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

Skip to comments.

O-HOO! SECURITY MOMS-TERRORISTS TARGETING OUR KIDS!-BUSH WILL ACT PREEMPTIVELY-KERRY WILL NOT
abc news ^ | 10.7.04 | Mia T

Posted on 10/07/2004 6:50:03 PM PDT by Mia T

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:

THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!


KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 



by Mia T, 10.01.04

 

BUSH: I WILL ACT PREEMPTIVELY TO PROTECT AMERICA

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


KERRY: I WILL REQUIRE 'A GLOBAL TEST' TO ACT PREEMPTIVELY

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control....

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004


 

School Bus
The U.S. Education Department advised school leaders nationwide to watch for people spying on their buildings or school buses to help detect any possibility of terrorism.
PhotoDisc

School Warning
School Plans, Security Information Gathered by Suspected Iraq Insurgent Focus Concern on Schools in Six States

By Brian Ross
ABCNEWS.com


Oct. 7, 2004--Schools in six states in particular are being watched closely based on information uncovered by the U.S. military in Baghdad this summer, law enforcement and education officials told ABC News.

A man described as an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities had downloaded school floor plans and safety and security information about elementary and high schools in the six states, according to officials.

School officials in Fort Myers, Fla.; Salem, Ore.; Gray, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; two towns in New Jersey; and two towns in California have been told to increase security in light of the discovery.

Officials in the New Jersey towns, Franklinville and Rumson, were notified by counterterrorism officials last month that their schools had been possibly singled out.

"Once we were notified, we immediately put a plan into effect," said Dwight Pfenning, deputy commissioner of education for the state of New Jersey.

And William Matthews, superintendent of schools in Jones County, Ga., sent a letter to parents, faculty and staff last week notifying them that security was being increased during the election season.

"In an effort to be proactive and ensure the safety of all, we are reviewing our school safety plans," Matthews wrote in the letter. "You may notice an increase in law enforcement visibility as well as other measures designed to provide a safe and pleasant environment."

Matthews said in the letter that the information was not considered a threat.

On Wednesday, the federal government warned schools nationwide to look out for suspicious activity that might signal terrorist activity, and told school officials to be on the lookout for anyone spying on their buildings or buses, expressing interest in obtaining site plans, and other types of suspicious activity.

It followed an analysis by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department of the school siege in Beslan, Russia, last month, in which nearly 340 people, many of them children, were killed.

Law enforcement officials said they had no easy explanation why an insurgent in Baghdad would be gathering such specific information about American schools, some of them in small towns.

And though the information was recovered in July, it was not given urgency until the attack in Beslan.

Ultimately, officials say they are hoping to increase security in schools and heighten awareness without causing parents nationwide to panic.

ABC News' Richard Esposito contributed to this report.




(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

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

 

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




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

DEBATE ONE
NO GYP SHEET


Est-ce que je peux?
préemption et l'essai global

KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH


Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING

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: Alaska; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: Texas; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; kerry; russia; terrorists; terroriststargetkids

1 posted on 10/07/2004 6:50:03 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T

OH my. Someone really went through alot of work to do this. I'm exhausted just scrolling down the pages.


2 posted on 10/07/2004 6:52:52 PM PDT by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has already been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

WOW! Lot's of good information and true information I might add! Thanks for putting it altogether in one convenient place!


3 posted on 10/07/2004 6:57:41 PM PDT by rockabyebaby (What goes around, comes around!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thank you for your tremendous effort! It is much
appreciated.


4 posted on 10/07/2004 6:59:36 PM PDT by AnimalLover ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
BUMP!
5 posted on 10/07/2004 7:00:03 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla

thanks for the lead ping


6 posted on 10/07/2004 7:00:44 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

Security MOMS Unite.....We have everything to loose if we don't. Vote Bush/Cheney to keep our kids safe.


7 posted on 10/07/2004 7:01:15 PM PDT by Wonderama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T


Then how do you explain the lack of secure borders on Bushs watch?


8 posted on 10/07/2004 7:02:12 PM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird

The realities of shifting demographics....
To protect our kids, he has to get reelected first.


9 posted on 10/07/2004 7:05:45 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

This alert is right on time!!!!


10 posted on 10/07/2004 7:08:17 PM PDT by OneTimeLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonderama
They did a special on these women during a brief segment on MSNBC late this morning...there was a women with a Bush/Cheney T-shirt and sticker on, with her 6-month old son in her lap, calling people to tell them they MUST reelect GWB!

