Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)
Good Morning America (ABC) | 9.30.04 | Mia T

Posted on 09/30/2004 12:00:20 PM PDT by Mia T

Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA



by Mia T, 9.30.04



Kerry is UNFIT #24
THUMBSUCKER SERIES
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)




JOHN KERRY:

"We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today....

DIANE SAWYER:

"So, it was not worth it."

JOHN KERRY:

"You should not--eh--it depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein. The president--eh--misled the American people. Plain and simple. Bottom line."

DIANE SAWYER:

"So, if it turns out okay, it was worth it?--"

JOHN KERRY (interrupts):

"No."

DIANE SAWYER:

"...but now it wasn--?"

JOHN KERRY (interrupts again):

"It was a mistake to do what he did but we have to succeed now that we've done it.

Good Morning America
September 29, 2004


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
The U.S. Capitol
January 28, 2003


"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

John Kerry
Larry King Live
July 8, 2004
NB: Nantucket, July 17, 2004







iane Sawyer managed to accomplish in mere minutes yesterday (Good Morning America, ABC) what old media has failed in an entire year to do--expose the lethal danger that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose for our country.

The above exchange between Kerry and Sawyer, surreal on its face, depicts a candidate who is not simply confusing, (or as Kerry, himself prefers to characterize it, complex).

This is a candidate who is profoundly confused. He is tangled in a web of his own making, a web of arrogance, egomania, opportunism and deceit.

And, dare I say, a web of tangled neurons? If Kerry is not cognitively and psychologically impaired, he is doing a heck of a good imitation of someone who is.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

The most obvious problem with John Kerry's argument is that it is fallacious. Mr. Kerry engages in ex post facto reasoning when he argues, "We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today.... I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein."

As if the commander-in-chief enjoys the luxury of retroactive decision-making....

In this post-9/11 world, a commander-in-chief has to make decisions of war and peace, life and death, based on imperfect information. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires certain knowledge of outcome before acting. We cannot afford in that position someone who views the War on Terror as not war but criminal enterprise. We cannot afford in that position a weak-kneed vacillator like John Kerry. Is there any doubt that John Kerry would never act preemptively to protect America?

How could John Kerry make an error in logic so obvious, so beyond surreal? He is an idiot? Or does he simply think we are?

 

TRUELIES

The second problem with John Kerry's statements is that they are false.

  • President Bush never argued that Iraq was an imminent threat. To the contrary.
    The Bush post-9/11 rationale for war (as enunciated in
    The Bush Doctrine) is "gathering threat," not "imminent threat."

  • Weapons of mass destruction and evidence of capacity to reconstitute WMD have been found in Iraq.

  • And as for the al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection, suffice it to say, "Oil for Food."

 

HAIRPIN 180

The third problem with John Kerry's comments is that they are self-contradictory; they are a self-contained flip-flop, if you will.

Kerry initially tells Sawyer that whether the Iraq War was worth it or not "depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership." But when Sawyer repeats his comment, Kerry calculates that the statement weakens his position, does a quick 180 and denies that he said what he just said.

 

9/10 MINDSET

This little "interview" tells us everything we need to know about John Kerry.

  • He is clueless about winning the War on Terror

  • He favors demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security.

  • His mindset is inextricably bound to the Left's failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

How can you put your children's lives in his hands?

John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

KERRY DOESN'T HAVE THE JUDGMENT TO BE PRESIDENT

Senator Kerry's contradictions on Iraq are the wrong signal to send to our troops on the ground, to our coalition partners, to the Iraqi people and to the terrorists seeking our destruction. On the eve of Prime Minister Allawi's visit to the United States, Senator Kerry today said that America and the world are 'less secure' now that Saddam Hussein is out of power.

The American people disagree and last December, so did Senator Kerry. At the time he said that those who believe the world was safer with Saddam Hussein in power 'don't have the judgment to be president.'

I agree.

