June 29, 2005
Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy (Updated with counter-arguments)
Hold on, There was no connection between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, Nancy Pelosi told me so.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
CBS) Over a thousand victims and family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks sued Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein Wednesday alleging there is evidence of a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden to attack the United States.
The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon.
The suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of 1,400 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families, also claims Iraq sponsored terrorists for a decade to avenge its defeat in the Gulf War.
"Since Iraq could not defeat the U.S. military, it resorted to terror attacks on U.S. citizens," said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.
The suit names bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq as defendants and seeks more than $1 trillion in damages. It was brought by Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm specializing in aviation disaster litigation.
The left has been berating George Bush for inferring such a connection in his speech last night. They wouldn't lie about such a thing, would they?
Posted by Traderrob
DISCLAIMER FROM RUSTY: Traderrob posted this, and I think it's an important piece of news. Jason at Texas Rainmaker elaborated on this some time ago. However, I do not now nor have I ever believed there was any direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. While there may have been an occasional meeting between the Baathists and al Qaeda, I have never seen anything like compelling evidence of Iraq's involvement. It looks to me more like mutual support for anti-Israel and anti-Kurdish activities than anything else.
Did the Baathists really support an al Qaeda that was fighting their own regime through their allies in Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan along the Iranian borders? I doubt it, although it is possible that some sort of truce was called between the two groups. But most of these theories rely on connecting a lot of disparate pieces of information--the classic logic of the conspiracy theoriests.
Sorry, I don't believe it. Not yet anyway.
UPDATE #2: Ok, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me address Reliapundit's points that he makes here. He notes that the Declaration of War against Iraq included two 9/11 references.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;True, but so what? So Saddam a) doesn't go after members of Ansar al-Sunnah who are in control of a small area of Kurdistan along the Iranian border and who are horboring al Qaeda refugees from the successful campaign in Afghanistan. b) harbors, for very brief periods of time, a handful of other al Qaeda operatives. Harboring a fugitive is not the same as helping him commit the crime. It may be cause for war (please see Grotius) but it does not mean Hussein helped al Qaeda plan 9/11.
Point 2:
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizensHussein did support terrorism. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, PFLP, PLO, etc....maybe even some minor contributions to al Qaeda. These groups, active against Israel, have killed a number of American citizens. This has nothing to do with Hussein actually planning 9/11. Hussein made som MAJOR miscaculations in his time, but he wasn't an idiot.
Point 3:
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizationsYes, it most certainly did. And every one in 2002-3 believed this, other than the extreme Left who don't believe anything the U.S. government EVER says. Further, 9/11 showed us that we could not simply take Hussein's word for it that he had no WMD--he had told us that in 91 and when his son-in-law defected we learned otherwise. 9/11 taught us that we cannot wait until proof positive of a threat, but must act even in the face of uncertainy.
This does not mean the war in Iraq was unjust, only that we did not invade because Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
So, John Cole is right, in my opinion, and SoCal Pundit wrong. Sorry, that's how I sees it.
Posted by: Traderrob at
04:37 PM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
Post contains 769 words, total size 5 kb.
1
no, this isn't true, pre-war Iraq was all puppydogs and lollypops. Only when the great Satan arrived all the terrorists came. no seriously.
Posted by: dave at June 29, 2005 05:13 PM (fsJ2z)
2
I would direct Greg to Google a few names Like:
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir
Abu Nidal
Ayman Zawahiri
Abdul Rahman Yasin
Abu Musab al Zarqawi
But, he'll just deny every word. He is silly.
And those are just a few that were actually IN Iraq before we invaded. This doesn't count all the meetings ouside of Iraq that Iraqi officials had with a number of terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
Posted by: Oyster at June 29, 2005 05:38 PM (YudAC)
3
BTW you listed a rogue's gallery of Palestinians, Yemenis, Jordanians and others. Where are the Iraqis...? Could it be, that their weren't any involved in 9/11?
Posted by: ReidBlog at June 29, 2005 05:41 PM (+OoOC)
4
Not to mention all those Kuwaities in al Qaida who happen to be Iraqis who are using dead Kuwaiti names, passports and documents stolen in '90. No, they couldn't be former (present) Baathists, could they?
Posted by: Editor at June 29, 2005 05:43 PM (adpJH)
5
or it could be that Abu Nidal relocated to Iraq in 1998, and Rahman Yasin is suspected to have fled to Iraq
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/teryasin.htm
Posted by: dave at June 29, 2005 05:46 PM (fsJ2z)
6
So let me get this straight Reid, If someone conspires to commit a a crime in your home at your invitation you are to be held blameless?
Posted by: traderrob at June 29, 2005 06:06 PM (3al54)
7
trader,
Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on Reid. It's a futile effort.
Posted by: Editor at June 29, 2005 06:20 PM (adpJH)
8
Actually, the base of terror operations in Iraq prior to our invasion was the northern, Kurdish territory over which we and the British, not Saddam Hussein, had effective control. Abu Nidal went to Iraq to die, so you draw a straight line to Saddam Hussein planning 9/11? So if someone sneaks into your garage and plans a crime you are held to blame? BTW now, the base of terror operations is the whole of Iraq -- it's 1980s Afghanistan all over again. It's really, really tough to get around the fact that Bush has blundered the war, that he blundered the intel, and that the notion of Iraq planning or conspiring in 9/11 is a neocon fantasy meant to justfiy an invasion that had other causes. Wilsonian causes that shouldn't have ANY appeal to conservatives, BTW... and a hallucinogenic notion that we could quickly decapitate that government, install Chalabi and change the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East, presto!
Posted by: ReidBlog at June 29, 2005 06:20 PM (+OoOC)
9
And my previous comment didn't take, so I'll rehash: a lawsuit, in and of itself, proves nothing. The Bush administration has itself been sued by people (tin hat people, but people nonetheless) who think THEY were involved in 9/11. Does that lawsuit make it so?
Posted by: ReidBlog at June 29, 2005 06:22 PM (+OoOC)
10
it's 1980s Afghanistan all over again
Uh, yeah, except for the fact we got to Baghdad in a couple weeks, disposed of the regime, set-up an interim government, help Iraq have their first free elections, on and on and on and on. Other than those facts, it's Afghanistan all over again.
"Let's get one thing straight, actor. I don't trust you. And if you betray us, I'll rip your fucking balls off and stuff them up your ass so that the next time you shit, you'll shit all over your balls, got it?" F*** Yeah, b*tch!
Posted by: Editor at June 29, 2005 06:26 PM (adpJH)
11
Yep... just like Afghanistan. The Russians got into Kabul in days, deposed the government, installed a new one and swarmed the countryside. The war was a snap but the insurgency was a bitch. In fact, it lasted what, 10, 12 years? Sounds about like what Rummy predicted for us in Iraq...
Posted by: ReidBlog at June 29, 2005 06:36 PM (+OoOC)
12
Rusty, a federal court has already ruled (in 2003) that " that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks."
This case was part of a post I made last month showing various connections.
Posted by: Jason Smith at June 29, 2005 06:43 PM (7XQUQ)
13
Except for the fact the Soviets had been heavily imbedded in Kabul for quite sometime. Just like us.
Posted by: Editor at June 29, 2005 06:46 PM (adpJH)
14
Reid your argument is specious. The meeting was not in the garage but rather the family room with a potential bedroom invite. The al Qaeda operatives were allowed in with the decided approval of the Saddam regime, this is not disputed. Point two, 1200 families is hardly a few nutburgers, do the math it's almost half of the families involved.
Posted by: traderrob at June 29, 2005 07:02 PM (3al54)
15
Anyone remember Saddam's "invasion" of Kurdistan in 1996?
