On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Do we watch the same press briefings?

The media is the biggest cheerleader for this administration. They believe everything they're told, print it as gospel, and then distort everything they're told. No offense to anyone who works in the media, but the media in general these days is just one big collective whore for this administration.

Again, I think they asked the questions. I mean W and his admin. have been asked why there were no WMD after all, he has been asked about the false linking of AL-Q and SH, he has been asked about the rush to war, he has ben confronted about the war for oil. His answers to those have been discussed in the media. I did not agree with some of his answers, but he was asked the questins. What else do you want the media to ask him or his administration? Moreover, the media cannot attack the Pres. on the WMD issue because the world supported him on it. I mean W has the winning hand there.

Moreover, the media sword cuts both ways. I mean they took the no linkage of SH and 9/11 recent conclusion and printed headlines that said no link between SH and Al-Q which just was not true. There have been links in the past. So, the admin. is correct there. The correct headline should have been no link beween SH and 9/11. Yet, the media spun it.

[CarneVaca]

This is a good time for me to interject with my benevolent dictator proposal. There is no real democracy in this country, or even a decent republic, Jason (!) so let's stop kidding ourselves. Put a benevolent dictator in there (I'm available) and let's end this charade.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, I think they asked the questions. I mean W and his admin. have been asked why there were no WMD after all, he has been asked about the false linking of AL-Q and SH, he has been asked about the rush to war, he has ben confronted about the war for oil. His answers to those have been discussed in the media. I did not agree with some of his answers, but he was asked the questins. What else do you want the media to ask him or his administration?

I don't give a rats ass what they're asking him now. They didn't do their jobs when all this **** started to go down, and that's unforgivable. They didn't ask hard questions when all this Iraq business started, Judith Miller's articles just put the final nail into the media's coffin. He was not asked hard questions, or even good questions, none of them were. If the right questions had been asked, we wouldn't be in the middle of this cruel joke.

To say that they did their jobs and asked him questions about Iraq is patently absurd and quite laughable, to be frank.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, the media sword cuts both ways. I mean they took the no linkage of SH and 9/11 recent conclusion and printed headlines that said no link between SH and Al-Q which just was not true. There have been links in the past. So, the admin. is correct there. The correct headline should have been no link beween SH and 9/11. Yet, the media spun it.

What bull**** and you know it. Stop watching Faux News and cruising the freeper sites, they're started to affect you.

I can't even believe I'm dignifying your edit with a response.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't give a rats ass what they're asking him now. They didn't do their jobs when all this **** started to go down, and that's unforgivable. They didn't ask hard questions when all this Iraq business started, Judith Miller's articles just put the final nail into the media's coffin. He was not asked hard questions, or even good questions, none of them were. If the right questions had been asked, we wouldn't be in the middle of this cruel joke.

To say that they did their jobs and asked him questions about Iraq is patently absurd and quite laughable, to be frank.

Spin and you know it. They did ask. The admin. sent Powell, Rice, and Cheney on countless shows to explain what was going on. They were asked point blank questions and they answered them. Again, I did not like some of the answers, but they were asked. What more could they have done?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

What bull**** and you know it. Stop watching Faux News and cruising the freeper sites, they're started to affect you.

I can't even believe I'm dignifying your edit with a response.

Prove me wrong. You cannot and you know it. But, I'll be waiting for your proof anyway Again, when I am correct, all you can do is attack in general and nover support your rebuttal with facts

Here is my proof:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

_____________________________________

Again, SH and Al-Q were not friends and they did not work together on 9/11, but they did have a history, no matter how comparatively slight, and that cannot be denied.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Spin and you know it. They did ask. The admin. sent Powell, Rice, and Cheney on countless shows to explain what was going on. They were asked point blank questions and they answered them. Again, I did not like some of the answers, but they were asked. What more could they have done?

I'm laughing so hard that snot is running from my nostrils.

I have tons of those shows on videotape and I can assure you they were not asked hard questions. Maybe I should make some copies and them to you.

One of the hardest questions I remember being asked was "What if Saddam goes underground?"

Again, the mainstream media did not ask about the inspections and the results of those inspections. They didn't ask why after disclosing where the WMDs were to UN inspectors, they came back and said there wasn't a thing. Yet this adminiistration continued to insist they were in thsoe exact places. Gimme a f*cking break, man. They're lazy and have been for over a decade. They rely on sound bytes and sensational headlines, they don't deal in truth or substantial information.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Prove me wrong. You cannot and you know it. But, I'll be waiting for your proof anyway Again, when I am correct, all you can do is attack in general and nover support your rebuttal with facts

Iraq and al-Qaeda never had a "relationship." If you want to insist that they did, I just might have to say that by the same token, the US had a relationship with al-Qaeda because they harbored the terrorists, too.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm laughing so hard that snot is running from my nostrils.

I have tons of those shows on videotape and I can assure you they were not asked hard questions. Maybe I should make some copies and them to you.

One of the hardest questions I remember being asked was "What if Saddam goes underground?"

Again, the mainstream media did not ask about the inspections and the results of those inspections. They didn't ask why after disclosing where the WMDs were to UN inspectors, they came back and said there wasn't a thing. Yet this adminiistration continued to insist they were in thsoe exact places. Gimme a f*cking break, man. They're lazy and have been for over a decade. They rely on sound bytes and sensational headlines, they don't deal in truth or substantial information.

