Tam said:GW Bush's Head speech writer just told Megyn Kelly Obama plagiarized part of his State of the Union Address from GW Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address. And who should know better than the guy that wrote GW's speech.
littlejoe said:Tam said:GW Bush's Head speech writer just told Megyn Kelly Obama plagiarized part of his State of the Union Address from GW Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address. And who should know better than the guy that wrote GW's speech.
well buttercup, it's damn sure ol' shrub never wrote it---probably busy putting food on our children--- his head. Durn that dope! had a 5 trillion surplus and ran it into 10 T deficit---got us into wars where we had no business being and set us up to get following dope elected. talk about backlash! Thnk what that $$ coulda done in our own country.
littlejoe said:Tam said:GW Bush's Head speech writer just told Megyn Kelly Obama plagiarized part of his State of the Union Address from GW Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address. And who should know better than the guy that wrote GW's speech.
well buttercup, it's damn sure ol' shrub never wrote it---probably busy putting food on our children--- his head. Durn that dope! had a 5 trillion surplus and ran it into 10 T deficit---got us into wars where we had no business being and set us up to get following dope elected. talk about backlash! Thnk what that $$ coulda done in our own country.
When former president Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a $86.4 billion surplus. When former president George W. Bush left office in 2008 there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.
The Daily Caller reported:
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices…
…Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
Then there’s Bush…
On the flip side, President George W. Bush warned the Democratic Congress 17 times in 2008 alone about the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
To this day Barack Obama blames Bush for the 2008 economic meltdown.
The truth is, it was Obama not Bush who destroyed the economy.
But yet he refuses to use his all mighty pen to streamline the permitting process on a project that could create thousands of Private sector jobs in building a PIPELINE. :roll:OBAMA: "We'll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. But I will act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible."
OBAMA: "In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour, because if you cook our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn't have to live in poverty."
Tam said:GW Bush's Head speech writer just told Megyn Kelly Obama plagiarized part of his State of the Union Address from GW Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address. And who should know better than the guy that wrote GW's speech.
Says "Barack Obama has gone from blaming George W. Bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush."
Marc Thiessen on Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 in a broadcast of Fox News' "The Kelly File"
----------------------------
We contacted Thiessen, and he said we should look at his statement in context.
"Did Obama copy Bush word-for-word? No," Thiessen told us. "But Obama clearly lifted the repeating theme of his address from Bush's 2007 State of the Union. In Obama's case, it's significant because he is abandoning a liberal theme that was not working (income inequality) in favor of a conservative theme that does (opportunity)."
Thiessen said this wasn’t the first time he felt Obama borrowed heavily from Bush. He said it happened before in an Obama speech on Syria.
In this case, Thiessen does well to back away from the zinger he delivered on television. Jonathan Bailey runs a consulting operation and website called Plagiarism Today. Bailey told us Obama’s speech didn’t have what Bailey would call plagiarism.
"It doesn’t appear that any lines were lifted verbatim, or even very close to verbatim," Bailey said.
First, Obama never said, "Our job is to help Americans build a future of hope and opportunity," or, "A future of hope and opportunity requires that all citizens have affordable and available health care, extending opportunity and hope depends on a stable supply of energy."
So Thiessen is wrong on that point.
Even in more isolated contexts, an accusation of plagiarism appears unjustified.
-------------------------
Our ruling
Thiessen said that Obama had gone from blaming George W. Bush to plagiarizing him. Thiessen himself says he didn’t mean that Obama copied Bush; rather, that Obama took the theme of opportunity from Bush.
Even if Obama did emphasize a theme Republicans identify with, that in no way matches the popular, or legal, understanding of plagiarism. At PunditFact, we understand that words can be delivered for effect, but we also uphold the principle that words matter.
We rate this claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/29/marc-thiessen/gop-speechwriter-obama-plagiarized-george-w-bush/
Tam said:littlejoe said:Tam said:GW Bush's Head speech writer just told Megyn Kelly Obama plagiarized part of his State of the Union Address from GW Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address. And who should know better than the guy that wrote GW's speech.
well buttercup, it's damn sure ol' shrub never wrote it---probably busy putting food on our children--- his head. Durn that dope! had a 5 trillion surplus and ran it into 10 T deficit---got us into wars where we had no business being and set us up to get following dope elected. talk about backlash! Thnk what that $$ coulda done in our own country.
Do you really think any President writes their own speeches? :roll: By the sounds of it Obama speech writers don't even write Obama speeches as Bush's writers did. :roll:
Now on to your next stupid comment :roll:
When former president Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a $86.4 billion surplus. When former president George W. Bush left office in 2008 there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.
