BurbankKarl wrote: KFYI is an awesome station!"
Well KFYI was at least smart enough to hire Crummey full time.
On the other hand...
Posted on 03/26/2006 9:57:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson
After substantial prodding -- including from this paper -- the U.S. government has finally begun to release its captured Iraqi documents and is posting them at the Web site of the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. This material will take considerable time to absorb and analyze, but it may yet contribute significantly to our understanding of the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.
Most dramatically, an Iraqi intelligence report, apparently written in early 1997, describes Iraqi efforts to establish ties with various elements in the Saudi opposition, including Osama bin Ladin. Until 1996, the Saudi renegade was based in Sudan, then ruled by Hassan Turabi's National Islamic Front. One of Iraq's few allies, Sudan served as an intermediary between Baghdad and bin Ladin, as well as other Islamic radicals. On Feb. 19, 1995, an Iraqi intelligence agent met with bin Ladin in Khartoum. Bin Ladin asked for two things: to carry out joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia and to broadcast the speeches of a radical Saudi cleric. Iraq agreed to the latter, but apparently not the former, at least as far as the author of this report knew. Notably, the report also states, "we are working at the present time to activate this relationship through new channels."
This one report hints at the extensive international presence that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained. Iraq's ambassadors to Sudan and Yemen were intelligence agents, suggesting that those two countries were major centers of IIS activity. The report also mentions IIS stations in Islamabad, New Delhi and New York.
Another newly released document bears the name of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. It is a flyer from the "Committee for Arab Liaison with the Islamic Emirate" (i.e., Afghanistan) for recruiting volunteers in Iraq to fight in Afghanistan...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bump!
There goes most of the Democrat talking points for the 2006 election cycle. They put all their eggs in the "Bush lied" basket and now all this comes out.
Laurie Mylroie has done a great deal of research and maintained all along that there was a connection between Saddam and terrorism.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/mylroie.php
ping
This aint poker ya know....
Another good article by Mylroie:
SADDAM AND 9/11
Jan. 8, 2004
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1058
Mylroie: Partly, it's par for the course, particularly these days, when political discourse can be unusually ugly. Partly, it reflects the high stakes involved.
The 9/11 attacks represent the greatest US intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. That is not a controversial statement, but the nature of that intelligence failure certainly is, as it involves the question of who bears responsibility.
Bill Clinton and his top advisers are most culpable in my view, and I say that as someone who was Clinton's adviser on Iraq in the 1992 campaign. People may forget, but Clinton was tougher than former president Bush on Saddam then, saying that Bush should have got rid of him during the 1991 war.
Clearly, I didn't begin as someone hostile to Clinton, but my strong critique, indeed utter dismay, developed as the Clinton administration refused to deal with the dangers posed by Iraq, including terrorism, as they became increasingly evident during the 1990's. In fact, I experienced that first hand, because in 1993 and 1994 I had easy access to the people covering the Middle East, including Martin Indyk, Clinton's NSC advisor on the region, who the year before, had actually brought me out of academics to work for him in Washington. That is how I ended up as Clinton's adviser on Iraq.
As early as 1993, I raised my concerns with them: it appeared from the New York Times reporting that Iraq was involved in the World Trade Center bombing. Also, Massoud Barzani (head of the Kurdish Democratic Party) had told me that Saddam was hiding many things from the UN weapons inspectors (UNSCOM), including that Iraq was still making biological agents (after Saddam's son-in-law defected, UNSCOM learned that Barzani was correct)
They've already switched to the "What would Jesus do about immigration tact." They will avoid this like the plague.
I thought it was somewhat ironic when O'Reilly did his poll last week and what was it...62%?...(or more) said they thought with what they know now the war was justified. O'Reilly was NOT expecting that.
Thanks for allowing translations by jveritas to be posted in breaking news. This could be the event that drives yet another stake in the MSM.
Past my bedtime over here on the "right coast," Jim. I pinged the Saddam gatekeepers and will check back in the a.m. :) 'teasing...
Dr. Laurie Mylroie BTTT!
I will certainly ditto that!
