Bush a Genius Says NY Times

Source: Middle East Intelligence Bulletin

So now you're going to listen to some flaming liberal?

Just joshin' ya, McG. Still, him saying it doesn't make it so. But you and he are both entitled to your opinions and may yet come around to agree with you. Just not yet.

It's really tough having to give credit to somebody you don't like. I felt the same way about some of our former administrations over the decades. But everybody, even the scoundrels, usually get more right than they get wrong.

It's also very tough for the people on the right to reign themselves in and not blow a premature load in their pants over a couple of events that might or might not turn out to be good things.

kicky.

Fox, it's not about whether I like Bush. Truthfully, I don't personally dislike him. I don't trust him. I think he's known for doublespeak. I didn't and still don't think him qualified to be president. But if he's truly committed to spreading democracy through parts of the world that need it, then I support his efforts. However, because I realize that the world is much more complicated than a stack of of dominoes, I'm reserving judgment as to whether the recent events and anouncements actually mean anything.

Something else I wanted to throw out there. According to a recent article, Bush said:



http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11052115.htm

So, can domocracy in Iraq not succeed so long as it is occupied by the US? Or does this idea only apply to this one instance?

The US is there at the request of Iraq, Freeduck. We have offered to leave the minute they ask us to leave. They have asked us to stay. Iraq is not under the control of occupiers.

In what way is Lebanon under the control of occupiers that Iraq is not?

Foxfyre:



Um, we're building permanent military bases over there. If Iraq asked us to leave, there is no way in hell that we would. The insurgency serves our purpose in forcing the Iraqis to accept American security while we continue to rape the land of their oil (that is, if we can actually GET to it...).

Iraq ceased being sovereign when we invaded, which means WE are the government of Iraq.

Meanwhile, we've lost over 1,500 troops and army recruitment is down by 27%. Gee, I wonder why?

As far as Bush is concerned, I think he's the most dangerous piece of festering crap to ever occupy the White House.

I've never seen this country being flushed down the toilet so rapidly by this moron.

Lebanon is under control of Syria.

#11

Dookie, the bases are being with the concept and assistance of the Iraqis. The Iraqis may wish us to stay there on some of them much as England, Germany, Turkey, Japan et al enjoy having extra defensive resources plus permanent American money that way. But if the Iraqis tell us to leave, we'll leave.

An obvious mistype. Edited to correct.

Of course, that would be exactly what the Syrians would have said any of the past x years - "hey, the Lebanese elect their own governments, and their government isn't asking us to leave, they're willingly co-operating with us" - which was true. So this distinction between the two cases doesn't really yet cut the case.

That said, on the subject itself, I see nothing to regret about the recent events in Lebanon. Long-divided country pulls together in the face of the murder of its popular PM, people of different sectarian groups suddenly on the street together for a common cause - their cause being the departure of a foreign country's troops and intelligence folks, which have a long track record of manipulating Lebanese politics and supporting armed sectarian militias - foreign country also being a notorious dictatorship - then, in response to the Lebanese pulling together so demonstratively, across the usual community boundaries, for the first time in years, the pro-Syrian government gives in and resigns - and foreign governments all chime in with remarkable concord, with France, the US and now Saudi-Arabia too all calling on Syria unisono to withdraw. Yep, thus far it all sounds good to me. These be hopeful times.

All good things to my mind too. But the Saudi case constitutes quite a dilemma, doesn't it? For the first time ever, the Saudi government permits a wider stratum of men to vote in local elections - and they promptly vote in Islamists across the board.

I havent kept up with how it was resolved eventually, because I know that as soon as the results came in, the other politicians promised to try to invalidate them in court, because party lists were not allowed in the elections but the fundamentalists had been texting lists of preferred candidates around - dont know if such a court case took place or succeeded. But the results themselves - I think the fundamentalists won in 16 out of 18 seats or something like that? - were quite provocative. Especially since they were often quite unknown people, standing against local dignitaries, and were thus really purely voted in on the mobilising force of this ideological appeal in mosques and schools, to vote for the Islamist candidate - and the mobilisation was done through such postmodern ways too, through SMS (one means of communication not controlled by government) - it all suggests that serious democratisation in Saudi-Arabia might well yet cause serious headaches.

I'm in favour of it nevertheless, mind you. But I would have expected American conservatives to be somewhat ambivalent about the results so far ...? As in, freedom is on the march yes - but its not marching in the direction we claimed it would, or something?

Or maybe you are guilty of drawing unrelated metaphorical images to misrepresent what American conservatives are actually saying and/or intend.

Saddam Hussein had basically committed outright acts of war against the United States and only the pitiful condition which Slick Clinton left our military in prevented our taking him out within weeks after 9-11.

Aside from the anthrax attacks which had Hussiens fingerprints all over them, there are provable links between Hussein, Al Quaeda, and the hijackers.