Gen. Tommy Franks (Ret.)
September 21, 2004



KERRY HAS PERSONALITY DISORDER THAT WILL ENDANGER AMERICA

Senator Kerry has demonstrated a dangerous propensity to slip into multiple personalities depending on the audience he is addressing. This was clear of his Vietnam service and his actions upon returning home. It has been clear as a senator in his actions on various issues related to Iraq.

It is a personality disorder that will endanger America in the event that he is elected president.

Lt. Col. Jim Zumwalt, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)



NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004


Kerry is UNFIT #20:
THUMBSUCKER SERIES
-PREEMPTION-

(the whole ball of wax)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

thanx to YaYa123

 


NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com


"The Bush administration is so enthralled by the idea of preemption and American military might….This is the consequence of a policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triumph of arms."

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS

3 December 2003





"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston, and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force."

Dick Cheney
VP's Remarks in Dayton, Ohio
Dayton Convention Center
August 12, 2004





"While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has enunciated the Bush Doctrine and proven his ability to fight this war.

The Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to go after terrorists."

Ed Koch, a Democrat
Former New York City Mayor
will for the first time in his life vote for a Republican presidential candidate this year
Ed Koch: I'm voting for Bush
New York Democrat: Kerry doesn't have stomach to go after terrorists
22 August 2004


also:
Why Bush Must Be Re-elected
Edward I. Koch
22 July 2004


 



The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

GEORGE TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

  • its naivete about the War on Terror,

  • its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,

  • its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

 

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

MORE


HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)

CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

 

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 



by Mia T, 9.09.04

 

CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to Wolverine and jla for locating the audio


KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN 'SURVIVAL' DEBATE

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2nd, we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Dick Cheney

"We were not at war in the 1990s."

John Kerry

  • "I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."

  • "The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

  • "The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms."

  • "A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justificatiion for going to war."

John Kerry


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
The U.S. Capitol
January 28, 2003

"Dick Cheney's fear tactics crossed the line. What it says to the American people: 'If you go to the polls in November and elect anyone else but us and another terrorist attack occurs, it's your fault.' This is un-American. Except the truth is and proves once again that they'll do anything and say anything to keep their jobs. Protecting the American people from terrorist attacks and from vicious terrorists is not a Republican issue and is not a Democratic issue. It's an American issue and George Bush and Dick Cheney should know that.

John Edwards

 

 

 

et's get real, people. Universal health care schemes or abortion-friendly justices have little utility if we're blown to bits.

There is a reason lifelong liberal Democrats like the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, and the Hollywood actor, Ron Silver, who agree with George Bush on absolutely nothing domestically, are not only voting this November for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in their lives--they are, in fact, campaigning vigorously for his reelection.

Ed Koch and Ron Silver are supporting George Bush because they know what all rational, informed voters know--only one issue matters in this, the first post-9/11 presidential election: Who would better prosecute the War on Terror, George Bush or John Kerry?

The choice could not be more clear.


THE LETHAL DIFFERENCE: THE BUSH DOCTRINE v. THE NEO-NEOLIBERAL, ANIMAL FARM MENTALITY

 

THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX

This difference is the whole ball of wax, people.
No less than Western Civilization hangs in the balance.

When terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are perforce at war.
At that point, you have only one decision to make:
Do you fight?
Or do you surrender?

Bush chose fight.
clinton and Kerry -- repeatedly and invariably -- chose surrender.

KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN THE DEBATE

In an effort to shut down debate on this issue -- clearly a losing one for Kerry-Edwards -- John Edwards labeled Cheney's warning "un-American."

I have news for the two Johns. Nothing is more American than acting to preserve, protect and defend America. And nothing is more un-American than thwarting that effort.

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004



pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04


 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

--Elizabeth Rickard

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one,
(as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.



An Oil-for-Food Connection?
On whether any of Saddam's loot made its way into Osama's pockets.

by Claudia Rosett

08/09/2004, Volume 009, Issue 45

 

IF, as the 9/11 Commission concludes, our "failure of imagination" left America open to the attacks of September 11, then surely some imagination is called for in tackling one of the riddles that stumped the commission: Where exactly did Osama bin Laden get the funding to set up shop in Afghanistan, reach around the globe, and strike the United States?

