Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[CurveLight]

No idea what you are talkign about, since he didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people in a country that had nothing to do with 911 or Al Qaida.

Well then let's just say thousands. Like iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11 nor alkida so how do you justify the invasion and occupation?

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. * * * *

Speaking of stupid mother fuckers, your name always comes up high in the rankings. Why? Because you are dreadfully retarded and miserably dishonest.

The 9/11 Commission absolutely did NOT "point out" that there was "no relationship" between Iraq and al qaeda.*

Why the fuck do you even bother to post at all when almost all you can do is lie so transparently almost all the time?

You are a schmuck.

_____________________
* Not that a schmuck like you cares, but the Commission DID address the topic of the relationships between Iraq and al qaeda. And what they DID say is quite different than your always garbled, dishonest and confused effort to re-state it.

The commission said that it found no evidence which suggested that Iraq's government was involved in the attacks. That part is fair enough since nobody had said otherwise.

In it's report, the 9/11 Commission reached another conclusion on the matter, too. It concluded that although there had been "numerous contacts" in the 1990s between Iraq and al qaeda, such contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship." Again. Partly fair and reasonable, since except for some quibbling not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, nobody had made that claim, either.

 

[Meister]

Well then let's just say thousands. Like iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11 nor alkida so how do you justify the invasion and occupation?

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

Wow, you sure can tell when the ignorant ones start to post. If you don't have the facts....you don't resort to lying as you have, then back it up with a post like this. Stick your tail between your legs and just wait for the next ass whooping.

Looks like curv...I mean lightweight had a meltdown.
When confronted with facts all he had was a post like this. my, my. Mommy should soap out a mouth like that.

 

[CMike]

Well then let's just say thousands. Like iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11 nor alkida so how do you justify the invasion and occupation?

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

That not at all what the 911 commission said.

They said they didn't have enough evidence to show that there was an "collaborative operational relationship".

In other words that Hussein helped plan specific attacks with Al Qaida.

They never said that there was no relationship at all.

Your guess should have been that I would post what they actually said, not what you wished that they would say.

 

[CMike]

Well then let's just say thousands. Like iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11 nor alkida so how do you justify the invasion and occupation?

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM[/ame]

 

[CMike]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

 

[Liability]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

?But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

Bent doesn't give a fuck what it ACTUALLY says. When he deliberately misquotes something, well, by golly, that's what they SHOULD have said!

 

[Annie]

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

That not at all what the 911 commission said.

They said they didn't have enough evidence to show that there was an "collaborative operational relationship".

In other words that Hussein helped plan specific attacks with Al Qaida.

They never said that there was no relationship at all.

Your guess should have been that I would post what they actually said, not what you wished that they would say.

AND there were problems with what the commission did say:

Andrew C. McCarthy on 9/11 Commission & Iraq & al Qaeda on National Review Online

...The staff's sweeping conclusion is found in its Statement No. 15 ("Overview of the Enemy"), which states:

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.​

Just taken on its own terms, this paragraph is both internally inconsistent and ambiguously worded. First, it cannot be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." If the first proposition is so, then the "[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates" who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed.

In light of the number of elementary things the commission staff tells us its investigation has been unable to clarify (for example, in the very next sentence after the Iraq paragraph, the staff explains that the question whether al Qaeda had any connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the 1995 plot to blow U.S. airliners out of the sky "remains a matter of substantial uncertainty"), it is fair to conclude that these two senior bin Laden associates may not be the most cooperative, reliable fellows in town regarding what bin Laden was actually up to. Moreover, we know from press reports and the administration's own statements about the many al Qaeda operatives it has captured since 9/11 that the government is talking to more than just two of bin Laden's top operatives. That begs the questions: Have we really only asked two of them about Iraq? If not, what did the other detainees say?