ANd why was there a large deficit in 2008 under Bush
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.
The Daily Caller reported:
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices…
…Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
Then there’s Bush…
On the flip side, President George W. Bush warned the Democratic Congress 17 times in 2008 alone about the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
To this day Barack Obama blames Bush for the 2008 economic meltdown.
The truth is, it was Obama not Bush who destroyed the economy.
Barney Franks stood in the Congress telling people there was nothing wrong with Fanny and Freddy just months before they imploded and took the whole US economy with them. So tell us what was Bush to do peewee? :roll:
ON to the next stupid peewee comment
The war Bush got the US into was caused by a Terrorist attack on US soil remember 911 peewee :? and the Friggin Democrat supported the war with their vote to go into it. When Bush went into Iraq the Dems supported that war too as everyone in the Clinton Administration was on record as saying Saddam had WMD. When Bush didn't find the WMD they were yelling about they turned around and claimed he lied and it was stupid people like you and Oldtimer that bought their crap. Do yourself a favor Google "Dems quotes on WMD" as I'm sick of posting them as it doesn't seem to friggin matter to you Bush haters. :x
And it is really funny how you b*tch about the 5 trillion Bush put on the DEBT (yes peewee it was the National DEBT not the defict, :roll: ) in 8 years which included a bailout caused by stupid Democrats not willing to rein in Barney Franks Boyfriend. But mums the word about the 7 trillion Obama has put on the national debt in 5 years. He has 3 years left just what do you think the NATIONAL DEBT will be when this pen wheeling idiot is forced to walk out of the White House with bags in hand, 25 trillion? And will you still be posting crap about Bush, Romney and Rush to try distract from the facts staring you in the face?
BTW just how many jobs could have be created with all that money Obama paid out to bankrupt green energy companies OWNED BY HIS CAMPAIGN DONORS? And what do you think the Ambassador of Norway is going to get paid, a guy that has never been to Norway but did manage to raise Obama a pretty large some of campaign funds!
When you start bring these kinds of stories about the Dems wasteful spending I might JUST MIGHT believe you are not like Oldtimer and a closet Obama lover!!!! :wink:
One more thing PLEASE get one of those Obamacare Gold plans I hear the mental health coverage it top notch. :wink:
littlejoe said:Tam said:littlejoe said:well buttercup, it's damn sure ol' shrub never wrote it---probably busy putting food on our children--- his head. Durn that dope! had a 5 trillion surplus and ran it into 10 T deficit---got us into wars where we had no business being and set us up to get following dope elected. talk about backlash! Thnk what that $$ coulda done in our own country.
Do you really think any President writes their own speeches? :roll: By the sounds of it Obama speech writers don't even write Obama speeches as Bush's writers did. :roll:
Now on to your next stupid comment :roll:
When former president Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a $86.4 billion surplus. When former president George W. Bush left office in 2008 there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.
ANd why was there a large deficit in 2008 under Bush
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.
The Daily Caller reported:
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices…
…Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
Then there’s Bush…
On the flip side, President George W. Bush warned the Democratic Congress 17 times in 2008 alone about the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
To this day Barack Obama blames Bush for the 2008 economic meltdown.
The truth is, it was Obama not Bush who destroyed the economy.
Barney Franks stood in the Congress telling people there was nothing wrong with Fanny and Freddy just months before they imploded and took the whole US economy with them. So tell us what was Bush to do peewee? :roll:
ON to the next stupid peewee comment
The war Bush got the US into was caused by a Terrorist attack on US soil remember 911 peewee :? and the Friggin Democrat supported the war with their vote to go into it. When Bush went into Iraq the Dems supported that war too as everyone in the Clinton Administration was on record as saying Saddam had WMD. When Bush didn't find the WMD they were yelling about they turned around and claimed he lied and it was stupid people like you and Oldtimer that bought their crap. Do yourself a favor Google "Dems quotes on WMD" as I'm sick of posting them as it doesn't seem to friggin matter to you Bush haters. :x
And it is really funny how you b*tch about the 5 trillion Bush put on the DEBT (yes peewee it was the National DEBT not the defict, :roll: ) in 8 years which included a bailout caused by stupid Democrats not willing to rein in Barney Franks Boyfriend. But mums the word about the 7 trillion Obama has put on the national debt in 5 years. He has 3 years left just what do you think the NATIONAL DEBT will be when this pen wheeling idiot is forced to walk out of the White House with bags in hand, 25 trillion? And will you still be posting crap about Bush, Romney and Rush to try distract from the facts staring you in the face?