So let's do some imagining. Unfashionable though it may be, let's even imagine a money trail that connects Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.

By 1996, remember, bin Laden had been run out of Sudan, and seems to have been out of money. He needed a fresh bundle to rent Afghanistan from the Taliban, train recruits, expand al Qaeda's global network, and launch what eventually became the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, over in Iraq about that same time, Saddam Hussein, after a lean stretch under United Nations sanctions, had just cut his Oil-for-Food deal with the U.N., and soon began exploiting that program to embezzle billions meant for relief.

Both Saddam and bin Laden were, in their way, seasoned businessmen. Both had a taste for war. Both hated America. By the late 1990s, Saddam, despite continuing sanctions, was solidly back in business, socking away his purloined billions in secret accounts, but he had no way to attack the United States directly. Bin Laden needed millions to fund al Qaeda, which could then launch a direct strike on the United States. Whatever the differences between Saddam and bin Laden, their circumstances by the late 1990s had all the makings of a deal. Pocket change for Saddam, financial security for bin Laden, and satisfaction for both--death to Americans.

Now let's talk facts. In 1996, Sudan kicked out bin Laden. He went to Afghanistan, arriving there pretty much bankrupt, according to the 9/11 Commission report. His family inheritance was gone, his allowance had been cut off, and Sudan had confiscated his local assets. Yet, just two years later, bin Laden was back on his feet, feeling strong enough to issue a public declaration of war on America. In February 1998, in a London-based Arabic newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, he published his infamous fatwa exhorting Muslims to "kill the Americans and plunder their money." Six months later, in August 1998, al Qaeda finally went ahead with its long-planned bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden was back in the saddle, and over the next three years he shaped al Qaeda into the global monster that finally struck on American soil. His total costs, by the estimates of the 9/11 Commission report, ran to tens of millions of dollars. Even for a terrorist beloved of extremist donors, that's a pretty good chunk of change.

The commission report says bin Laden got his money from sources such as a "core group of financial facilitators" in the Gulf states, especially corrupt charities. But the report concludes: "To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attack. Al Qaeda had many sources of funding and a pre-9/11 annual budget estimated at $30 million. If a particular source of funds had dried up, al Qaeda could easily have found enough money elsewhere to fund the attack."

Elsewhere? One obvious "elsewhere" that no one seems to have seriously considered was Saddam's secret geyser of money, gushing from the so-called Oil-for-Food program. That possibility is not discussed in the 9/11 report, and apparently it was not included in the investigation. A 9/11 Commission spokesman confirms that the commission did not request Oil-for-Food documentation from the U.N., and none was offered.

Why look at Oil-for-Food? Well, let's review a little more history. When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.N. imposed sanctions, which remained in place until 2003, when the United States and its allies finally toppled Saddam. But in 1996, with the aim of providing for the people of Iraq while still containing Saddam, the U.N. began running its Oil-for-Food relief program for Iraq. Under terms agreed to by the U.N., Saddam got to sell oil to buy such humanitarian supplies as food and medicine, to be rationed to the Iraqi population. But the terms were hugely in Saddam's favor. The U.N. let Saddam choose his own business partners, kept the details of his deals confidential, and while watching for weapons-related goods did not, as it turns out, exercise much serious financial oversight. Saddam turned this setup to his own advantage, fiddling prices on contracts with his hand-picked partners, and smuggling out oil pumped under U.N. supervision with U.N.-approved new equipment. Thus did we arrive at the recent General Accounting Office estimate that under Oil-for-Food, despite sanctions, Saddam managed to skim and smuggle for himself more than $10 billion out of oil sales meant for relief.

And the timing gets interesting, especially the year 1998. Not only was that the year in which bin Laden signaled his big comeback in Afghanistan. It was also the year in which Oil-for-Food jelled into a reliable vehicle for Saddam's scams, a source of enormous, illicit income.

