Now, in the other thread, as the liberal media would have us believe that there were no contacts at all. As one member for the 9/11 Comission said "The New York Times" only reported one side of what was found by the comission.
SADLY....I think I agree with this article on some levels. There are many people in the world including AL-Qaeda that are hoping this comission will derail the president.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8027
Originally the comission was not supposed to be a political tool for people to destroy the administration. Especially since it is two administrations that apparently were unable to stop 9/11. It was also two administrations that believed they were working together.
[Q]''The President's correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam's intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that's what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.'' - Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, CNN?s June 17 ?Inside Politics?[/Q]
As William Saffire points out they need to regain their non-partisan credibility:
[Q]What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?
1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.
2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.
3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)
4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.
5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.
[/Q]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/o...n=6def8ee2f0b48d06&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
As a citizen I am more concerned with the reason for the failures, so that changes can be made. In an election year however...it appears this is turning into Half -truth reporting, which some love because it reaffirms their half-assed positions. But the big picture is more than that.
Despite the efforts of the New York Times and Nancy Pelosi the ranking democrat on the comission had this to say.
[Q]''I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.'' - 9/11 Commission Democrat Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton[/Q]
and in the testimony to the 9/11 comission comes this gem from members of the Clinton Administration:
[Q]William Cohen, secretary of defense under Clinton, testified to this before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004. Cohen was asked about U.S. attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory on August 20, 1998. The strikes came 13 days after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa, killing some 257 people (including 12 Americans) and injuring more than 5,000. The Clinton administration and the intelligence community quickly determined that al Qaeda was behind the attacks and struck back at the facility in Sudan and at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Almost immediately, the decision to attack the plant outside Khartoum was controversial. [/B]The Clinton administration, in its efforts to justify the strikes, told reporters that the plant had strong links to Iraq's chemical weapons program. No fewer than six top Clinton administration officials--on the record--cited the Iraq connection to justify its strikes in response to the al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. embassies. [/B][/Q]
So before the 9/11 Comission the CLINTON administration officials reaffirmed that they believe there was a direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
My humble apologies to those who would believe that there is no CONNECTION between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There may very well be no conncetion between Iraq and 9/11....but the President has not lied to us. The media has.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/248eaurh.asp
SADLY....I think I agree with this article on some levels. There are many people in the world including AL-Qaeda that are hoping this comission will derail the president.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8027
Originally the comission was not supposed to be a political tool for people to destroy the administration. Especially since it is two administrations that apparently were unable to stop 9/11. It was also two administrations that believed they were working together.
[Q]''The President's correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam's intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that's what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.'' - Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, CNN?s June 17 ?Inside Politics?[/Q]
As William Saffire points out they need to regain their non-partisan credibility:
[Q]What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?
1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.
2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.
3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)
4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.
5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.
[/Q]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/o...n=6def8ee2f0b48d06&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
As a citizen I am more concerned with the reason for the failures, so that changes can be made. In an election year however...it appears this is turning into Half -truth reporting, which some love because it reaffirms their half-assed positions. But the big picture is more than that.
Despite the efforts of the New York Times and Nancy Pelosi the ranking democrat on the comission had this to say.
[Q]''I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.'' - 9/11 Commission Democrat Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton[/Q]
and in the testimony to the 9/11 comission comes this gem from members of the Clinton Administration:
[Q]William Cohen, secretary of defense under Clinton, testified to this before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004. Cohen was asked about U.S. attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory on August 20, 1998. The strikes came 13 days after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa, killing some 257 people (including 12 Americans) and injuring more than 5,000. The Clinton administration and the intelligence community quickly determined that al Qaeda was behind the attacks and struck back at the facility in Sudan and at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Almost immediately, the decision to attack the plant outside Khartoum was controversial. [/B]The Clinton administration, in its efforts to justify the strikes, told reporters that the plant had strong links to Iraq's chemical weapons program. No fewer than six top Clinton administration officials--on the record--cited the Iraq connection to justify its strikes in response to the al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. embassies. [/B][/Q]
So before the 9/11 Comission the CLINTON administration officials reaffirmed that they believe there was a direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
My humble apologies to those who would believe that there is no CONNECTION between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There may very well be no conncetion between Iraq and 9/11....but the President has not lied to us. The media has.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/248eaurh.asp
Last edited:
now listen, I know you have been working all day, but when you are through cooking and doing the dishes can you get me a beer?