The good news is that their take on immigration is backfiring. I've read several polls indicating that a majority of Democrats are in favor of the house bill criminalizing illegal aliens. Their leadership is a mile behind the rank and file on this issue.
I think the demonstrations this weekend got under a lot of peoples' skin and produced the exact opposite effect of what they were going for.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Malignant pustule sounds more like smallpox than anthrax.
Excellent news.
What does CAS mean, if you please?
It doesn't get much better than this Ping...
Dr. Laurie Mylroie in the Wall Street Journal
Clinton Admin Scandals.
Sounds like Sadaam was aiding the Taliban, and the Taliban were Al Queda's base. Case closed.
The other thing was a couple of weeks ago he had on one of the founders of code pink. He went after her about her saying the US was not doing rebuilding but never asked her about the pinkos giving money to the terrorist. I don't think he was letting her off the hook, I just don't think he knew.
Ping to an expert's view: it's Dr. Mylroie writing in the Wall Street Journal. Joe Crummey interviewed Dr. Mylroie a few times when he was still on KABC and before he defected to a Clear Channel Arizona station.
KFYI is an awesome station!
But sometimes I think those who report the news don't always have the time to read and study all they are reporting on.
It's up to us to keep the emails flowing and hope somebody is listening.
Ping to a Dr. Laurie Mylroie editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
BurbankKarl wrote: KFYI is an awesome station!"
Well KFYI was at least smart enough to hire Crummey full time.
On the other hand...
FYI ping.
mark for later.
Thanks Jim!!!
Thanks for the ping!
Important PING and BTTT!
Thank you for the ping.
You're welcome! :-)
Yes, Mylroie has been on this from the beginning and I trust her.
Nope, "malignant pustule" is a traditional descriptive term for anthrax. It usually starts as a single pustule (smallpox is very plural) on the skin that ulcerates, doesn't hurt, but causes widespread problems because of the toxins it spews out. One pustule can potentially kill, thus is "malignant," although the mortality of cutaneous disease is low. It's worse if you inhale or inject it, but most cases, even in the 2001 attacks, were limited to the skin.
Evenin' Jim.
Sent the following letter to the Mod Bee earlier today. Waiting once again to be published...
Well , well, well. What do we have here?
A recently translated Iraqi document reveals that Russia forwarded US troop movements to Saddam Hussein (ModBee, March 25, pg. A-3) prior to the invasion. As one might expect, Russia later denied the allegations.
The article itself prompted a search on the WWW for more document translations. Imagine my surprise to read that other documents reveal that Iraq and Al Qaeda held meetings as early as 1995. How can this be? The media has been telling us for 3 years that there is no connection between the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.
Even 9/11 Omission Commission Commissioner Bob Kerrey says "a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a 'significant set of facts,' and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
I suppose now the Modesto Bee will be inundated with letters to the editor from those Bush-bashers, who over the past three years have parroted the cry, "Bush Lied – There is no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam", with letters stating, "I was wrong – Bush was right!"
dave
I agree and hardly ever watch him anymore. He constantly interrupts and overtalks his guests so much that a dialogue in effect becomes Bill's monologue. And, like so many other TV celebrities, he has ghost writers churn out his books. He's about 5% demagogue and 95% windbag. He deplores "personal attacks" on himself but is a master of this as part of his M.O.
This has nothing to do with whether Clinton was tougher than Bush I. It has everything to do with Clinton trying to get elected. If Bush had, in fact, gone after Saddam, Clinton (and the rest of the Democrats) would have been criticizing him for that. If Clinton had been president when Saddam went into Kuwait, Saddam would still be in power, and Kuwait would still be a province of Iraq.
bttt
you helping Laurie?
Great work!
I hope you will share all of those replies with us. ; )
Many more documents are to be released in the coming months. Quite possibly, they will vindicate the decision to undertake the Iraq war; help maintain public support for fighting it; and radically change our understanding of Saddam's role in international terrorism.
Good!
The Paper Trail [Saddam/terrorism/WMD]
Release/Translation of Classified PreWar Docs ping. If you want to be added or removed to the ping list, please Freepmail me.
Please add the keyword prewardocs to any articles pertaining to this subject.
Thanks for the ping.
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.