The story was based on the fact that previously women voted overwhelmingly for the rats and while kerri enjoy a 10-point margin with women just a few months ago it is now neck-and-neck between he and our President. MSNBC feels this, the women vote, could tilt the election.

Response from kerri and the rats? Getting the mothers and wives of our brave military who sacrificed it all for us the past three years for a group called "Mothers and Wives of Veterans Against Bush"!!!
11 posted on 10/07/2004 7:08:19 PM PDT by God luvs America (Support Our Troops....Don't vote for Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T



My childrens lives for "shifting demographics"....... I don't think so.


12 posted on 10/07/2004 7:08:50 PM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird

Then if not Dubya, who do you intend to vote for?


13 posted on 10/07/2004 7:10:18 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks...it's bookmarked here.

MANY prayers for all of our kids.


14 posted on 10/07/2004 7:13:49 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Donate to John Thune....http://www.johnthune.com ..... let's kick out Daschle!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
The ability to prioritize post-9-11 is paramount. You really should give it a shot.

Have you seen Miniter's new book? .

Shadow War by Miniter, Richard Shadow War
Miniter, Richard

The unreported story of the War on Terror is that we can win it, and that the victories are being won now. In Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror, Richard Miniter, author of the bestseller Losing bin Laden, explains why. (Order both Shadow War and Losing bin Laden together and save almost 50%.) Drawing on material he gathered from court records, government reports, and other authoritative documents, and during travels and interviews with top-level officials in Baghdad, Khartoum, Cairo, Manila, Hong Kong, Paris, London, and elsewhere -- as well as New York and Washington -- Miniter answers the three most burning questions regarding the terror war:

 

  • Where is Osama bin Laden?

     

  • Why hasn't there been another terrorist strike inside America since September 11, 2001?

     

  • Is President Bush winning the war?

     

This is a thrilling story of sleeper cells and patient plots, phone intercepts and covert operations, boldly triumphant captures and heartbreakingly close escapes. Miniter offers compelling evidence, much of it never seen before, that bin Laden is not buried on some Afghan battlefield, but is healthy and in command. He reveals that the common assumption that Osama is in Pakistan is probably false -- and proves that the terror mastermind is actually being sheltered by a member of President Bush's "Axis of Evil."

Miniter also goes beyond the biases and distortions of the evening news to demonstrate that since September 11, 2001, al Qaeda has made many attempts to kill large numbers of Americans. So far, these attempts have failed -- because they have been thwarted. Far from failing to keep up with what radical Muslims are doing, intelligence officials, according to Miniter, are defeating a plot somewhere in the world every day. Miniter shows how the Bush Administration's aggressive execution of the War on Terror -- including everything from aerial bombardment and covert operations to relentless counter-intelligence and patient police work -- has kept the terrorists at bay.

So are we winning the War on Terror? Miniter says yes - and provides details about the more than 3,000 al Qaeda operatives have been seized or slain in 102 countries since September 11, 2001. He takes you inside the Bush team's clandestine efforts against the global terror network, showing how right the President was when he told the world in March 2004 that "some two-thirds of al Qaeda's key leaders have been captured or killed; the rest of them hear us breathing down their necks." Miniter also reveals what is likely to be the War on Terror's next battlefield, and how al Qaeda hopes to determine the outcome of this fall's presidential election.

 

Get the real story of the War on Terror:

 

Revealed: the al Qaeda attempt on President Bush's life

 

The al Qaeda cell in New York that was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks against America as long ago as 1998

 

Did American or allied troops let bin Laden get away? A careful examination of all the available evidence

 

A surprising account of bin Laden's secret refuge -- in Iran! An exclusive account based on the testimony of two Iranian intelligence officials who saw Osama and his henchman al-Zawahiri disguised as Shi'ite clerics

 

Osama's whereabouts: his travels in Pakistan and elsewhere in 2002 and thereafter

 

Published for the first time: top-secret documents concerning bin Laden's relations with Iran

 

A complete list of all top al Qaeda officers, including final status: killed, captured or at large

 

Bin Laden's desperate bid for Iranian support -- including his pledge to Ayatollah Khamenei: "If I die, my followers will be told to follow you"

 

Three reasons why Iran would harbor one of the world's most notorious terrorists and risk the wrath of the West