BTW just how many jobs could have be created with all that money Obama paid out to bankrupt green energy companies OWNED BY HIS CAMPAIGN DONORS? And what do you think the Ambassador of Norway is going to get paid, a guy that has never been to Norway but did manage to raise Obama a pretty large some of campaign funds!
When you start bring these kinds of stories about the Dems wasteful spending I might JUST MIGHT believe you are not like Oldtimer and a closet Obama lover!!!! :wink:
One more thing PLEASE get one of those Obamacare Gold plans I hear the mental health coverage it top notch. :wink:
I realize you're in Canada and sask at that and the wind charger don't always work, so i'll cut ya some slack.
The people who committed and planned the 911 tragedy were primarily saudi's. They were not in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Bush invading Iraq could be compared to bush invading new Zealand over 911. (new Zealand is a big island that-a-way and also had nothing to do with 911) Now--go cook dinner.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Terrorism Posted: Oct. 29, 2004, 5:10 p.m. ET
Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks
A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.
It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an extremely tight president race.
In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."
Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.
"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."
-The Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection
29th January 2014
Don't get me wrong: Hayes' assertions are on the mark. But those with connections to the U.S. special operations community have long known that the pre-war link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda terrorist network is not only a fact, but one that had to be addressed as part of the global war on terror.
I first began writing about this in August 2004 after a conversation with a good friend of mine, Commander Mark Divine, a U.S. Navy SEAL officer who had just returned from Iraq, where he was tasked with evaluating joint operations between SEALs and a then-developing Marine Corps special ops team. Divine told me, and I subsequently reported in National Review Online, “There is tremendous evidence to suggest there were terrorist training camps in Iraq before 9/11.”
I also wrote about the publicly and journalistically glossed-over 9/11 Commission Report that clearly stated, “[Osama] bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.” Bin Laden asked the Iraqi official for weapons procurement assistance and – get this – permission to establish terrorist training facilities in Iraq.
Granted, the Commission did say, “There is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.” But my question today is: what about any evidence to suggest Iraq did not respond? There is no such evidence, and to me that is a far more important question, considering the fact that the Commission concluded, “The ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.”
Moreover, there was Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group with training camps in Northern Iraq prior to 2003. This group was hoping to establish an Islamist state in Iraq. But the – again, rarely read – 9/11 Commission Report clearly states, “There are indications that [by 2001] the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.”
But don't take my word for it, or the Commission's.
In her book, Masters of Chaos, author and U.S. News & World Report senior writer Linda Robinson describes an attack on Sargat – an enormously significant international terrorist training camp in northeastern Iraq, near the Iranian border. The camp was being run by Ansar al Islam, and based on Robinson's conversations with the U.S. Army special operators who led the attack, it is indeed "more than plausible" that Al Qaeda members trained there.
“[A Special Forces sergeant] believed, given the heavy fortifications, ample weaponry, and quality of the fighters, that his team had just invaded the world's largest existing terrorist training camp since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” writes Robinson. “This was no way-station, in his view. It was remote yet in the heart of the region, so radicals could wreak havoc all over the Middle East.”
According to Robinson, the American Green Berets discovered among the dead in Sargat: foreign ID cards, airline-ticket receipts, visas, and passports from Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran.
Sargat wasn't the only terrorist camp discovered by U.S. forces.
As Hayes reported, “Secret training took place primarily at three camps — in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak — and was directed by elite Iraqi military units.”
At Salman Pak, a facility south of Baghdad, “videos and other materials turned up after the invasion that showed terrorist training footage, where the targets were clearly Americans, along with other Jihadist propaganda,” Divine, who also operates NavySEALs.com, told me last week, “If this were an Iraqi military training site, or even a secret police site, it would not have had Jihadist focus, nor been visited by Arab members of Al Qaeda, as had been reported by several intelligence agencies.”
About the time Divine and I were having our initial conversation about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, Dr. Walid Phares – a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and author of Future Jihad – was poring over captured Iraqi intelligence documents (written in Arabic).
Last week, Phares told me he concluded from the documents, “There obviously were connections and talks, not only between Baghdad and the Jihadists of Osama Bin Laden, but between other Arab regimes such as Sudan, Syria and officials in Saudi Arabia and the radical Islamists who would later form Al Qaeda. In this regional maze, everybody talks to everybody and explores possibilities, plans.”