Oil-for-Food was set up as a limited and temporary measure, starting operations in late 1996 with somewhat ad hoc administration by the U.N., and a mandate that had to be renewed by the Security Council every six months or so. Less than a year into the program, however, on October 15, 1997, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan consolidated Oil-for-Food into what was effectively a permanent U.N. department--the Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP)--headed by a long-serving U.N. official, Benon Sevan. The Security Council still had to renew the mandate twice a year, but the process became routine.

Saddam began pushing the envelope, and it was quickly clear he could get away with a lot. Just two weeks after Annan set up the OIP, Saddam imposed conditions on the U.N. weapons inspectors that made it impossible for them to operate. Instead of shutting down Oil-for-Food, Annan on February 1, 1998, urged the Security Council to more than double the amount of oil Saddam was allowed to sell, a prelude to letting Iraq import oil equipment to increase production. Annan then flew to Baghdad to reason with Saddam, and on February 23, 1998 (having met in one of those palaces built under sanctions), Annan and Saddam reached an agreement that for at least a while allowed the weapons inspectors to return.

It was a busy time for al Qaeda as well. That same day, February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden published his "Kill the Americans" fatwa. An intriguing feature of this fatwa was its prominent mention of Iraq, not just once, but four times. Analysts at the CIA and elsewhere have long propounded the theory that secular Saddam and religious Osama would not have wanted to work together. But Saddam's secular style seemed to bother bin Laden not a whit.

His fatwa presented three basic complaints. Mainly, he deplored the infidel presence in Saudi Arabia (i.e., the U.S. troops stationed there during and after the Gulf War). He also cited grievances about Jerusalem, while not even bothering to mention the Palestinians by name. The rest of his attention, bin Laden devoted to Iraq and "the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well as "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance" and--here is the specific reference to U.S.-led sanctions--"the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war."

Two paragraphs later, bin Laden picked up this theme again, calling Iraq the "strongest neighboring Arab state" of Saudi Arabia, and then citing Iraq, yet again, as first on a list of four states threatened by America--the other three being Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's old home and a big source of terrorist funding), Egypt (birthplace of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and of bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, who also signed the fatwa), and Sudan (bin Laden's former base).

 

UNTIL 1998, Iraq had not loomed large in bin Laden's rants. Why, then, such stress on Iraq, at that particular moment, in declaring war on America? It is certainly possible that bin Laden simply figured Iraq had become another good selling point, a handy way to whip up anger at the United States. But it is at least intriguing that the month after bin Laden's fatwa, in March 1998, as the 9/11 Commission reports, two al Qaeda members visited Baghdad. And in July 1998, "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

Later in 1998, Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, and he would keep them out for the following four years. The U.N. in 1999 lifted the ceiling entirely on Saddam's oil exports and expanded the range of goods he could buy. It would keep his deals confidential to the end, and it let Saddam do business with scores of companies in such graft-friendly climes as Russia and Nigeria, as well as such terrorist-sponsoring places as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Sudan, and such financial hideouts as Liechtenstein, Panama, Cyprus, and Switzerland.

Much of Saddam's illicit Oil-for-Food money has yet to be traced. There are now at least eight official investigations into various aspects of Oil-for-Food, but none so far that combines adequate staffing and access with a focus on Oil-for-Food itself as the little black book of Saddam's possible terrorist links. The same kind of bureaucratic walls that once blocked our own intelligence community from nabbing al Qaeda are here compounded by the problem that Oil-for-Food was not a U.S. program, but on U.N. turf. And though the U.N. is the keeper of many of the records, Kofi Annan has displayed no interest in investigating the possibility that Oil-for-Food might have funded terrorists. Nor has the Bush administration pursued the matter with the speed and terrorist-tracking expertise it deserves. Millions of documents believed to contain details of Saddam's Oil-for-Food deals, quite likely including leads to his illicit side deals, are reportedly locked up in Baghdad, socked away there by Paul Bremer this past spring, awaiting an audit from Ernst & Young that is just now getting underway--and not necessarily focused on possible terrorist ties. The U.N.'s own investigation, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, seems interested mainly in the U.N. itself. Various congressional investigators who, unlike the 9/11 Commission, are looking at Oil-for-Food, have had a hard time prying even the most basic documents out of the U.N.