 

The extraordinary secret deal that Iranian officials offered to the United States in 2003 in an attempt to ease sanctions against Iran

 

Why bin Laden insisted on waging a worldwide war against America over the objections of many of his senior advisors

 

Richard Clarke: how he switched from fighting a covert war against Osama bin Laden to one against Condoleeza Rice

 

The National Security Council plan to strike bin Laden and other top Islamic terrorists: scheduled for final review by the President on September 11, 2001

 

Two key reasons why al Qaeda selected North Africa as its post-Afghanistan staging ground in 2003

 

How al Qaeda has continued to test airport security after 9/11

 

Al Qaeda's attempt to stage terror attacks at sea, to affect vital ports and shipping lanes -- and the clandestine ways they have been stopped

 

The July 13, 2004, arrest that revealed the true extent of al Qaeda's plans for a major attack in America before the presidential election

 

The immense impact that the Socialist victory in Spain after the March 11, 2004, terror bombings in Madrid has on the worldwide War on Terror

 

Why the insiders -- the National Security Council, the CIA, the FBI, other intelligence services, and the Defense Department -- think the War on Terror is going well, while the press and public wonder darkly if the terrorists are winning

 

Here, then, is the story of daring conspiracies to kill hundreds and desperate efforts to safeguard millions. It is a largely untold tale of a secret war that sprawls over four continents. On its outcome turns the future of the free world. Says Miniter: "If the press covered World War II the way they cover the War on Terror, we would have seen exhaustive coverage of the carnage of the Pearl Harbor attack but missed entirely Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, the heroic defeat on Wake Island, the desperate defense of Guadalcanal, and the come-from-behind victory in the Battle of Midway. With a press like this, at the end of 1942 America would have no idea whether World War II was a hopeless cataclysm or a purposeful march to victory." Shadow War is the much-needed corrective to this skewed and dangerous perspective.

 


15 posted on 10/07/2004 7:14:59 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jla


I didn't say a thing about not voting for Bush.

But don't try to feed me crap and call it supper.

Bush has had years to close the borders to these terrorist and shut down the unchecked visas, greencards and illegal immigration of Islamics and he hasn't bothered with it so don't try to tell me now that I can count on Bush protecting our children....I was counting on that sept.12 and I've been disappointed every day since.


16 posted on 10/07/2004 7:15:34 PM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
Then how do you explain the lack of secure borders on Bushs watch?

Since 9-11, I can't recall any further successful terrorist strikes on American soil. But I do know of several that have been thwarted.
By "secure borders" are you referring to them being secure from terrorists or Mexicans?

17 posted on 10/07/2004 7:16:05 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
The realities of shifting demographics.... To protect our kids, he has to get reelected first.

Well said.

18 posted on 10/07/2004 7:18:04 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jla


So only Mexicans are crossing...? well thank God for that. Here I was worried that arabs were walking in that open door.


19 posted on 10/07/2004 7:19:13 PM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
Bush has had years to close the borders

How do you close 18,000 miles of borders and coastlines?

20 posted on 10/07/2004 7:19:51 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign



Guns.


21 posted on 10/07/2004 7:22:14 PM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
How do you close 18,000 miles of borders and coastlines?

Guns.

Frenchtoast.

22 posted on 10/07/2004 7:24:04 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
9-11 Families For America
23 posted on 10/07/2004 7:27:31 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird

Would Kerry close the borders? Of course not.
Thus, this issue is (perhaps only until after the election) effectively off the table.

Zero in on what matters.
Do you want as your next president a weak-knee vacillator, a seditious opportunist, someone who is constitutionally indisposed to preemptive action and American military might, someone who would reflexively cede our sovereignty to the UN?


24 posted on 10/07/2004 7:29:44 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hannity; holdonnow; M. Thatcher; MeekOneGOP; Mudboy Slim

fyi


25 posted on 10/07/2004 7:50:50 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE
ping!

NEVER FORGET!

26 posted on 10/07/2004 7:52:10 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jla; SouthernFreebird; Mia T; PhilDragoo; Happy2BMe; devolve


Turn your speakers up, then
click here or on the pic, lol !


27 posted on 10/08/2004 2:27:11 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (The GOP throw their trash out. The DemocRATS worship theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jla; Wolverine; All
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL: in Kerry's own words
A suggested mass E-mailing

28 posted on 10/08/2004 5:53:38 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

BTTT!!