INCONVENIENT FACTS
The staff's back-of-the-hand summary also strangely elides mention of another significant matter — but one that did not escape the attention of Commissioner Fred Fielding, who raised it with a panel of law-enforcement witnesses right after noting the staff's conclusion that there was "no credible evidence" of cooperation. It is the little-discussed original indictment of bin Laden, obtained by the Justice Department in spring 1998 — several weeks before the embassy bombings and at a time when the government thought it would be prudent to have charges filed in the event an opportunity arose overseas to apprehend bin Laden. Paragraph 4 of that very short indictment reads:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.​

(Emphasis added.) This allegation has always been inconvenient for the "absolutely no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda" club. (Richard Clarke, a charter member, handles the problem in his book by limiting the 1998 indictment to a fleeting mention and assiduously avoiding any description of what the indictment actually says.)...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Blame BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSH Liberal loons whining about "Blame Games?" Pretty hilarious stuff.

 

[Vast LWC]

You truly don't see how idiotic that is?

They are EITHER "lawful combatants" or they are UNlawful combatants.

Even if we adopted your meaningless nomenclature, it wouldn't make any damn difference since "criminal combatants" are still combatants, you imbecile. That they are combatants means they get treated as combatants -- either in the category of lawful combatants who can expect all the accomodations made for LAWFUL combatants or in the category of UNlawful combatants (or "criminal combatants") who should expect NONE of the accomodations made for LAWFUL combatants.

But one thing is clear no matter which term you favor: The fact that they violate the laws of war by not adopting a uniform and by intentionally targetting civilians, etc, should not entitle them to GREATER benefits than those reserved, under the Geneva Accords, for lawful combatants.

And an "unlawful combatant", meaning someone who kills someone without state sanctioning is, say it with me now... A CRIMINAL.

 

[CMike]

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

That not at all what the 911 commission said.

They said they didn't have enough evidence to show that there was an "collaborative operational relationship".

In other words that Hussein helped plan specific attacks with Al Qaida.

They never said that there was no relationship at all.

Your guess should have been that I would post what they actually said, not what you wished that they would say.

AND there were problems with what the commission did say:

Andrew C. McCarthy on 9/11 Commission & Iraq & al Qaeda on National Review Online

...The staff's sweeping conclusion is found in its Statement No. 15 ("Overview of the Enemy"), which states:

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.​

Just taken on its own terms, this paragraph is both internally inconsistent and ambiguously worded. First, it cannot be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." If the first proposition is so, then the "[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates" who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed.

In light of the number of elementary things the commission staff tells us its investigation has been unable to clarify (for example, in the very next sentence after the Iraq paragraph, the staff explains that the question whether al Qaeda had any connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the 1995 plot to blow U.S. airliners out of the sky "remains a matter of substantial uncertainty"), it is fair to conclude that these two senior bin Laden associates may not be the most cooperative, reliable fellows in town regarding what bin Laden was actually up to. Moreover, we know from press reports and the administration's own statements about the many al Qaeda operatives it has captured since 9/11 that the government is talking to more than just two of bin Laden's top operatives. That begs the questions: Have we really only asked two of them about Iraq? If not, what did the other detainees say?

INCONVENIENT FACTS
The staff's back-of-the-hand summary also strangely elides mention of another significant matter — but one that did not escape the attention of Commissioner Fred Fielding, who raised it with a panel of law-enforcement witnesses right after noting the staff's conclusion that there was "no credible evidence" of cooperation. It is the little-discussed original indictment of bin Laden, obtained by the Justice Department in spring 1998 — several weeks before the embassy bombings and at a time when the government thought it would be prudent to have charges filed in the event an opportunity arose overseas to apprehend bin Laden. Paragraph 4 of that very short indictment reads:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.​

(Emphasis added.) This allegation has always been inconvenient for the "absolutely no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda" club. (Richard Clarke, a charter member, handles the problem in his book by limiting the 1998 indictment to a fleeting mention and assiduously avoiding any description of what the indictment actually says.)...

I don't care about the person's commentary on the report. What the contacts are ambiguous in the report.

Testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Behind Closed Doors

Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?


Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.

 

[CMike]

You truly don't see how idiotic that is?

They are EITHER "lawful combatants" or they are UNlawful combatants.

Even if we adopted your meaningless nomenclature, it wouldn't make any damn difference since "criminal combatants" are still combatants, you imbecile. That they are combatants means they get treated as combatants -- either in the category of lawful combatants who can expect all the accomodations made for LAWFUL combatants or in the category of UNlawful combatants (or "criminal combatants") who should expect NONE of the accomodations made for LAWFUL combatants.

But one thing is clear no matter which term you favor: The fact that they violate the laws of war by not adopting a uniform and by intentionally targetting civilians, etc, should not entitle them to GREATER benefits than those reserved, under the Geneva Accords, for lawful combatants.

And an "unlawful combatant", meaning someone who kills someone without state sanctioning is, say it with me now... A CRIMINAL.

The criteria is pretty specific, what you said is not part of the criteria.

 

[CMike]

Case Closed | The Weekly Standard

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.


"This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company
of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.


And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:


10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .

14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.

16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.

17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.

18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction.


An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:


Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.

23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.

Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:


24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.

25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."

26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.


The analysis of this report follows.


CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons."

Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:

27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.


And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.


The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:


CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

 

[Vast LWC]

And just what is your messiah's plan....bring terrorists to civilian courts.

Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee - National - NewsObserver.com
A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

Please tell all of us just what obama is doing different other than having combatants have the same rights as citizens of this great nation.

NOTHING. That is my point.

My point is that Obama has done nothing to change the existing Bush anti-terror measures. And certainly nothing that would have affected the Christmas Bomber case.

Which means that if Obama is to be held at fault for the "Christmas Bomber", then 9/11 is Bush and Cheney's fault.

THAT'S MY ONLY POINT thoughout this conversation, is that you can't have one without the other, logically.

I'm not even saying that Bush and Cheney are responsible for 9/11, because I personally don't believe they are. I'm just saying that you can't point the finger for one instance without pointing the same accusing finger at the other.

By the way doofus, there is no way to completely protect America from future attacks....even YOUR MESSIAH can't make a promise like that.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, there is NO WAY to completely protect America from terrorist attacks.

Whats the answer, Vast? What is the answer? The terrorists are still trying and succeeding under the messiah in our country. Even after all his ass kissing, and rhetoric, he can't even seal his goods.

What "ass-kissing"? What terrorist has President Obama given "ass-kissing" to? Why don't you put your moronic talking-points and rhetoric aside and look at the logic here?

By the way, I will criticize anyone or about anything I like.
You and your ilk I'm sure were doing it for 8 years, then you have the balls to hammer on conservatives about it. I laugh at your pathetic ass.

And when you make a criticism that's hypocritical, I will point it out.

And I will sure as hell be happy to point out where your criticism implicates your own "Messiah", or at least was the "messiah" for you all until he showed everyone what an utter incompetent moron he really was, LOL.

 

[CMike]

Obama ran national security for the past year. He had everything to do with it.

Let's see right before Obama the country was safe 7 years, Obama takes over and we have had 3 terrorist attacks in the US, within a year.

During the whole time, Obama promises to undo Bush's security measures, i.e. enhanced interrorgation techniques, even threatening to prosecuting these hero CIA agents, giving terrorists "rights", lets afghanistan go to hell, doesn't take the war in Iraq seriously, and his security of homeland security, doesn't even acknowledge that we we are dealing with terrorists.

 

[Annie]

And just what is your messiah's plan....bring terrorists to civilian courts.

Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee - National - NewsObserver.com
A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

Please tell all of us just what obama is doing different other than having combatants have the same rights as citizens of this great nation.

NOTHING. That is my point.

My point is that Obama has done nothing to change the existing Bush anti-terror measures. And certainly nothing that would have affected the Christmas Bomber case.

Which means that if Obama is to be held at fault for the "Christmas Bomber", then 9/11 is Bush and Cheney's fault.