The U.S. Treasury Department, in its hunt for Saddam's assets, is not looking specifically at Oil-for-Food, but has provided some of the most telling snippets of information. In April of this year, Treasury released a list of Saddam front companies its investigation has so far uncovered, including a major Oil-for-Food contractor in the UAE, Dubai-based Al Wasel & Babel. Along with trying to procure a sophisticated surface-to-air missile system for Saddam, Al Wasel & Babel did hundreds of millions' worth of business with Baghdad under Oil-for-Food, and was just one of some 75 contractors authorized by the U.N. to deal with Saddam out of the UAE. (As it happens, the 9/11 Commission found that some of the hijackers' funding flowed through the UAE, but working backward from the al Qaeda end, the trail eventually vanishes.)

But enough of facts. Let's return to the realm of possibility. Imagine:

From about 1998 on, Oil-for-Food became Saddam's financial network, a system he gamed to produce huge amounts of illicit income, in partnership with folks who helped him hide and spend it. If some of that money was going to al Qaeda while Saddam was in power, it may still be serving as a terrorist resource today. Amid all the consternation over missed signals and poor coordination leading up to September 11, is it too much to ask that someone versed in terrorist finances, and able to access both the U.N. Oil-for-Food records and the documents squirreled away in Baghdad, take a look--an urgent, detailed, systematic look--at whether Saddam via his Oil-for-Food scams sent money to al Qaeda?

For such a deal, both Saddam and bin Laden had motive and opportunity. And if you read bin Laden's 1998 fatwa with just a little bit of imagination, those mentions of Iraq, at that particular moment, in those particular ways, carry a strong whiff of what is known in our own society as product placement: a message from a sponsor.

 

Claudia Rosett is journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a columnist for OpinionJournal.com.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

 

 



THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1

dox in socks on lummox in box on fox

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

Look, Larry... [W]e were... not at war in the 1990s... and young Americans were not deployed... under President Clinton. What American would not trade the movement in the right direction that we had under President Clinton?

 

John Kerry
Larry King Live
July 8, 2004

kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 
The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to Fixit for the audio

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
-PREEMPTION-
(the whole ball of wax)
Kerry is UNFIT #20:
THUMBSUCKER SERIES

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

thanx to YaYa123

UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
hillary talks:ON TERROR

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

 

 


election update!
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT~THE SERIES

WINDSURFER WATERLOO
why the surfboard--not the snowboard--is (to mix war metaphors) Kerry's Achilles' heel

Windsurfing in the Persian Gulf

John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay

YOO-HOO DAN RATHER!
KERRY'S BELATED "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE:
Is a less-than-honorable discharge and clinton "pardon" behind Kerry's refusal to sign form 180 to release ALL of his records?

RATHERGATE IS ANOTHER WATERGATE: The Nexus

CARL BERNSTEIN: RATHERGATE MAY BE ANOTHER WATERGATE

CLUELESS: O'REILLY AND PODHORETZ ON RATHERGATE

THE KERRY-RATHER-BARNES FORGERIES DECONSTRUCTED

HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

KERRY'S VIETNAM FIXATION
PART 1: advice from bill

Kerry's new W offensive

YOO-HOO! UNDECIDEDS + "PERSUADABLES"
HEAR THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR

(WHY INFORMED, RATIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH)

DECONSTRUCTING ZELL MILLER

EXPLOITING MAX CLELAND

Kerry is UNFIT #21: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
BOARDHEAD TO THE RESCUE


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


Kerry is UNFIT #20: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
PREEMPTION-
(the whole ball of wax)

CONTEMPLATING KERRY'S "GUT"

A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?


getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament

Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security

YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!

"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)

UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"

THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]


THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects


A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO


UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?


UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists


sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation


"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL


JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?


DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance


What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS


Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism


MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

 

 

MORE

 



TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Georgia; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: Texas; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dianesawyer; expostfactoreasoning; goodmorningamerica; hestallandhesorange; hesuhtallyeahthatsit; johnkerry; napalminthemorning; preemption; thanksdiane; wot

1 posted on 09/30/2004 12:00:22 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I thought I needed a spreadsheet to keep track of Kerry's flip flops and outright distortions. But you've done a magnificent job!


2 posted on 09/30/2004 12:01:49 PM PDT by Peach (The Clinton's pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; jla; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Wolverine; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; ...

ping


3 posted on 09/30/2004 12:02:00 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I am dumbfounded, Kerry is so bizarre, it is difficult to understand how anyone can keep a straight face and have this guy's sign in their yard or on their car. What on earth are these people thinking?


4 posted on 09/30/2004 12:03:20 PM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I don't think I would want to do a Bank Job with John Kerry. The Cops would take him apart. He needs to go the the Mark Hacking school of lying.


5 posted on 09/30/2004 12:03:50 PM PDT by IamJustright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

You know, most Freepers can read.


6 posted on 09/30/2004 12:07:32 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla

ping


7 posted on 09/30/2004 12:09:13 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; All

One thing I wondered is was the Sawyer interview the FIRST time Mr. Kerry had faced questions from a member of the press since before the SwiftBoat Vets for Truth ads hit the air? I believe it is.

I wonder to what extent his failure to take questions from the press will leave him rusty for the debate tonight and will cause pent up pointed questions to come his way. He has afterall gone something like 60 days without much questioning by the press.


8 posted on 09/30/2004 12:09:52 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

ping


9 posted on 09/30/2004 12:10:09 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

ping


10 posted on 09/30/2004 12:10:58 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

thx :)


11 posted on 09/30/2004 12:12:19 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zot; Hurtgen; Interesting Times

Ping


12 posted on 09/30/2004 12:25:24 PM PDT by GreyFriar (3rd Armored Division -- Spearhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mel
It can only be that he's tall.

I keep a distance from those skerrykerry cars.

13 posted on 09/30/2004 12:34:13 PM PDT by cyn (prayers always for Terri Schindler Schiavo, her family, and her friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
AND (!!!) he's orange.

Tall and orange, a winning combination.

14 posted on 09/30/2004 12:36:28 PM PDT by cyn (prayers always for Terri Schindler Schiavo, her family, and her friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mel

That's the problem... they don't think.


15 posted on 09/30/2004 12:50:05 PM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Peach
My fear is while he's ummmmming and wellllllling

TERROISTS WILL BE COMING IN AND BLOWING US ALL TO THE MOON!!!


Senators DO NOT make good Presidents sorry.....he needs to crawl back in the hole he came out of....
16 posted on 09/30/2004 12:57:28 PM PDT by PaulaB (Crawling Over Broken Glass On All Fours To Vote For Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia- pretty breathtaking to see the torture and abusiveness to which language is subject by the Left.

I just hope Kerry does not go Postal during the debate. He is a cornered man.

Further this election may be a complete career end-er for Kerry and Terreza.

17 posted on 09/30/2004 1:13:27 PM PDT by Helms (nu-ance : [French, from Old French, from nuer, to shade, cloud, from nue, cloud, from Vulgar Latin ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thsi would be a very important post - except for the goofball graphics.


18 posted on 09/30/2004 2:19:20 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Hello Mia
bttt


19 posted on 09/30/2004 3:04:34 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Good evening, I trust all is well with you.

Think about it, if Diane Sawyer rattles Kerry, then what would Osama bin Laden do to Kerry?

(IF bin Laden were still alive)

5.56mm

20 posted on 09/30/2004 5:22:35 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Good job, Mia T !

Bush didn't use the word "imminent" when referring to the Iraq threat, BUT John Edwards DID!

"But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."

(that's an excerpt from John Edwards on CNN Nightline)

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

Feb. 24, 2002


21 posted on 10/01/2004 2:08:34 AM PDT by Susannah (What's less united than the USA during war? > the UN !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Thanks for the ping.


22 posted on 10/01/2004 3:55:03 PM PDT by zot (GWB -- four more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson