Unofficialbmw.com

[TnSlim]

The Zelikow Report
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: June 21, 2004

WASHINGTON — "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack.

The Zelikow report was seized upon by John Kerry because it fuzzed up the distinction between evidence of decade-long dealings between agents of Saddam and bin Laden (which panel members know to be true) and evidence of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks (which, as Hamilton said yesterday, modifying his earlier "no credible evidence" judgment, was "not proven one way or the other.")

But the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt on both the Qaeda-Iraq ties and the specific attacks of 9/11: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports, citing the denials of Qaeda agents and what they decided was "no credible evidence" of cooperation on 9/11.

That paragraph — extending doubt on 9/11 to all previous contacts — put the story on front pages. Here was a release on the official commission's letterhead not merely failing to find Saddam's hand in 9/11, which Bush does not claim. The news was in the apparent contradiction of what the president repeatedly asserted as a powerful reason for war: that Iraq had long been dangerously in cahoots with terrorists.

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports."

Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with [url=http://www.edwardjayepstein.com.)]www.edwardjayepstein.com.)[/url]

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire

[panzerkeil302]

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack."

No on is debating "contact" Osama wanted money and a training facility…Saddam told him no.

The US had contact with Osama and Saddam…we funded, trained, supported, “contacted” them both…But this does not mean Rumsfeld is a member of Al Qaeda.

If Al Qaeda asks you, slim, for money, and you tell them no, are you a terrorist?

This is a smoking gun?

[patrick66]

He'll never get his partisan head out of the sand long enough to recognize the truth, Slim. He will simply never understand. Logic means nothing to him. And so it goes...

But, maybe there is a chance...Hey, panzer, why don't you go to www.drudgereport.com and click on the third column, where you see a WARNING in caps...This is where you can ACTUALLY SEE for yourself the brutal reality of the death of Mr. Johnson. There are three pictures there that, of course, you WON"T see in the US media because they (the media) support Mr. Kerry and not Mr. Bush. Can't have pics floating around that strengthens our cause and our resolve, now, can we??? Whether the terrorists are in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Tallahasse, Florida; they need to be found and they need to die.


[ 06-21-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]

[panzerkeil302]

"Whether the terrorists are in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Tallahasse, Florida; they need to be found and they need to die."

Pat66, I could not agree with you more...we need to stop terrorists. In Saudi, in Iraq, in Iran…

You actually voice my point to a tee – We have terrorists in Tallahasse, and invading Saudi will not stop them. We need to strengthen our borders and homeland security.

But I do not agree with you about killing every Muslim…not sure I understand your hatred for Muslims, but the Bush administration has gone on record as saying they are not the enemy…and you seem to be at odds with the administration on this point. Let us not forget, Al Qaeda is the enemy, and everyone one of them must die.

[TnSlim]

Iraqi officer in al Qaeda, papers show

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A senior officer in Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's security services was a member of the terrorist group that committed the September 11 attacks, a member of the commission investigating the suicide hijackings said yesterday.

"There is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," said September 11 commission member and former Navy Secretary John Lehman....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040621-124414-5078r.htm

[TnSlim]

There They Go Again

From the June 28, 2004 issue: The 9/11 Commission and the media refuse to see the ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/28/2004, Volume 009, Issue 40

...By week's end, several 9/11 panel commissioners sought to clarify the muddled report. According to commissioner John Lehman on Fox News, "What our report said really supports what the administration, in its straight presentations, has said: that there were numerous contacts; there's evidence of collaboration on weapons. And we found earlier, we reported earlier, that there was VX gas that was clearly from Iraq in the Sudan site that President Clinton hit. And we have significant evidence that there were contacts over the years and cooperation, although nothing that would be operational."

Commissioner Slade Gorton supports Lehman's comments, adding, "The Democrats are attempting to say that this gives the lie to the administration's claim that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam," he said. "But the administration never said that...."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/248eaurh.asp?pg=2

[panzerkeil302]

And these two articles prove Sandman aided the 9/11 attacks how? Couldn't we just as easily say the 3 billion we gave Osama was used to fund flight training...there is more of a "link".

These are your smoking guns? I understand where you are coming..without the WMD, the only thing we can hope for is evidence Saddam directly aided Osama...it is the only justification we have left.