Didn't think so.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/kdp.htm
n May 1994 supporters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) clashed with supporters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), leaving 300 people dead. Relations among the groups soured in March 1995 when the KDP backed out of an attack on Saddam's front lines led by Iraqi National Congress. Over the next year the UK and KDP fought several more times, eventually devolving into a state of civil war. In August 1996, leaders of the KDP asked Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to intervene in the war. Hussein sent at least 30,000 troops into the UN-protected Kurdish region, capturing the PUK stronghold of Irbil. The KDP was immediately installed in power. The U.S. responded with two missile strikes against southern Iraq, but in early September Iraq again helped KDP fighters, this time taking the PUK stronghold of As Sulaymaniyah. After Saddam's move against them in 1996, about 700 Iraqi National Congress activists and fighters were evacuated to the US, along with 6,000 pro-Western Iraqi Kurds.
In northern Iraq, fighting continued in 1997 between the two main Iraqi Kurdish groups, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). In addition, attacks on civilians by the Turkish Kurd terrorist organization, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), resulted in many deaths, particularly among the vulnerable Assyrian minority and villagers who supported the KDP. Turkish forces entered Iraq several times during the year to combat the PKK. These separate conflicts converged in November, when Turkish air and ground elements joined the KDP to force the PUK and the PKK to return to the established intra-Kurdish ceasefire line. The fighting left over a thousand persons dead and forced thousands of civilians from their homes. A ceasefire established on 24 November 1997 ended the fighting for the remainder of the year, albeit with a few sporadic clashes.
The KDP estimated that 58,000 KDP supporters were expelled from Suleymaniyah and other PUK-controlled areas from October 1996 to October 1997; the PUK says that more than 49,000 of its supporters were expelled from Irbil and other KDP-controlled areas from August 1996 through December 1997. The U.N. reports that more than 10,000 persons were forced from their homes when fighting broke out between the Kurdish factions along their cease-fire line in October 1997.
I believe Irbil was the site of the terror camp ReidBlog refers to above.
Posted by: h0mi at June 29, 2005 07:17 PM (zpJBl)
16
Never said they were "nutjobs" -- just that filing a case is not proving a case. Guys, the 9/11-Iraq thing is supposed to be a WH rhetorical flourish. The fact that seemingly intelligent people continue to buy into it is troubling, to say the least. Read the 9/11 report. Hell, ask George W. Bush! He'll tell you the United States government and its intelligence agencies have found no proof -- none -- zip -- zero ... linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Do you buy the Saddam hit Oklahoma City canard, too? And don't give me a federal judge. Five "federal judges" just ruled that some bought and paid for mayor can take my house and turn it into a Wal-Mart...
Posted by: ReidBlog at June 29, 2005 07:18 PM (+OoOC)
17
Did you ever think that perhaps he went to Iraq to die, because he knew he wouldn't be arrested and deported, it's not like he went to France to die.
He was sentenced to die in Jordan, I didn't see Iraq hand him over?
Posted by: dave at June 29, 2005 07:19 PM (fsJ2z)
18
Mobutu Sese Seko went to Belgium to die, and he was responsible for the bloody wars and massacres in the Congo that have killed up to 3 million people -- an ogre every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein and every bit the terrorist. Hell, Manuel Norriega will likely die in Miami. ...
Posted by: ReidBlog at June 29, 2005 08:08 PM (+OoOC)
19
If I remember correctly Abu Nidal got blasted by Saddam's goon squad in the weeks before the invasion.
Dead men tell no tales?
Posted by: disgruntledinca at June 29, 2005 08:16 PM (8DwXG)
20
Of course, if you don't believe some lawsuits, where the plaintiffs can make claims and assertions that still have to be proven in a court of law, how about the word of Congress? Will PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 suffice?
I'll highlight the relevant section:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas IraqÂ’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States andits citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action bythe United States to defend itself[...]That's language from the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq. Last time I checked, both houses of Congress, and members from both parties signed that in to law.