Hmmm - I remember David Kay, Hans Blix, and many others being interviewed numerous times. Again, I am unsure what else the media could have done.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, I am unsure what else the media could have done.

Ummm...do some fact-checking?

And we all know how this "link" panned out :

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/

Rice: Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons
Thursday, September 26, 2002 Posted: 1:28 PM EDT (1728 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development -- information she said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism.

The comments by Condoleezza Rice were the strongest and most specific to date on the White House's accusations linking al Qaeda and Iraq.

The accusations followed those made by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier in the day said the United States has evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda, but they did not elaborate. And the charges came as the White House sought to dispel accusations by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who blasted the administration for an "outrageous" effort to seek political gain from the Iraq debate.

Meanwhile, President Bush will meet with House Democrats and Republicans this morning at the White House to specifically discuss Iraq. Bush is expected to speak in the Rose Garden immediately following the meeting.

In an interview with PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Rice said the U.S. government clearly knows "that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

"We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said.

"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."

At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."

Rice added: "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."

"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented," Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday in a PBS interview.

With the administration trying to build support at the United Nations and in Congress for possible military action against Iraq, the White House in recent days has sought to place its push to depose Saddam in the context of the war on terrorism, warning that Iraq could give nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorist groups like al Qaeda -- the group responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans in four attacks September 11, 2001.

Bush Wednesday warned that al Qaeda could become "an extension of Saddam's madness."

"Both of them need to be dealt with," Bush told reporters at the White House. "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

Seeking to fend off criticism from Democrats, he called the Iraq issue "a legitimate national security concern."

"I view it as my main obligation -- that is to protect the American people," he said.

Speaking in Poland, Rumsfeld said U.S. officials shared information linking Iraq and al Qaeda with NATO defense ministers meeting in Warsaw.

"The deputy director of central intelligence briefed on that subject. I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes," Rumsfeld told reporters.

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

Looks like the WH abandoned this after it didn't pan out.

[strandinthewind]

What about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi getting treament in Iraq after being injured in Afganistan?

Again, I am not saying SH and Al-Q were bosom buddies or even friendly. I am just saying the media's headlines were misleading in that they say there was no link whatsoever and there was. That is all I am saying.

[estranged4life]

finding the truth about those darned WMD's are the same chances as Mick losing the vest during his drum solo and Stevie wearing no black whatsoever during a show.

Ain't holdin' my breathe...

Brian "Keeper of the WMD's" j.

[dissention]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2709233.stm

Iraq and al-Qaeda: What's the evidence?

Arguing for war: US tries to link Saddam and al-Qaeda

The US and UK Governments are once again linking Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network as they try to make their case for a war in Iraq. BBC News Online looks at the strength of the evidence for links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Towards the end of last year US National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed that there were top-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq going back a decade.

Ms Rice added that prisoners in US custody have said that Iraq had provided "some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development".

No hard evidence was provided for these claims.

In his State of the Union address in late January, President George Bush said: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda."

Again, no concrete evidence was forthcoming.

Establishing this link would go a long way towards persuading sceptical public opinion in the US, Britain and across the world that Iraq represents a clear and imminent security threat to the US and its allies - thereby justifying a war on Iraq.

"Al-Qaeda man seeks medical treatment in Baghdad":
American claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda rest heavily on reports that a Jordanian member of al-Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, sought and received medical treatment in Baghdad after being injured in the fighting in Afghanistan.


There were claims that 11 September attacker Mohamed Atta met Iraqi agents.

According to the claims, Mr Zarqawi was refused treatment in Iran. It is reported that communications between Mr Zarqawi and his family in Jordan were intercepted.

There is not any evidence, nor is it claimed, that Mr Zarqawi received anything other than medical treatment in Iraq.

"Al-Qaeda in northern Iraq":
There have been widespread reports that al-Qaeda members have found refuge in northern Iraq. These relate to a group called Ansar al-Islam (Partisans of Islam) which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border.

This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government.

Iraq is said by defectors linked to Iraqi opposition groups to have had contacts with the group.

"Al-Qaeda interrogations":
US officials have said that al-Qaeda members held by the US authorities at Guantanamo Bay, Diego Garcia and other locations have told their interrogators that Baghdad was attempting to train al-Qaeda in the use of chemical weapons.

There is not independent verification of this. It has also been pointed out that al-Qaeda may be seeking to provoke a US war on Iraq.

"Mohamed Atta in Prague":
For a long time it was claimed that the leader of the 11 September hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had met an Iraqi agent in Prague in April, 2001.

This originated from a report by the Czech authorities.

After an investigation, the Czech President Vaclav Havel concluded that the report could not be substantiated.

First World Trade Centre attack:
There have been claims that Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, escaped from New York on a false passport provided by Iraqi intelligence. By its nature, this claim is impossible to prove, or disprove.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

What about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi getting treament in Iraq after being injured in Afganistan?

Where's the proof that he got anyhting else but medical treatment? Where is it?

There is none.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Where's the proof that he got anyhting else but medical treatment? Where is it?

There is none.

But, he got medical treatment. That is enough. They knew who he was. They helped him. And then set him free if not gave him assistance slipping into the night. If that is not aiding and abetting I do not know what is