Am I dreaming, or didn't Saddam say no money, no space for Osama? Wasn't that the nature of his "contact" a request that was denied?

[panzerkeil302]

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack."

This is really the core of the debate. We need credible evidence.

...credible...refusal to use his land and give him money is not "credible"...

[TnSlim]

Anti-anti-Saddamism
From the June 28, 2004 issue: This is surely a major moment in the race. John Kerry had, until last week, been carefully suppressing his left-leaning foreign policy instincts.
by William Kristol
06/28/2004, Volume 009, Issue 40

...By the end of the day, 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton were emphasizing that the commission had never said Iraq-al Qaeda links did not exist. Nor, Hamilton explained, did he "disagree" with Cheney's statement that there were "connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government." The New York Times, having asserted on Thursday that the commission's report "challenges Bush," failed on Friday to report this statement of Hamilton's.

Now, as Stephen F. Hayes points out elsewhere in this issue, the staff report is an unimpressive document. It is sloppy and contains errors of commission and especially omission. It doesn't even attempt to deal with the reported presence of an Iraqi official, Ahmed Hikmad Shakir, at a 9/11 planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. It concludes that Mohammed Atta was not in Prague to meet an Iraqi intelligence agent in April 2001, based largely on the fact that his cell phone was used in the United States during those days--even though we know that the plotters shared cell phones among themselves, and that the cell phone in question would have been useless in Europe. (The report says nothing, meanwhile, about Atta's two unexplained but well-documented trips to Prague the previous year.)...

...Given the 9/11 Commission's account of ties between (Sunni) al Qaeda and (Shia) Hezbollah, and what we now know of A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network that encompassed Sunni, Shia, secular Islamic, and non-Islamic states, wasn't Bush more right than wrong to speak of an "axis of evil" and a network of rogue states and terrorist groups? And, finally: What really is Kerry's view of the war against Saddam? Leave aside all the nonsense about a "rush to war." Does John Kerry now believe we would have been better off to have left Saddam in power in Iraq?

Kerry has tried to avoid directly answering this question. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that he believes the answer is yes. That doesn't mean Kerry is pro-Saddam. It does mean that he is anti-anti-Saddam. And it means that, if John Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Suddenly, last week, the choice and the stakes in the presidential race became clearer.

--William Kristol

(Watch out, panzer, ...John Effing Kerry is vying for your job! ;-) )

[patrick66]

Panzerboy, show me, EXACTLY, where I've said we must "kill every Muslim"??? Where is this text? In what post??? I have said that the terrorists are Muslim extremists and they all must die. If that's "all Muslims", you have a problem with context.

The Muslim population is estimated at one billion people. Five percent of these are considered by most intelligence sources to be extremist in some form. That equates to 50 million potential, if not actual, terrorists. If invading a country and rooting them out gets rid of the problem in that area, so be it.

Pulling our troops out and bringing them all home won't so anything but make us isolationists. Border guards are quitting in droves because we do not do enough to protect our own borders, as I have previously stated several times in other posts. www.vdare.com for more eye-opening info...Have you not read the posts from markf regarding the situation over there in Iraq? I have a nephew in-country right now in Tikrit that I correspond with regularly, getting the straight skinny on what's up there as opposed to the filter of the leftist media.

The point is, I hate those who are our enemies. They are our sworn, unambiguous enemy. The more of the sworn enemy that die at our hand, the better for our country. Again, why they hate us does not matter. They attacked us many times over the past 25 years (starting with the 1979 Iranian embassy takeover) and continue to this day.
The Japanese in WWII and the Muslim extremists draw several parallels. First, both groups were/are not afraid to throw every breathing soul in the face of the enemy (us). Both were/are not afraid to sacrifice their own people in quest of "divine will" (Hirohito being a "divine god" and Allah being a means to an end; i.e. 72 virgins and Paradise forever). Read the following by Dennis Prager and see if you agree with this or not (panzerboy probably won't, but this may enlighten others)...http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39088


We are at war. We must not be afraid to identify the enemy (Muslim terrorists). We must not be afraid to exercise destruction with prejudice to eradicate said enemy, WHEREVER they may be...!

Notice, again, panzerboy, I have NOT said "kill all Muslims". Just want to make sure YOU can read and understand that point!

