will represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and Mike Gravel will represent us. If the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION continue "lemming voting" like the RIGHT WING MEDIA and the 20% DLC New Class [that have separated themselves from the common population into a new class] tell us; we, the 70% COMMON POPULATION WILL HAVE ALLOWED THE DESTRUCTION OF ANYTHING FAIR AND FREE FOR THE 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION -- us. We are in the middle of a RIGHT WING WAR against the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION --- ALL OVER THE WORLD, and 20% of our population, the New DLC Class chose to desert the common population. We must rise to the challenge and not vote in a DLC COOPERATOR as President of the United States. The following excerpt and urls are from truthout.org: Finance ministers and central bankers have long fretted that at some point, the rest of the world would lose its willingness to finance the United States' proclivity to consume far more than it produces - and that a potentially disastrous free-fall in the dollar's value would result. But for longer than most economists would have been willing to predict a decade ago, the world has been a willing partner in American excess - until a new and home-grown financial crisis this summer rattled confidence in the country, the world's largest economy. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091407R.shtml And, this RIGHT WING-DLC REGIME BORROWS MORE MONEY: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091207T.shtml |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by MarthaA
Your portrayal of this is about as honest and accurate as Truthout is about presenting the truth. I don't believe the President had anything to do with scheduling the hearing, that's up to the particular committee:
For Immediate Release
08/31/2007 Pelosi and Reid Announce Series of House and Senate Hearings on Iraq Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today announced that the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives’ Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold a series of hearings during the first two weeks of September examining the war in Iraq. The hearings will focus on three upcoming reports as well as the recently published National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and feature testimony by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), retired Marine General James Jones, and the Commander of the Armed Forces in Iraq General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker. The hearings will examine the ongoing situation in Iraq and the effectiveness of the President’s war policy. Congress voted in May to require reports from the GAO, General Jones, and the White House to look at the political and military situation in Iraq. The American people expect an honest and open debate and for Congress to be given the facts. While the President continues to stay the course and ask Americans to pay for his failed strategy in Iraq, Democrats will continue to push for a new direction in Iraq to protect our troops and make America more secure.
On Saturday, September 15, 2007 Washington D.C. will be the site of what promises to be the largest protest ever against the Iraq War.
Organizers of the antiwar event said tens of thousands turned out. A law enforcement official, who declined to be identified because authorities no longer provide crowd counts, estimated the gathering at closer to 10,000; the march permit obtained in advance by ANSWER had projected that number.
|
||||
|
||||
|
What is it with the left mouthing incredibly stupid and insulting things about the people that serve this country with honor?
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) on Wednesday sharply criticized David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and signaled agreement with an assessment from a Rolling Stone editor who likened the commander's performance to that of Charlie Sheen.
Woolsey said the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force held a briefing on Tuesday with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone and other panelists, and on the House floor, she quoted Hastings as saying: "General Petraeus is giving us the Charlie Sheen counter-insurgency strategy, which is to give exclusive interviews to every major network, and to keep saying 'we're winning' and hope the public actually agrees with you." |
||||
|
||||
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Did you see the way Sean Hannity treated a sitting US Congressman yesterday on his show?? He called him names and told him to shutup. How long before HE eats his words? (The answer is NEVER, because he doesn't know how stupid he is.) I looked for video of his ganging up on Rep. Anthony Wiener, but couldn't find it. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, Steve:
Adversarial - fine. Disrespectful - not fine. Of course I don't agree with every dingbat on the left, just as I assume you don't agree with your dingbats either. Unless, of course, you believe like SOME of your dingbats, that the Japanese deserve what's happening to them. Nahhh - you don't believe that crap, and you don't have to say it for me to get it.. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
I'd have to see it before commenting. Some congressman don't deserve any respect. Alan Grayson was certainly a congressman that didn't deserve any respect. Gen. Petraeus deserves respect. But as for Beck, I don't watch Beck. I've made that clear many times. I don't have the chutzpah it takes to claim God is or may be judging nations with destruction. On the other hand, if God wanted to do that who am I question Him? |
||||
|
||||
|
So what are you upset about, Hannity calling him a "partisan hack" or telling him to "man up?" Pretty darn mild compared to equating the Commander International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, former commander of CENTCOM and Multi-National Force - Iraq with an insane, tiger milk drinking drunken drug head. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Transferring from General Journal to the General Ledger
[ 1 Answers ]
When transferring from the General Journal to the General Ledger which cash items do you transfer .:confused:
Music in general.
[ 41 Answers ]
I was sitting downstairs when I thought of soething that makes so many different people alike... music. Seeing how there are so many people on this site who disagree I'd like to bring together something that many people enjoy. So here goes... What is/are your fave band(s) and what is/are your...
General journal
[ 3 Answers ]
2. Journalize the following business transactions in general journal Form. Identify each transaction by number. You may omit Explanations of the transactions. 1. The owner, Mike Cline, invests $35,000 in cash in starting a Real estate office operating as a sole...
General journal
[ 1 Answers ]
A problem is "sold merchandise on account to PP. company,$3800" what should I debit and credit?
General journals
[ 3 Answers ]
P5-9A. At the beginning of the current season on April 1, the ledger of Fairway Pro Shop showed Cash $2,500; Merchandise Inventory $3,500; and Common Stock $6,000. These transactions occurred during April 2007. Apr. 5 Purchased golf bags, clubs, and balls on account from Kokott Co....
View more questions Search
|