THAT'S MY ONLY POINT thoughout this conversation, is that you can't have one without the other, logically.

I'm not even saying that Bush and Cheney are responsible for 9/11, because I personally don't believe they are. I'm just saying that you can't point the finger for one instance without pointing the same accusing finger at the other.

By the way doofus, there is no way to completely protect America from future attacks....even YOUR MESSIAH can't make a promise like that.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, there is NO WAY to completely protect America from terrorist attacks.

Whats the answer, Vast? What is the answer? The terrorists are still trying and succeeding under the messiah in our country. Even after all his ass kissing, and rhetoric, he can't even seal his goods.

What "ass-kissing"? What terrorist has President Obama given "ass-kissing" to? Why don't you put your moronic talking-points and rhetoric aside and look at the logic here?

By the way, I will criticize anyone or about anything I like.
You and your ilk I'm sure were doing it for 8 years, then you have the balls to hammer on conservatives about it. I laugh at your pathetic ass.

And when you make a criticism that's hypocritical, I will point it out.

And I will sure as hell be happy to point out where your criticism implicates your own "Messiah", or at least was the "messiah" for you all until he showed everyone what an utter incompetent moron he really was, LOL.

Here's your problem with premise. Bush, like Clinton had no intention of a war on al Quaeda or any foreign target. He was all about domestic agenda. So, when the 'memo' appeared, which was probably the 10 or 100th such, he saw nothing actionable. No specifics, got it?

Then 9/11 happened and suddenly the dots flew in. All the hints from flight schools, etc., that had been shelved.

Well it happened and nearly 3k Americans died. 4 commercial jets were turned into missiles. Things changed.

Then Obama was elected and 'he realized that the changes had caused terrorism', so he went back to 9/10.

 

[Vast LWC]

The criteria is pretty specific, what you said is not part of the criteria.

Look, it's simple.

When you kill someone in the name of a state you are a "combatant".

When that state sanctions said killings, you are a "lawful combatant".

When you kill someone, and you are not fighting on behalf of a state, you are a "murderer", which is a sub-category of "criminal". Get it?

The reason the Geneva Convention doesn't cover terrorists, is that the Convention was specifically to make rules for warfare, NOT to make rules for international criminal law.

 

[Vast LWC]

Obama ran national security for the past year. He had everything to do with it.

Let's see right before Obama the country was safe 7 years, Obama takes over and we have had 3 terrorist attacks in the US, within a year.

During the whole time, Obama promises to undo Bush's security measures, i.e. enhanced interrorgation techniques, even threatening to prosecuting these hero CIA agents, giving terrorists "rights", lets afghanistan go to hell, doesn't take the war in Iraq seriously, and his security of homeland security, doesn't even acknowledge that we we are dealing with terrorists.

Obama ran national security for 11 months before the Christmas Bomber, Bush ran national security for 8 months before 9/11.

Same thing.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Are "Blame BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSH" Liberal Loons really whining about "Blame Games?" Now i really have seen everything. Yikes!

 

[Vast LWC]

Here's your problem with premise. Bush, like Clinton had no intention of a war on al Quaeda or any foreign target. He was all about domestic agenda. So, when the 'memo' appeared, which was probably the 10 or 100th such, he saw nothing actionable. No specifics, got it?

Which is why, I, personally, don't hold Bush accountable for 9/11.

Then 9/11 happened and suddenly the dots flew in. All the hints from flight schools, etc., that had been shelved.

Well it happened and nearly 3k Americans died. 4 commercial jets were turned into missiles. Things changed.

Then Obama was elected and 'he realized that the changes had caused terrorism', so he went back to 9/10.

Which is an utterly false premise. Obama kept the EXACT same anti-terror intelligence structure Bush wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars creating, and no memo appeared on his desk at all.

So, again, if you say the "Chistmas Bomber" is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush's fault.

Here's an easy solution to your argument: Just admit that Obama wasn't "at fault" for the "Christmas Bomber", and the logic dilemma will magically dissappear!