[cmsgop]

Bada-Bing!

[austingirl]

Tom Daschole will be stunned.

[Brian Mosely]

And just how hard would it be for ANYONE to get in to see one of the most protected and paranoid heads of state on the planet? Next to impossible, I would guess. A nobody like Atta get a meeting with Saddam. Looks like the case is being nailed shut, folks.

[A. Morgan]

Aha! Looks like we have a BINGO!

[KevinDavis]

Let's Rock!

[copycat]

Once again, the American Press ignores facts that do not support their politcal agenda.

[hflynn]

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday," Perle told Italy's business daily "Il Sole 24 Ore". Meantime, at the "Smoking Gun Saloon" in South Dakota,

Paging Mr Daschle, Paging Mr. Daschle.

[Alas Babylon!]

If this is true, we have our smoking gun, and it better well be story number ONE for big media!

This is reason enough to attack Iraq today. Avenge the 9/11 murders!!!!!!

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

If this is the case, we should've started the build up the day after we found out.

[financeprof]

But do we have an affidavit signed by both Atta and Saddam, duly witnessed by independent third parties, that such a meeting took place? Absent such how can we possibly believe that there is a credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? How can we act until we are metaphysically certain that Saddam told Atta what to do? \sarcasm Some people (Euroweenies, Senate Dims, etc.) are beyond convincing. They will bleat "you haven't made the case" ad nauseum--a clever formulation that conveniently shifts the blame to Bush and hence allows them to avoid making the hard judgments and gives them maximum flexibility to revise their "positions" as circumstances change.

Bush has to go to Congress in the next month to force these people to put up or shut up. Each member of Congress owes his constituents an up or down vote before the next election. It is their duty--a word that I am sure most of them have no conception of--to state their views and vote accordingly on the most important issue of the time before facing the voters in November. That is the purpose of elections--to hold our representatives accountable. Bush should force them to account, and not let them weasel out as they so desperately want to do.

[RippleFire]

Link?

[EternalVigilance]

If this report is true, and Perle said this, then we have all the pretext we need for going in and kicking Hussein's butt from here to 'paradise'.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. It has been more than obvious for some time that the Administration possesses more info than we are privy to...info that will fully implicate the Iraqis in 9-11, plus firm confirmation of their possessing the means to introduce WMD's to the equation.

The President and his advisors are pushing the Daschle Gang into a corner from which they can only emerge when they vote 'Aye' on the war.

The Presidency truly is a 'bully' pulpit. Hehehe..

[Mixer]

Say goodbye Saddam!

[gunshy]

And it took a year to find this out. This is just more propoganda to support invading Iraq. Another Gulf of Tonken.

[pepsionice]

The Germans and the French just lost their say in the matter. They can stand out in the open and neutral if they want...but they better not say a word about US aggression. If Saddam had anything to do with the episode, then he gets what he deserves.

[Musket]

Hey Hal, do you have a source link for this? I looked on the AFP site and their Yahoo compilation page and couldn't find it.

[Contra]

Here's what the liberals will say - first of all, you can't prove the meeting ever took place. Second of all, so what if they met, that doesn't prove that Saddam was behind 9/11. And even if he was, is that justification enough to topple a government, create chaos, and leave a vacuum in the leadership of Iraq, etc., etc. Liberals will defend Saddam like Johnny Cochran defended O.J. Atta supposedly met with an Iraqi agent too and the liberals dismissed that as proof of nothing. Liberals would not support any war unless it is a Bill Clinton Bosnia-type thing (which was the U.S. coming down on the side of muslims). Liberals would sooner lay down and accomodate their conquerers and be vanquished lap dogs. Once conquered, they would gladly welcome their new conquerers and do anything to save their a**. This mentality exists all over Europe and actually most of the world. There still seems to be a mentality of most Americans wanting to kick a** but the liberals control so much of government and the news media that their wimpy views get a disproportionate amount of attention. This makes you realize that Joe McCarthy was right. We have people, like Jane Fonda, who not only hate America and are against everything it stands for, but who also openly embrace the enemy. There are people (Americans) that hate America and what it stands for and they are among us. They claim they love America and are just are exercising their freedom of speech. But make no mistake they are treasonous scum.

[The Great Satan]

My guess is that Perle actually spoke of Atta's meeting with Saddam's agent in Prague, and this report is a sloppy, garbled version of that. I would be most surprised if Saddam Hussein met with Mohammed Atta personally, or that, if he did, we would have proof of it or, that if we had proof of it, the first person to hear about it would be an Italian reporter for a business daily. The administration gave the LA Times a heads up a few weeks ago that the Atta-al-Ani meeting did take place and would form part of the case for taking out Saddam: White House says Sept. 11 skyjacker had met Iraqi agent.

[AM2000]

A whole lot of people are going to have a very hard time believing this.

[aristeides]

I wonder if this could have happened while Atta was getting hijacking training at Salman Pak.