The House vote - 296 - 133 (81 Democrats joined with 215 Republicans)
The Senate vote: 77-23 (NAYs ---23: Akaka (D-HI),Bingaman (D-NM),
Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR)
Absent from the nay? Sen. Kerry. Fancy that. Did he forget that he voted for the war because of links to terrorists and al Qaeda? Or did that slip his mind. I guess we can forgive him (only this much) because he was hardly ever there and who has time to read everything on your desk when stuff is piled to the rafters from all the other time you missed?
Posted by: lawhawk at June 29, 2005 08:38 PM (MQkzG)
21
Anyone watching the "30 Days" show, on being a Muslim in America? talk about a whitewash.
Posted by: dave at June 29, 2005 09:20 PM (fsJ2z)
22
After reading Reid's comments on this blog, I sauntered over to Reidblog and now wonder why anyone would care what Reid said. He is like a dog that eats its own vomit. I didn't see one original thought on the entire blog.
It looks as if he just copies whatever is in the Times or Post verbatim. As proof I'll ask you to go over to Reidblog and see how many people have posted in the comment section of his posts. I think I counted up to five(5), yes FIVE, comments on the entire blog.
Well, I gotta tell you that he's really got an influential blog going over there guys! Whew, boy!
Reid, ole man, quit wasting your time on that blogging thing, man, because you ain't got it. One Kos is enough, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 29, 2005 10:20 PM (DDXXI)
23
While I'm with Rusty on the idea that Iraq wasn't in on the planning of 9/11, my argument is that he did in fact support various terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda. Of course, Reid went off on a tangent while I slept last and assumed all sorts of thing he THINKS I said. Dear Reid, I know these are nationals of various other countries. That's who's fighting in Iraq right now - mostly other nationals.
We went into Afghanistan and blew a bunch of stuff up and the Afghans didn't do anything to us. It was al-Qaeda. There was no indication that the Afghans planned 9/11 WITH al Qaeda, but Afghanistan DID harbor them. Saddam was doing the same thing. Providing terrorists sanctuary.
So my question to the lefties is, "What were we supposed to do? Wait for another 9/11 perpetrated by someone we knew to be planning along with Saddam? Why would we set the bar higher for justification in invading Iraq but not for Afghanistan?" The Iraqi government and the Afghan government only harbored these guys.
President Bush said we would go after those who harbor terrorists. And we did. Why the left keeps freaking out about "No 9/11 connection!" "No WMD!" absolutely stuns me. It's the most narrow minded drivel I've ever heard. Someone has to get up and slap them in the face before they'll admit someone has hands.
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 06:18 AM (YudAC)
24
LawHawk: We know for a fact that some Senators cast a vote on issues without ever having read the literature provided them. We heard one a few months ago openly admit it. I wish I could remember who it was. It know was a woman. And Kerry was absent from more meetings than he was present at.
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 06:41 AM (YudAC)
25
Lets' see, iraQ and al-Qaeda - dammit, both have Q in them!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 30, 2005 06:56 AM (ScqM8)
26
Personally, I find the existence of the Salman Pak terrorist training facility extremely compelling as evidence of complicity on the part of Saddam Hussein. This facility, which the media has completely avoided discussing, was a major center for bio-weapons development, including anthrax, and was also a complete A-Z terrorist training center. They taught bombmaking, and had a stationary airplane on a runway for hijacking practice. It was run by Iraqis security forces, to train Islamic foreign fighters, and was located just outside of Baghdad.
What other explanation is there? Is it really a serious statement to say such a thing could exist, yet Saddam Hussein had no connections with international terrorism?
Posted by: rufus_mcdoofus at June 30, 2005 07:00 AM (lPS/7)
27
iraq has had two free elections before 30 jan 2005
Posted by: Graeme at June 30, 2005 07:35 AM (ena4U)
28
sounds harsh but the families need to move on for their own good
Posted by: graham at June 30, 2005 07:36 AM (ena4U)
29
To add to my last comment ...
