Posted on 04/27/2003 2:47:14 PM PDT by syriacus
If it turns out there was an Al Qaeda/Iraq connection, it would be great to be prepared with celebrity quotes denying that connection.
Here are two from Sarandon and Streisand.
Sarandon plans to act up before State of the Union
WASHINGTON - Just before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address tonight, activist actress Susan Sarandon plans to upstage him.
"Before our kids start coming home from Iraq in body bags and women and children start dying in Baghdad, I need to know, 'What did Iraq do to us?'" the 56-year-old New Yorker asks in a 30-second television spot that will air just before the 9 p.m. speech.
Edward Peck, a former ambassador to Iraq, tells her in the bit: "The answer is nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al Qaeda. ... Invading Iraq will increase terrorism, not reduce it."
The White House has signaled it may soon lay out evidence proving him wrong.
The spot is being paid for by an anti-war group called True Majority, run by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream fame. It urges Bush to seek a peaceful resolution and to allow the inspections to continue.
Barbra's Thoughts, Posted on March 26, 2003
"The first casualty when war comes, is truth." Senator Hiram Johnson 1917Bush and his Administration appear to operate under two related principles: (1) regardless of fact, if we say it enough times, the American people will believe us and (2) if we say something, you just have to trust us that it’s true, forget proof and logic.
Unfortunately, with regard to the first principle he is right. He found this to be the case with his domestic policy and it seems to be true in foreign affairs as well.
Take his repeated assertion of a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. Despite the fact that he and others have yet to offer any proof, a recent poll of Americans, shows that about half believe there is a connection between Saddam and 9-11. Why wait for an accurate intelligence report?
All Bush had to do was repeat Saddam Hussein and 9-11 in the same sentence over and over again – and then wait while the media reported his statements without analysis, and millions of Americans accepted it without question.
Who cares about the facts and truth?
We should.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq, By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor :
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
This week a senior Bush administration official appeared to close the matter, saying F.B.I. and C.I.A. analysts had firmly concluded that no meeting [Atta in Prague] had occurred, a conclusion first reported by Newsweek magazine.
From Alternet.org
Havel Nixes Saddam-9/11 Connection October 21, 2002
The specious and oft-repeated claims about Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have finally been decisively refuted.Today's page one New York Times story (registration required) reports that the Czech president Vaclav Havel has already informed the White House that "there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington." And even though Bush was informed by Havel earlier this year, he continued to freely refer to the so-called connection until a few months ago. But then facts have always played a very minor role in shaping the White House's policies.
The lack of documentation of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in this intelligence trove should lead to the questioning of the original source of such speculation, as well as the motivations of those who continue to peddle the "Iraqi connection" theory. Foremost among them are opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress and his American sponsors, in particular Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Undersecretary of State Richard Perle.
Pass the Duct Tape By MAUREEN DOWD
The president and his secretary of state had been huffing and puffing to prove a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.George Tenet, who presides over a C.I.A. full of skepticism about the tie, did his best for the boss, playing up the link to the Senate.
Ignoring all the blatant Qaeda hooks to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan; ignoring the fact that Osama has never had any use for the drinking, smoking, womanizing, secular Saddam; ignoring the fact that Saddam has no proven record of sharing weapons with Al Qaeda, the Bushies have been hellbent on making the 9/11 connection.
The world wasn't entirely buying that rationale for war.
Even in this time of war, there are media and political forces in this country that have no moral balance, that have only their own quest for power guiding their actions.
Brent Scowcroft, in the Wall Street Journal, essentially reiterated his failed policy advice employed at the end of Gulf War I in 1991. That policy is cautious and narrow, a policy that strives for balance of power in the old European mold of realpolitik.
This led the New York Times to blast headlines like "Top Republicans Break With Bush On Iraq Strategy," "Warning Shots on Iraq," and "The Waco Road to Baghdad." The Times' trumpeted a concocted attack on President Bush's foreign policy, following their agenda of discrediting Bush above all other priority, even the national interest of the United States. We could dismiss their obvious liberal playbook methods as trite, if they weren't so dangerous. The New York Times did not report news, they propagandized.
The real news - Scowcroft had facts wrong.
"But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them." Brent Scowcroft, August 15, 2002 Wall Street Journal
Palestinian born Director of External Operations for Iraqi Intelligence, the new Ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, traveled to Kandahar, Afghanistan in December, 1998 and met with Osama Bin Laden.
"Terrorist cells belonging to the network organized by Osama bin Laden...are ready go into action in the countries of the Persian Gulf and Europe...The list of targets is ready. It was agreed in Kandahar 21 December by Osama himself and Farouk Hijazi... The new recruits, together with the veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Bosnia, form the secret army that is expected to use its weapons against all those who oppose the rais of Baghdad. In order to make them even more dangerous, traditional training has been supplemented with training in the use of chemical weapons, toxins and viruses."3 [Corriere della Sera, February 1, 1999 (Italia)]
Baghdad had even grander designs for Osama. Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal had visited Mullah Omar twice in 1998, trying to get to Osama for his intended overthrow of the House of Saud. He had been twice rejected. Saudi financing of the Taliban had then been severely reduced and the Taliban were reconsidering the value of protecting Osama. Pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia had secured the expulsion of Osama from Sudan to Yemen in the early 1990's, and just as they had offered then, Iraq invited Osama to asylum and refuge in Baghdad.
[This meeting was confirmed by Vincent Cannistraro, Director of NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987, then chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.]
Mamoun Fandy, professor of Middle East Politics at Georgetown University, with personal Saudi Royal Family connections, said in 1999, the Saudi monarchy told him they ended diplomatic relations and funding of the Taliban. The Saudi's felt this would compel the Taliban to force Osama out of Afghanistan. Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden would have an ideological aversion to accepting the secularist Iraqi offer, as he did in the early 1990's, but Osama might have little choice but to accept. [obviously, Osama secured other arrangements.]
The New York Post reported February 1, 1999, "Saddam Hussein - battered, humiliated and increasingly isolated - plans to resort to terrorism in revenge for U.S. airstrikes against his country"
"Earlier this month, Saddam appeared to move even further ideologically toward Bin Laden when he lashed out at the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments.
"Saudi rulers have caused great calamities to the Arab nation and committed aggression against its rights ever since they became a bridge for the foreigner," Saddam said in a written statement.
Terrorism is the Iraqi ruler's new strategy, said Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst now with the Congressional Research Service.
"Saddam hasn't been much of a player on the terrorism scene lately. But now he's clearly trying to advertise himself in the Arab world as a victim of American aggression in hopes of attracting Bin Laden's supporters and others to his cause," Katzman said.
Ahmed Allawi, a senior INC official, advised, that it is not new, "There is a long history of contacts between the Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Ladin."
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.