Missing Links Found

NY Times ^ | Nov 24, 2003 | William Safire

[Lancey Howard]

My question is "why has GWB basiclly remained mum". My guess is that he's saving everything for a big info dump at the end of October, FWIW.

I agree. And perhaps the timely discovery of the bodies of bin Laden and Saddam as well? Or, if one or both is still alive, their capture. I figure if either is still alive we will leave them in place to gain intelligence about terror cells and plans for new terror attacks. No telling when that well will run dry.

[billhilly]

"LOL, the former "paper of record" finally decided to report this "blockbuster" story?
Talk about a day late and a dollar short! Pathetic."

Bill Saffire is not exactly the NYT. He is only their token conservative.

[neverdem]

Somehow you missed comment# 19. Now they two somewhat conservative columnists, Bill Safire and David Brooks.

[neverdem]

they two = they have two

[RaceBannon]

$.75 a day short anways...

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks, RF.
~~~~~~~~~

Two blockbuster magazine articles last week revealed evidence that Saddam's spy agency and top Qaeda operatives certainly were in frequent contact for a decade, and that there is renewed reason to suspect an Iraqi spymaster in Prague may have helped finance the 9/11 attacks.

~~~~~~~~~
William Safire in the New York Times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

[optimistically_conservative]

I remain very troubled by three aspects of this "case":

1. There is little movement on documenting the events leading up to and resulting in the 9/11 attacks by investigators. This has allowed numerous conspiracy theories to develop and get traction, especially abroad.

2. A number of "investigative" reporters, such as Isakoff and others, have already staked a position, and their reputations, that there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida, or a link between Iraqi support of Al-Qaida and 9/11. This culminated in a very public and coordinated rebuke of public opinion polls showing a significant majority believed Iraq had ties to Al-Qaida and shared liability for 9/11. It is now very difficult for these journalists to objectively consider these ties, especially with little information from non-existant aggressive official investigations.

3. President Bush publicly quelled interest in this issue by stating he had no evidence of a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attack by Al-Qaida. Worse, it seemed there was not much interest in pursuing and exposing a link if there was one. It basically undercut the case made by Powell at the UN in February and others in his administration prior and after that. It undercut the case decided by Judge Baer. It undercut the case being brought on behalf of FBI agent John O'Neill's estate.

So, either some journalists will have to admit they were wrong and 70% of America was right - and those being informed by FoxNews were right - or Oliver Stone Jr. will be making films about how the CIA remotely flew airliners into the WTC and Pentagon to initiate a war on behalf of an imperialistic and oil thirsty evil US administration.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[blackie]

Missing Links Found ~ Bump!

[JulieRNR21]

Finally getting some attention......BUMP

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[ChadGore]

In the NYT tomarrow ? Aren't they a few months late with this ?

[neverdem]

"In the NYT tomarrow ? Aren't they a few months late with this?"

Better late than never. I think Safire had most of the story already written months ago, but his bosses wouldn't go to print with it. Finally, after that recitation of connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the Slimes let it go a conservative's Op-Ed column.