Which of course doesn't prove anything about 9/11 itself. But that airplane thing ... chase down obvious leads first.
And anybody who has read Jayna Davis or Laurie Mylroie (and others) knows that the Iraqi security forces were the leading bombmakers during the 90s, and that the "bomb signature" of the OKC bombing is remarkably similar to the Iraqi-made bombs. Same with the Bali bombing, and other big booms of the past 10-15 years.
So the evidence for Iraqi involvement in international terrorism over the last 15 years is pretty strong. Al Qaeda has been the most prominent international terrorist organization. He needed them, and they needed him. What is the burden of proof in such a case? Proof positive? Good luck with that.
And, the idea that Saddam would embark on a proxy war against the U.S. by enlisting the services of mercenary terrorists with plausible deniability makes perfect sense. And there is that supposed agreement between bin Laden and Saddam to help each other, in 1998 or whenever.
I'm just sayin.
Posted by: rufus_mcdoofus at June 30, 2005 07:56 AM (lPS/7)
30
DSM: You're an absolute genius! I hadn't thought of the "Q" thing. That's the connection we've been looking for!
[end sarcasm]
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 08:20 AM (fl6E1)
31
So, if all you are so gung ho about war, what are you still doing behind those keyboards and not out there in the trenches helping out? You wusses..... You can sit here and analyze the situation all you want and say this or say that, but nothing will mean anything if you do not support the cause. You can not be a paper cheerleader on the sidelines while the US soldiers go fight it out. Get off your arses and go enlist today dammit!!!!!!!!!
I am tired of reading about what we should be doing by people sitting on their butts in the comfort of their homes while the all voluntary military is destroyed before our very eyes. Enlistment numbers are way way down. Which speaks volume. No one had a problem enlisting after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did they? So what are the readers who support this war still doing in this country? You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are no different than a MOnday morning QB. Sitting there all comfortable in your chair while the US soldiers are out there fighting for their lives. Shame on you, enlist today!!!!!! Quit being chickenhawks
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that personÂ’s youth.
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
Posted by: root at June 30, 2005 09:59 AM (dAUUf)
32
Two free elections before 2005 do not a democracy make, especially since the 'peeResident for Life'
is either Saddam or Castro. Your pick.
Now, reid, your assessment of 'actually, the northern territory was where the British and Americans exercised effective control' is missing
one little tiny insignifant but ever so important detail: WE WERN'T ON THE GROUND! Those were the no fly zones.
Next, and try to keep your head from exploding with self loathing, that wasn't the only terrorist training camp.
dang. He fainted.
Oh well.
Posted by: Cricket at June 30, 2005 10:50 AM (wGXdq)
33
If you think we're going to fall for the old "chickenhawk" routine, you're not as bright as you think.
By your argument then all the lefties have no right to talk of prison conditions at Gitmo unless they're there guarding prisoners.
In the words of a very smart man who goes by the handle "DelphiGuy":
"Should only doctors be able to vote for/discuss medical issues? Businessmen voting on business issues? Should only those who work and pay taxes get to vote on where their tax money goes?
"[The chickenhawk] argument is immaterial, and designed solely to sidestep the issue in order to attack the messenger instead."
And just for your information, they are now exceeding enlistment quotas. I know that hurts you, but hey...
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 10:56 AM (fl6E1)
34
Major ad hominem (tu quoque) logical fallacy here (i.e., No one here who supports the war is enlisting, so therefore these same people are cowards and shouldn't be FOR the war, and thus, the war ultimately can't be a worthwhile endeavor).
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 30, 2005 10:57 AM (x+5JB)
35
Root, for a typical liberal dumbass chickenshit coward traitor, you seem a little more articulate than most, but still no smarter. Why don't you support your cause and strap on an explosive vest and detonate yourself for your Islamofascist masters? You and your kind are not long for this world; your masters will demand your sacrifice for the jihad, and I'll be glad to help you comply. That is what you want isn't it? To kill your fellow citizens for the glorious jihad? Your kind are such simpletons and lack the capacity to see what is happening, but that won't buy you any mercy, from either side.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 30, 2005 11:01 AM (0yYS2)
36
I seem to recall reading posts from a number of people who were, or still are in the military.