Here's a good place to look for many articles and documents on this topic:

http://cshink.com/al_qaeda_and_saddam_archive.htm

***********

For example, here an article exploring Saddam's funding of al-Qaeda: http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm . It details the many connections Saddam had with al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda terrorists activitities, including possibly supporting 9/11 directly. In the words of the author ... "So the central question of our time becomes: Did Saddam Hussein help pay for 9/11, making him legally and morally as guilty as the hijackers themselves? As a lawyer, I think a good case can be made for this in a court of law, a convincing circumstantial case at the bare minimum."

Here's another interesting article, http://cshink.com/iraq_al-qaeda_connection.htm. It explores Iraq-Al Qaeda connections noting, among other things, that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who "was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years" "fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary." Another must read.

Here's another interesting article, http://cshink.com/clues_of_iraq_linkage.htm, that explores the Atta/Iraq connection. Connect the dots, Sam.

Now here was Rumsfeld trying to tell people about the evidence suggesting an Iraqi/Al-Qaeda connection, http://cshink.com/iraq_terror_study.htm. Reported in the Washington Times. But anywhere else? As the owner of the website notes: "There are Democrats and some journalists who will unequivocally tell you that no link between al Qaeda and Iraq existed before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But reports of a connection DO indeed exist, and these Democrats and journalists are deliberately ignoring the reports. Why are they doing that? Because perpetuating the myth that there is no connection denies the Bush administration a reason to invade Iraq. WMD issue aside, the other justification to invade Iraq is that they (Iraq) supported terrorist groups, specifically al Qaeda, in some way. ... snip ... When reports surface linking Iraq and al Qaeda, they are ignored or pooh-poohed because they do not fit into the false reality that the Bush detractors want to create."

Here a British article detailing a direct link between Saddam and 9/11: http://cshink.com/terrorist_trained_by_saddam.htm "Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad." In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

Now this link, http://cshink.com/saddam_files_show_direct_link.htm, has several articles detailing evidence that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a Lieutenant Colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen, attended a 2000 planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur with several 9/11 participants: Khalid al Midhar, Nawaz al Hamzi, Ramzi bin al Shibh. As one article points out "Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend." Shakir also had in his possession information relating to Operation Bojinka, the plot devised by trade center bomber Ramzi Yousef that became the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks.

And there is a ton of other information at the above link, including this: "Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets."

Such as Secretary Powell. His wisdom in warnings is noted in this article, http://cshink.com/bulls_eye_for_powell.htm which talks about the al-Qaeda Jordian bomb plot that was foiled last year. That's the one where we have the terrorists admitting, on Jordanian TV (replayed on such mainstream venues as Fox, CNN, etc), that they were backed/funded by al-Qaeda (via al-Zarqawi) and that they planned and trained for the operation in Iraq before the war. The operation was intended to kill tens of thousands with chemicals, which were also captures. King of Jordan is quoted as saying VX was among the chemicals.

Here's another good article you may have missed. http://cshink.com/philanthropy_of_terror.htm, " Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror". It lists case after case of known contacts between Iraq and terrorists ... including members of al-Qaeda. Whether Bush and Company highlighted this enough is another issue. They may have perfectly valid reasons for not doing so. Perhaps they don't want to show how incompetent the government was. Maybe the elite is just protecting the elite. Maybe they don't want to cause further panic. But there are simply too many indications of a significant and on-going connection between Iraq and terrorism ... including al-Qaeda ... to ignore

And, of course, no reply would be complete without mentioning this: http://cshink.com/saddam_usama.htm " Case Closed: Intel Report Links Saddam, Usama". This is The Weekly Standard article that caused such a furor among liberals. You may not agree but I stand with them in concluding that "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

The Iraqis? The Iraqis had never been empowered under Saddam, so what makes you think, other than a sham of an election to only give them a false hope, that they would feel any different, what with the insurgency picking up steam and the American occupation as the catalyst for their current new brand of misery?

The connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda has already been concluded in the 9/11 report. Bush himself stated that there was no working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam was a secularist dictator, Bin Laden was a muslim fundamentalist, and they hated each other. Duh.

And the reality is that North Korea could very well RIGHT NOW send a nuclear warhead to the U.S. West coast. Where are the priorities here?

Then there's the MUCH bigger medi-cal crisis, as another anologous example, which clearly overshadows SS at the present, and yet as we discuss the REAL issues of SS, we've got neoconservative operatives (those lovely SBVFCrap) blaming the AARP for being against our troops and for gay marriage. This is in relation to Social Security reform. Right? Is that what you conservatives on able2know honestly feel?

Unfortunately, cshink is so out there as to stink of rat waste. It's not even worth acknowledging for the most part. Maybe you should change your shorts, gunga...

BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahaaa.......

Actually while the turn out was good the election is turning into quite a mess with no compromises in sight and allowi holding on like a dead dog that died with a bone in his mouth.