29 posted on 10/08/2004 5:49:12 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jla

ping


30 posted on 10/08/2004 5:53:39 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

31 posted on 10/08/2004 7:19:38 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Whether in Florida, after hurricane devastation, or defending America against terrorism,
it's clear that Dubya shares our concerns and worries, as well as our hopes and aspirations.
32 posted on 10/11/2004 6:07:42 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jla
dubya!
33 posted on 10/11/2004 7:11:18 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
U.S. Alerts Schools About Terror Threat
Yahoo News ^ | Ben Feller

WASHINGTON - The Education Department has advised school leaders nationwide to watch for people spying on their buildings or buses to help detect any possibility of terrorism like the deadly school siege in Russia.

The warning follows an analysis by the FBI (news - web sites) and the Homeland Security Department of the siege that killed nearly 340 people, many of them students, in the city of Beslan last month.

"The horror of this attack may have created significant anxiety in our own country among parents, students, faculty staff and other community members," Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said in a letter to schools and education groups.

The safety advice is based on lessons learned from the Russia incident. But there is "no specific information indicating that there is a terrorist threat to any schools or universities in the United States," Hickok said.

Federal law enforcement officials also have encouraged local police to stay in contact with school officials and have encouraged reporting of suspicious activities, the letter says.

In particular, schools were told to watch for activities that may be legitimate on their own &emdash; but may suggest a heightened terrorist threat if many of them occur.

Among those activities:

_ Interest in obtaining site plans for schools, bus routes and attendance lists;

_ Prolonged "static surveillance" by people disguised as panhandlers, shoe shiners, newspaper or flower vendors or street sweepers not previously seen in the area;

_ Observations of security drills;

_ People staring at or quickly looking away from employees or vehicles as they enter or leave parking areas;

_ Foot surveillance of campuses involving individuals working together.

The effort is the latest by the Education Department and other federal agencies to encourage school officials to maintain and practice a plan for responding to emergencies.

After the terrorist takeover of the Russian school, President Bush (news - web sites) asked his top advisers to review their strategies for dealing with hostage situations, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said.

The federal government is advising schools to take many steps to improve the security of their buildings. Those include installing locks for all doors and windows, having a single entry point into buildings and ensuring they can reach school bus drivers in an emergency.

The Education Department sent its letter by e-mail Wednesday to school police, state school officers, school boards, groups representing principals and many other organizations.

The Homeland Security Department also sent a bulletin Wednesday to federal, state and local emergency officials to provide fresh guidance based on the review of the school siege in Russia.

34 posted on 10/17/2004 12:59:32 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jla; All
A suggested mass E-mailing---just copy and paste:

subject:
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL:
in Kerry's own words

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!
(ABC report)

     discussion, analysis


"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
(missing the point entirely that
the War on Terror began in earnest
with the bombing of the WTC in 1993
and bin Laden's subsequent repeated (and unanswered)
declarations and acts of war against America
throughout the clinton years).

 


 
"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."

John Kerry
Democratic presidential debate, January 29, 2004, Greenville, S.C.


 


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

John Kerry



 


"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."

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , 3 December 2003


 


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

John Kerry
acceptance speech, July 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



 


"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston
[Kerry acceptance speech], 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

 




PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ONE:

LEHRER:
New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.





Good Morning America

September 29, 2004

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
for discussion, goto:
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)




Larry King Live
July 8, 2004


"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: Radio City, July 8, 2004, Nantucket, July 17, 2004)





35 posted on 10/17/2004 1:01:02 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

As my husband put it, "I don't mind having a president who's cocky. Just not one who is spineless."


36 posted on 10/17/2004 1:04:05 AM PDT by HungarianGypsy (John Kerry for President of FRANCE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

"security mom" bump.


37 posted on 10/19/2004 10:15:49 AM PDT by cyn (glowglow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cyn

bump


38 posted on 10/19/2004 10:19:52 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

hey, hey, watch it now!

I'm hoping your work can be appreciated beyond FR. When you hit a chord in someone (Osama on bicycle), you hit it hard and well and unforgettably. Best to you.

. . . Rush now mentioning the breck girl's 10 min now immortalized primp.


39 posted on 10/19/2004 10:23:39 AM PDT by cyn (Prayers always for Terri Schiavo and her family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cyn

thx :)

bump


40 posted on 10/19/2004 7:31:06 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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