Posted by: REMF at June 30, 2005 11:02 AM (aLiCo)
37
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
---
First of all, the resolution hastily agreed to by congress was based on administration fronted "intelligence" that has since been almost completely defanged by congressional and CIA investigations -- hence the "we were almost all wrong" post-invasion assessments by ... hell, everybody (except the recalcitrant neocons_.
Second -- if there were, in fact, al-Qaida training camps in Iraq prior to the invasion, where were they, and where are the news reports of our having bombarded them during the campaign? The "shock and awe" U.S. bombing in the early days of the war was aimed at taking out Saddam Hussein's command and control, with the express mission of getting our ground troops in to overturn the government (ostensibly, so we could "go in and find the wmd"). So the analogy to Afghanistan, which WAS harboring al-Qaida and which triggered the war by refusing to turn over Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, is as thin as all your other arguments.
No dice. No intel to support an Iraq connection to 9/11 no matter how you try to sex it up with talk radio bluster.
And don't worry, I'm keeping my self-loathing firmly in check.
Posted by: Reid at June 30, 2005 11:05 AM (+OoOC)
38
Reid, I somehow missed in one of your posts this comment:
"Abu Nidal went to Iraq to die, so you draw a straight line to Saddam Hussein planning 9/11? "
No, actually I pointed out that Iraq has for many years turned a blind eye to terrorists, and the last time I checked it's a War on TERROR, not just Al-Qaeda ?
Posted by: dave at June 30, 2005 12:08 PM (fsJ2z)
39
"Second -- if there were, in fact, al-Qaida training camps in Iraq prior to the invasion, where were they, and where are the news reports of our having bombarded them during the campaign? "
They must have never existed!!!!
http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2003/0322/epf601.htm
19th March Operation Iraqi Freedom starts, and on the March 22nd the camps of Ansar al-Islam is attacked, guess everyone heard it but you.
Posted by: dave at June 30, 2005 12:28 PM (fsJ2z)
40
Reid: Ever heard of Salman Pak?
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 01:04 PM (fl6E1)
41
Reid - your news report is right here. A Google search of "Vincent Brooks" + "salman pak" returns only 309 results. This is pitiful.
One might reasonably question why such a big story was spiked by nearly the entire U.S. media. Hmmmmm.
(cue Jeopardy theme)
Posted by: rufus_mcdoofus at June 30, 2005 02:37 PM (gRKpB)
42
I bookmarked Reidblog in a folder I named "Propaganda and Stupidity". It's in good company with moron.org, uh, I mean moveon.org, aljazeera.com, et al. I don't bookmark them to read, but to make screenshots of from time to time for evidence to be used at the trials after the revolution. The one unifying characteristic of the left is that they seem to be enamoured of socio-fascist authoritarian tyrants, so I think that a good old-fashioned Stalinist purge will be in order one day soon.
Posted by: Improbulus Maxumus at June 30, 2005 07:02 PM (0yYS2)
43
You guys are still here???? Come on now, enough already, enlist, give the ultimate sacrifice.......
Puuuuuleaze, do your country men a favor and ENLIST!!!!!
Don't make me have to switch from chickenhawk to chickenshit ;o}
Posted by: root at July 01, 2005 12:42 AM (dAUUf)
44
Occasionally, Rusty and I agree. This is one of those occasions.
Posted by: greg at July 01, 2005 07:03 AM (3D/yw)
45
9/11 is a conspiracy - it was organised by the CIA
Posted by: Andrew Bolt at July 26, 2005 03:02 AM (BKGK5)
54kb generated in CPU 0.0293, elapsed 0.1461 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1334 seconds, 294 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1334 seconds, 294 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