[ 06-22-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]

[panzerkeil302]

"5% of one billion people is 50 million potential Muslim enemies"

"Do YOU want the US to become an Islamic republic, as is their stated goal???"

"you'll soon be orienting yourself towards Mecca five times a day"

"Kill them first. I have no problem with that"

These are your words...from the last thread, and you have a lot of hatred towards muslims and islam...I'm not trying to take your words out of context...maybe you don't want them all to die...but can you see why I would think you did?



[ 06-22-2004: Message edited by: panzerkeil302 ]

[TnSlim]

quote

Quote:

These are your words...from the last thread, and you have a lot of hatred towards muslims and islam...I'm not trying to take your words out of context...maybe you don't want them all to die...but can you see why I would think you did?

My first guess is it's because you always think the worst of people who don’t agree with to your view of the world.

And where do you get off trying to hijack my thread by dragging in a dispute you failed to settle in another?

[ 06-22-2004: Message edited by: Tennessee Slim ]

[panzerkeil302]

Sorry slim, the you might have started the thread...but it belongs to all of Gods Children now (Muslims too)

[TnSlim]

It’s bad netiquette, period.

Getting back on topic, here' more of the overwhelming evidence that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qa’aida. How about the most visible link, one Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

---------------
FOREIGN DESK | May 14, 2004, Friday
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE BEHEADER; C.I.A. Says Berg's Killer Was Very Probably Zarqawi

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 12 , Column 1

...Central Intelligence Agency says Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is believed with 'high probability' to have been masked man seen decapitating Nicholas Berg in video clip posted on Islamist Web site; says voice on clip is very probabaly that of Zarqawi; he is militant linked to Al Qaeda who American officials also blame for some of deadliest bombing attacks in Iraq....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20711FC34580C778DDDAC0894DC404482

---------------
FOREIGN DESK | May 12, 2004, Wednesday
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: REVENGE KILLING; IRAQ TAPE SHOWS THE DECAPITATION OF AN AMERICAN

By DEXTER FILKINS; Douglas Jehl, Eric Lichtblau and Carl Hulse in Washington contributed to this report.
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 6

...Web site operated by Islamic group Muntada al-Ansar posts videotape showing decapitation of American Nicholas Berg in Iraq, in what killers call revenge for American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison; site identifies killer as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian militant linked to Al Qaeda;...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C13FB3B580C718DDDAC0894DC404482

---------------
Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi: Al-Qaeda Connection in Iraq?

Posted by: worldwatcher
On: Wed March, 17 2004 @ 11:53 GMT

Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi, 37, whose real name is Fadel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, is a veteran of the Afghan war against Soviet occupation. Per U.S. officials, Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi or Al-Zarkawi is the connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

He is a Jordanian of Palestinian descent, who was wounded in Afghanistan in fighting following the September 11th attacks. He avoided capture and fled to Iran. Most reports indicate that after a stay in Iran he went to Iraq for medical treatment, where one of his legs was amputated and replaced with a prosthesis. His next reported location was in a terrorist camp in southern Lebanon. Following that he was variously reported to have travelled to northern Iraq to visit Ansar al-Islam....
http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/38512.html

---------------
Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism....

...The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

---------------

And no, al-Zarkawi's association with OBL did not just begin after Gulf War 2:

---------------
Al Qaeda Arrests In U.S. Diplo Slay

AMMAN, Jordan, Dec. 14, 2002

...According to the statement, the two men admitted to connections with Ahmed al-Kalaylah, a Jordanian fugitive also known as Abu Musaab al-Zarkawi. The information minister said al-Zarqawi gave the two suspects machine guns, grenades and money to carry out terrorist attacks against embassies and foreign diplomats in Jordan.

Al-Zarqawi is believed to be a lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. German officials say he was an al Qaeda combat commander appointed to orchestrate attacks on Europe....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/29/attack/main523674.shtml

[panzerkeil302]

Sorry slim...none of it is proof that Saddam supported/funded the 9/11 attacks.

Did does not change the fact that Osama went to Saddam for money, and Saddam said no.

If Colin Powell turns out to be a radical PETA member, does it mean Geedubya is also one? Does it mean Geedubya supports PETA?

No, and no....there is still no credible evidence that Saddam supported Osama for 9/11...sorry