Unofficialbmw.com

[TnSlim]

Sorry, panzer, your saying it doesn’t prove it doesn’t prove it doesn’t prove it

[panzerkeil302]

Proof would be, say, oh, I don't know...maybe like a 4million dollar transfer from Sandman to Osammie via a Swiss account...or satellite pictures of Osama performing exercises in Northern Iraq..or even Southern Iraq for that matter. Saddam feared us..

Slim, if they provide any kind of proof like this, I will rejoice with glee…without WMD, we must find this proof….if Geedubya doesn’t, he will have a terrible Fall showing.

[board_nerd]

quote:

---

A new book by the senior Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden and his followers warns that the United States is losing the war against radical Islam and that the invasion of Iraq has only played into the enemy's hands...

The 309-page book, obtained by The New York Times, provides an unusual glimpse into a school of thought inside the C.I.A., and includes harsh criticism of both the Clinton and Bush administrations...

In the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous," but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999...

"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."

The author says the threat is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world.

It is rare for a C.I.A. officer to publish a book while still serving at the agency and highly unusual for the book to focus on such a politically explosive topic. Under C.I.A. rules, the book had to be cleared by the agency before it could be published. It was approved for release on condition that the author and his internal agency not be identified...

In the book, the author denounced the American invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," he writes.

In warning that the United States is losing the war on terrorism, Anonymous writes: "In the period since 11 September, the United States has dealt lethal blows to Al Qaeda's leadership and — if official claims are true — have captured three thousand Al Qaeda foot soldiers." At the same time, he adds, "we have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups."

---

[patrick66]

Man, oh man, I couldn't have said this better myself!!! www.rightnation.us for more! I love this!

Being proud of my ability to ignore the narcissistic, primping 9/11 Commission through these months, I must however now observe this group of politically-motivated hack posers wasting the lives of several trees for which many of its members would sacrifice their lives, to release a canary-cage liner series of reports, called "Staff Statements." More like "Stuff Statements", as a lot of this is just meaningless "stuff."

In their reports released over the past few days, the commission details - gasp! - the lack of thorough communication and preparation on 9/11. How shocking can this be? Well, thankfully we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to "confirm" what any 5-year-old could figure out. But, I'm not even here today to pick on this junkyard of a commission, except in that it finished its set mission - to be able to have an "official" written trail of blame to pin on the Bush Administration. Oh, realizing that it would be too obvious to come right out and say that "George W. Bush singlehandedly caused 9/11" (though droolingly tempting for them) while ignoring the Great Hummer in the Oval Office before him, the commission did something even better: without naming names, they virtually built an entire archery range for their friends in the left-wing media to take target practice. And it's this group of jackals I am targeting today.

And their pals are coming through, quiver by quiver. Already, we have that paragon of truth, the New York Times jumping all over the Commission's statements, complete with the usual yellow embellishments. No, Mr. Bush didn't exactly cause 9/11, but hey, the chaos of that day, the poor communications, the misscrambled fighters, all of it were at Mr. Bush's disposal. He might as well have been piloting those planes! Oh, and by the way, the little step of faith from the Commission's "no credible evidence seen" of an Iraq/Al-Qaeda link was all that was needed to morph into "no link". Period. Zilch. Yes, let's take a shortcut away from the subject at hand and go back into our own lovely playground, the Iraq war. Gotta fire a shot at "Dumb"a-yew, who now has been "proven" to start a war without cause! Never mind that Russian President Putin, it now appears, actually warned the U.S. about a Hussein/Al-Qaeda link just after the war. Meanwhile, back at the 9/11 ranch, any idiot (except for our crack staff of journalists, however) could have figured that these attacks were foreseen. Bill Clinton, who had more opportunities to catch Bin Laden than he had willing babes lined up for "dictation" in the Oval Office, is off the radar screen.

And a quick glance at most of the cable news programs revealed the same pummelling of the entire scenario. I mean, how much easier is it to blame the President when you don't have to resort to the responsibility of actually having specific facts, charges, or situations to present? Nope, this little media frenzy is perfect! Lotsa chaos, lotsa questions, one guy - GWB - who was in charge. The media shrews have enough meat to chew on here, for quite some time - until the public tires of it... which is happening.

Only it's funny. After the Pearl Harbor attack, President Roosevelt felt strongly enough to withhold the Japanese declaration of war on the U.S., strongly hinting at the surprise strike to key military personnel, because so many similar messages had been received for months. Yet I don't see much in history blaming FDR for the start of World War II. The amount of suppressed information before that war renders this one pale in comparison. Indeed, much of the Pearl Harbor investigations were a mishmash of security-sensitive, protected, classified information never seen by the public. Some things, we're just not supposed to know.

Not here! Nope, we have the "right" to be able to virtually put together our own manual for an attack on the U.S. Why? Not because it will help us, the common person, to somehow "be better prepared" (I guess I should buy that F-16 from Wal-Mart and park that baby in my driveway, ready for the next one)? No, so we have "evidence" to use to pound our enlightened fists down the throats of the enemy administration! Only now we have an "official govuhnment committee" to back us up! Please.

Does this mean that an investigation of the events leading to, and on, 9/11 is bogus, or that blame can't be distributed responsibly? Of course not! Almost 3,000 people died that day, and at the very least, their deaths dictate that we should find out what happened, and why, and correct it! But, can't the military and those responsible in government do so without having to be puppy-dog trailed by some smartass birkenstock reporter asking questions that most people would slap his face for? Does this entire thing have to be a windey, Lombard Street path to try and hit a hated President, who, at the very least, is half as responsible than his predecessor for 9/11? Since when does politics govern serious business like this? Well, that one's easy. When the left wing media use any device available to try and elbow President Bush in the stomach. And now, those familiar bedfellows of a "committee" and the press have tangled to produce this baby, as deformed as it might be. Pathetically deformed in its goals, purpose, and intent.

That's okay, for things are changing. My next blog will tell you how George Bush is doing just fine, and will do even better, in fact enough to win handily in November.

No commission or press frenzy needed for that one.

[panzerkeil302]

I did hear one interesting blurb today on MSN…A White House Official has stated that a top member of the Saddams inner circle had a meeting with one of the 9/11 pilots (Atta?sp) in Prague…If this were confirmed, you would have to call that “proof”. I’m recalling this from memory, but I think they said the White House had that information, but did not want to divulge it yet….waiting to get closer to election?

[patrick66]

Panzer, that information has been on both www.worldnetdaily.com and Rush Limbaugh. It was brought to the attention of the public by these two sources over six months ago. Quit watching CNN and you'll know these things ahead of the "great unwashed masses"!

[panzerkeil302]

Yup, but “They” (the commission) eluded to the fact Cheney my might be called in on this point…because there are details about it he has yet to reveal…

….the plot thickens.