This is key to understanding the nature of terrorist organizations in the Middle East: Alliances are often ad hoc, opposing groups often train together, and the terrorists themselves switch loyalties depending upon whose leading what organization and what propaganda is being fomented by whom. To think otherwise would be dangerous for America and the world. And those on both sides of the U.S. political divide recognize Phares' grasp of the complexities of global terrorism, particularly as they relate to the complex relationships that have existed in the Middle East for thousands of years.
Phares, who regularly conducts Congressional and State Department briefings, added, “The Saddam-Al Qaeda cooperation was centered around weakening the U.N.-sponsored, U.S.-British-backed sanctions against Iraq. Al Qaeda would strike U.S. interests, prompting a U.S. withdrawal from the region. Iraq would in-turn provide some facilities and other services to Al Qaeda's operatives and local allies without necessarily becoming their main supplier or strategic partner.”
Consequently, international terrorists like Jordanian-born Abu Musab al Zarqawi were able to access many locations in Iraq prior to 2003. If nothing else, Zarqawi's direct links to both Al Qaeda and Ansar al Islam, directly linked post-invasion Iraq and Al Qaeda. There is simply no way around that.
But there is much more to consider than Zarqawi, his crowd, and their freedom-of-movement. Intelligence gathered since the U.S. invasion indicates that as early as the late 1990's, Iraq's Unit 999 (a special branch of the old regime's army) was directly involved in the training of foreign terrorists inside Iraq. Intelligence about U.S. and other Western forces was shared between operatives of the Iraqi intelligence services and Al Qaeda. And foreign terrorists operating in the region (outside of Iraq) who needed medical attention or other support received it once inside Iraqi borders.
Additionally, previously positioned operators – the “connections” – would have been necessary to coordinate the reception of Al Qaeda operatives crossing into post-invasion Iraq. Any student of guerrilla operations knows the former must assist the latter to establish deep bases, recruit new members, and develop some semblance of trust in an untrusting tribal society.
So let's forget for the moment any weapons of mass destruction (and the verdict is still out over whether or not WMDs were spirited across the borders). Forget the fact that Saddam was providing monetary support to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers. Forget the fact that he had violated umpteen U.N. resolutions since the end of Gulf War I. Forget the fact that his air-defense forces were regularly shooting at American and British pilots. Forget that he was a brutal dictatorial thug whose henchmen systematically raped, tortured, and murdered anyone who so much as hinted at any domestic political opposition. Forget all of the collaterally related geo-strategic reasons for gaining a foothold in the middle of the Islamist-fascist world during a global war against Middle-Eastern-based terrorism.
Instead, let's consider the question that continues coming back to me:
Why is the White House not jumping all over the fact that terrorists were indeed training in pre-invasion Iraq as defensible proof of why we had no choice but to invade that country?
The answer is simple and unfortunate: Many in the mainstream media have been so successful at debunking any evidence, proof, or substantive facts as they relate to the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, that any new information supporting any facts those of us in-the-know already know will simply be rejected. The new information will be seen as desperate backtracking on old ground. The White House, which is committed to winning the war, will be seen as being in a defensive mode regarding issues that now have no strategic or tactical relevance in the future prosecution of the war. And the general public, which has been fed a steady diet of Iraq-is-the-wrong-theater since 2003, no longer knows what to believe.
Opponents of the war say the only Al Qaeda elements in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion were those in Kurdish areas not controlled by Saddam. This simply is not so, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. And if so, would not the U.S. – as a critical front in the global war on terror – have to invade those areas to shut down the Al Qaeda cells? Of course. And that in itself would have been a far more dangerous “limited war” with Iraq involving a direct ground confrontation with Saddam's army anyway.
“Those who have decided that the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection claims (along with WMD) were ginned up by Bush to bolster the rationale for going into Iraq, are so firmly invested in those beliefs that they wouldn't believe any corroborating evidence anyhow,” says Divine.
True, but the facts are still with us, and the evidence for those facts – now supported by a growing body of post-invasion intelligence – is getting stronger. And to be fair to Hayes, the confirmation by 11 government officials of some two-million “exploitable items,” including notes, documents, tapes, CDs, floppies, and hard drives connecting the dots, is indeed a new revelation reinforcing what we already knew.
“There were terrorists training in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country,” said retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John Bruce Blount, former chief of staff of Allied Forces Southern Europe, in a phone conversation on Friday. “No question about it. There also were many things Saddam was doing – money, passports, visas, you name it – to further the terrorists ability to operate in other places throughout the world.”
Even more disturbing is what U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson (R -S.C.) said to me back in September 2004: “If this is what we know, imagine what we don't know.”