U.S. soldier to plead case as objector

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, the 8.6 PDB did not say they were going to attack on 9/11

Oh Condi, come on! You're a smart girl. Figure it out for chrissakes. You knew a lot more than that.

And - other than the wedding OBL supposedly attended years ago (?)

Three months-look it up. (prior to the attacks)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Oh Condi, come on! You're a smart girl. Figure it out for chrissakes. You knew a lot more than that.



Three months-look it up.

Is there proof (pictures, video, etc.) he was there - and whose wedding was it? Were the people George the senior there. This family has hundreds of people in it

As for Condi - I think it would have taken luck. I mean if the first date was really in April (?) - the Clinton admin, did not catch it either. Again, I think it would have taken a little luck, but they should have been looking is the significant point IMO and they were not. AND- surely we could plot against SH and look for OBL's threats at the same time - PUUHHLLEEZZEEEE

[strandinthewind]

Here is some stuff on the January 2001 wedding of his son in Afganistan:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/564810.asp?cp1=1

"The Saudi exile was most recently seen in January [2001], reading poetry at his son’s wedding in Kandahar.
U.S. officials are so frustrated by the lack of intelligence on bin Laden that they say they were even happy to hear the Taliban mistakenly complain last year about the possible presence of U.S. special forces inside Afghanistan."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/...osama.brother/

"Sheikh Ahmad said he and his mother last saw bin Laden at the January 2001 wedding of one of Osama's sons in Afghanistan. It was at that wedding that Sheikh Ahmad said his infamous brother told him that stories he required kidney dialysis were not true."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...den010110.html

"This time he was caught on tape smiling, shaking hands and playing the role of proud father, at his son's wedding in Afghanistan.
According to Qatar's al-Jazeera television, which broadcast exclusive footage of the ceremony, bin Laden was celebrating the marriage of his son Mohammad to the daughter of one of his aides."

The footage shows a beaming bin Laden sitting on a carpeted floor in a tent with his son and other unidentified men."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mon...ts/1110108.stm

"The Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden has celebrated the wedding in Afghanistan of his son to the daughter of one of his aides, according to the Qatari Al-Jazeera TV channel.
It said the wedding took place in the southern city of Kandahar on Tuesday."

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Is there proof (pictures, video, etc.) he was there - and whose wedding was it? Were the people George the senior there. This family has hundreds of people in it

I think one of the networks had video of it at one point.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here is some stuff on the January 2001 wedding of his son in Afganistan:

I'm not sure if this is the wedding in question. You do have to cede that this is not "years" though.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, the 8.6 PDB did not say they were going to attack on 9/11 And - other than the wedding OBL supposedly attended years ago (?) - there is no connection between OBL and his family. I mean I can see your set of facts, but they are loose and can be seen in many different ways. As for Wolfowitz - what a jerk

I never said they knew Osama. Salem did set George up in his first oil business though.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I'm not sure if this is the wedding in question. You do have to cede that this is not "years" though.

- I was not calling you on the time frame I was just posting info. because I did not know about it.

[strandinthewind]

Also, there is no question the BL's and the Bushes are in bed together. None- and W does not exactly broadcast that, although MM sure did.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Perhaps you do not think rendering medical aid to OBL's upper level guy and then setting him free is insignificant, but I do not (we already had this discussion). So, once again, the whole "no link between SH and Al-Q" is just not true - no "significant" link is closer to the truth, but it is still incorrect IMO.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek
Iraq and Al Qaeda
Forget the 'Poisons and Deadly Gases'
Flip flop: Was Saddam working with Al Qaeda or not?

By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
NewsweekJuly 5 issue - A captured Qaeda commander who was a principal source for Bush administration claims that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Saddam Hussein's regime has changed his story, setting back White House efforts to shore up the credibility of its original case for the invasion of Iraq. The apparent recantation of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a onetime member of bin Laden's inner circle, has never been publicly acknowledged. But U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda. Al-Libi, who once ran one of bin Laden's biggest training camps, was captured in Pakistan in November 2001 and soon began talking to CIA interrogators. Although he never mentioned his name, Secretary of State Colin Powell prominently referred to al-Libi's claims in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations; he recounted how a "senior terrorist operative" said Qaeda leaders were frustrated by their inability to make chemical or biological agents in Afghanistan and turned for help to Iraq. Continuing to rely on al-Libi's version, Powell then told how a bin Laden operative seeking help in acquiring poisons and gases had forged a "successful" relationship with Iraqi officials in the late 1990s and that, as recently as December 2000, Iraq had offered "chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates."

But more recently, sources said, U.S. interrogators went back to al-Libi with new evidence from other detainees that cast doubt on his claims. Al-Libi "subsequently recounted a different story," said one U.S. official. "It's not clear which version is correct. We are still sorting this out." Some officials now suspect that al-Libi, facing aggressive interrogation techniques, had previously said what U.S. officials wanted to hear. In any case, the cloud over his story explains why administration officials have made no mention of the "poisons and gases" claim for some time and did not more forcefully challenge the recent findings of the 9-11 Commission that Al Qaeda and Iraq had not forged a ?"collaborative relationship."

The debate, however, is far from over. Vice President Dick Cheney has sought to more vigorously defend the Iraq- Qaeda link, even reading to one TV interviewer from a U.S. intelligence report recounting a meeting between an Iraqi intel official and bin Laden on a farm in Sudan in the summer of 1996. (One possible problem: bin Laden had left Sudan for Afghanistan in May of that year.) Meanwhile, NEWSWEEK has learned, Pentagon officials are culling through captured Iraqi documents they say will provide hard evidence of multiple contacts between Iraqi officials and Qaeda members over a decade. Current plans call for a massive "document dump" before the election. But officials acknowledge ultimate proof may prove elusive. "It all depends on what your definition of a relationship is," said one.

[strandinthewind]

That is what happens when we take the word of terrorists. But, this is yet to be a proven fact (who knows what the truth is) - nor does it obviate the significance of SH rendering medical assistance and then letting the other guy go. The latter is a link - pure and simple - the significance of which I think is rather large. I think it is the same as treating and letting OBL go. This guy was that high up in the organization that was resp. for killing thousands of innocent Americans and he was complacent in other terror acts. Yet, SH just lets him go. To me, that smacks of collusion. Why else would he go to the apparently very accomodating Iraq, which was very, very far away? Did he just wind up there by chance? That is too coincidental for me

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Did he just wind up there by chance? That is too coincidental for me

That's too coincidental for you but you don't think the Bush/Bin Laden coincidences are too much that he could be complicit in 9/11?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That's too coincidental for you but you don't think the Bush/Bin Laden coincidences are too much that he could be complicit in 9/11?

Well, there is a difference. This guy chose to travel through seceral countries to Iraq, a country that reportedly hated OBL and his ilk and he finds a safe haven where he gets medical attention and then is let go. They defies belief in coincidence IMO.

On the other hand, I think it would be next to impossible for the Bush family to have kept that large under wraps for all that time (almost 15 or so years) and there are just too many people involved IMO for everyone to keep quiet. But, I am not saying W and the Bush family are not in bed with the Saudi's. They are. I am just saying I do not think the facts 100% support that theory and the facts can be read in the opposite light. But, you are certainly entitled to think that I just cannot believe the Pres. of the US would allow OBL and SA to coordinate an attack on the US and do nothing about it. All for oil, which the Saudi's already have That is just too much for me to believe. Now, do I think W could have done more to stop 9/11, yes I do. But I also think Clinton could have as well and certainly he was not part of W's plot? In the end, I think OBL operates on his own but has little disturbance from the Saudi govt. Anyway, that is what I think

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, there is a difference. This guy chose to travel through seceral countries to Iraq, a country that reportedly hated OBL and his ilk and he finds a safe haven where he gets medical attention and then is let go. They defies belief in coincidence IMO.

It's not enough to justify war.

On the other hand, I think it would be next to impossible for the Bush family to have kept that large under wraps for all that time (almost 15 or so years) and there are just too many people involved IMO for everyone to keep quiet. But, I am not saying W and the Bush family are not in bed with the Saudi's. They are. I am just saying I do not think the facts 100% support that theory and the facts can be read in the opposite light. But, you are certainly entitled to think that I just cannot believe the Pres. of the US would allow OBL and SA to coordinate an attack on the US and do nothing about it. All for oil, which the Saudi's already have That is just too much for me to believe. Now, do I think W could have done more to stop 9/11, yes I do. But I also think Clinton could have as well and certainly he was not part of W's plot? In the end, I think OBL operates on his own but has little disturbance from the Saudi govt. Anyway, that is what I think

Well, a couple of things. Complicity could be as simple as him not reading the August 6, PDB, which I don't think he did. I haven't figured out the level of complicity yet.
When I asked who has the most to gain, you seem to think Saudi Arabia has the most to gain but they already have all the oil, so you answered your own question there. They didn't have the most to gain. Bushco did.
Also, why is Bushco seemingly uninterested in finding Bin Laden? He's stated that he "doesn't care" where Bin Laden is. What the hell is that about?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It's not enough to justify war.

It was more like the straw that broke the camel's back. In the end, I agree we should have waited to go into Iraq. But, that does not negate the justification for the need to do it - at least to me and the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, a couple of things. Complicity could be as simple as him not reading the August 6, PDB, which I don't think he did. I haven't figured out the level of complicity yet.
When I asked who has the most to gain, you seem to think Saudi Arabia has the most to gain but they already have all the oil, so you answered your own question there. They didn't have the most to gain. Bushco did.

Well, the Saudi's do have a ton of oil, but SH has been a thorn in their side for a long time in that he was against them from day one. Yet, it is widely rumored and can be somewhat supported that the Saudis would not let Bush I remove SH. So, that makes no sense other than that was 10 years ago and things changed In the end, the Saudis talk a great games, but they IMO do not do enough in their own country to help us. Having said all of that, I have no clue what the solution to all of this is

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As for Condi - I think it would have taken luck. I mean if the first date was really in April (?) - the Clinton admin, did not catch it either. Again, I think it would have taken a little luck, but they should have been looking is the significant point IMO and they were not. AND- surely we could plot against SH and look for OBL's threats at the same time - PUUHHLLEEZZEEEE

The early word is that the 9/11 commissions report will find that the attacks could have been prevented.

Just last week, however, they were strong-armed by the White House to edit their finding that the supposed call to Bush on 9/11 by Cheney seeking permission to shoot down the planes never happened. That's democracy for ya.