Point Made

[Guest MikeSC]

March 26, 2004, 8:58 a.m.

Clarke’s Not Blind

Even the Dems’ favorite grandstander sees the Saddam-9/11 link.

 

Bush bashers have deployed former White House counterterrorist Richard A. Clarke as a weapon of mass denunciation. They are using an all-too-willing Clarke and his new book, Against All Enemies, to condemn the Bush administration for allegedly obsessing over Iraq rather than al Qaeda. Clarke made war critics swoon by chanting one of their cherished mantras.

 

"There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda ever," Clarke declared March 21 on CBS' 60 Minutes. Because Baathist Iraq and al Qaeda colluded less than, say, Iceland and the Cosa Nostra, the theory goes, President Bush squandered American time, treasure, and blood hunting Saddam Hussein rather than Osama bin Laden.

 

This view totally overlooks extensive connections between Baghdad and bin Laden. Just ask Richard Clarke.

 

On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.

 

"He was an Iraqi," Clarke observed. "Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq." While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.

 

"The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists."

 

"Last week, Day One confirmed he [Yasin] is in Baghdad," ABC correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported June 27, 1994. "Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely."

 

Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio last January 22: "We've discovered since [iraq's liberation] documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary."

 

WorldNetDaily.com Tuesday excavated a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

 

Meanwhile, Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas made news March 9 by dying of natural causes in U.S. military custody in Iraq. Green Berets captured him last April 14 in Baghdad, where he had lived under Hussein's protection since 2000. After masterminding the 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking, in which U.S. retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered, Abbas slipped Italian custody. How? ''Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport,'' Italy's then-premiere Bettino Craxi announced then. So, Rome let him split for Yugoslavia, and beyond.

 

Speaking of diplomacy, the Philippine government booted the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, Hisham al Hussein, on February 13, 2003, after discovering that the same mobile phone that reached his number on October 3, 2002, six days later rang another cell phone strapped to a bomb at the San Roque Elementary School in Zamboanga. While that device failed, another exploded one day earlier in Zamboanga, wounding 23 and killing three, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson. That mobile phone also registered calls to Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Ali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda's Philippine branch. It was launched in the late 1980s by the late Abdurajak Janjalani, with the help of Jamal Mohammad Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law.

 

As the Washington Times's Marc Lerner reported on March 3, 2003, Hamsiraji Ali, an Abu Sayyaf commander on the southern island of Basilan, bragged that his group received almost $20,000 annually from Iraqis close to Saddam Hussein.

 

"It's so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our people," Sali explained.

 

Iraqi diplomat Muwafak al-Ani also was expelled from the Philippines, the Christian Science Monitor's Dan Murphy reported February 26, 2003. In 1991, an Iraqi embassy car took two terrorists near America's Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center in Manila. As they hid a bomb there, it exploded, killing one fanatic. Al-Ani's business card was found in the survivor's pocket, triggering al-Ani's ouster.

 

Washington Times Pentagon correspondents Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough reported March 19 on a 20-page, Arabic-language document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Stamped "top secret," it lists IIS "collaborators," among them, "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." It says he is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan...And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria." Signed "Jabar," the 1993 record seemed authentic to an American official who reviewed it.

 

"Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad," CIA Director George Tenet concluded in an October 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links with terrorists will increase, even absent US military action."

 

Perhaps all of this made Richard Clarke state: "There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda ever."

 

Critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom ignore these and many more ties among Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, Palestinian zealots, and other Islamofascist mass murderers. Why? Acknowledging these contacts would concede a major casus belli behind Coalition efforts. The fact that Mohamed Atta did not charge his plane ticket to Hussein's Platinum Visa card does not render the Butcher of Baghdad a virgin among militant Muslims. In fact, Saddam Hussein loyally supported global terrorists, including al Qaeda. If Richard Clarke and others who oppose Bush's Iraq policy still do not see this, they are either blind to Nexis and similar news databases or paralyzed in a state of deep, pathological denial.

http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403260858.asp

Hmm, so there WERE ties to Iraq and 9/11.

 

And you can't deny it, as your new Messiah, Richard Clarke, SAID they exist.

 

Intriguing, no?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'll be back when this thread reaches 50 posts' worth of fighting...

[Ripper 0]

Weren't you calling him lying idiot out to sell a book yesterday.

 

Hypocracy on both sides is about to make this thread collapse on itself.

[Guest MikeSC]

Weren't you calling him lying idiot out to sell a book yesterday.

 

Hypocracy on both sides is about to make this thread collapse on itself.

Yup.

 

I'm calling him a lying sack of crap now, too.

 

Personally, I do think Iraq was involved in 9/11 though.

 

The left (including many on this board) seemed to wish to argue that.

 

NOW, since some here now think that anything he said under oath is the truth, then, apparently, THIS must be true, too.

 

So, either THIS is true, or they have to cherry pick which parts of what he said are true.

 

I just want to see them explain this away.

-=Mike

[Slayer 0]

Hypocracy on both sides is about to make this thread collapse on itself.

Light cannot escape from this thread

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Oh, it's quite obvious there were ties.

 

But nooo.. we MUST goto war for WMD only!! Even if Saddam killed Jesus himself, WE MUST ONLY FIND WMD! BAH GOD!

[Guest Cerebus]

I was watching a discussion on a certain cable news network that makes us chuckle out loud in the year of 2004 and someone said that sour grapes is a great publisher. Who had heard of Clarke before this? Who would have bought a book from him? I wouldn't have unless it piqued my interest while I was browsing the current events section of the book store (which is getting worse and worse by the day). I don't think he's lying per se, he's most likely exaggerating and being selective. That's how I see it at least.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Let me get this straight..an Iraqi is one of the alleged terrorists behind 9/11..what does that have to do with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq?!

 

I don't see the part where Iraq trained and funded Al Quada?

 

Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, shall we go invade them too?!

 

If I decided to carry out a terrorist attack would it give the US the right to attack England?!

 

No "point" has been made here at all and more's the point, the reason for invading Iraq has always been the WMD issue.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Good points Hunger.

 

Terrorists that were involved have been from all over, so you'd have a lot of countries that were "involved" in 9/11. That doesn't lead to a governmental link.

 

I thought that the right had conceded that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Bush really even avoided using the link as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

[Highland 0]

Who orginally funded, trained and provided support for bin Laden and his network?

 

Exactly.

 

As for using 9/11 as a reason to invade another country, I believe there's a large country to the south of Iraq that was far more involved in the 9/11 attacks than Saddam ever was.

[Swift Terror 0]

Talk about missing the point and deflecting it to arguing about whether any connection was justification for the war...

 

I believe Mike's point is that Clark has contradicted himself very clearly. That makes everything else he says in 2004 suspect. He has no credibility.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This makes everything he says suspect, true.

 

Yet, some how, saying there was an Iraq/Sep11 link warrants it's own thread and is quite possibly the truth.

 

 

 

Whatever.

[Guest thebigjig]

Oh the link between Saddam and 9/11 is sooo obvious...

 

you see... Saddam... is arab... and EEEEEEVIL... and he hates America... so therefor all of that equals a link to 9/11

 

Heres the formula: Saddam + EEEEEEVIL arab decent + hatred for America = link to bin laden and the terrorist attacks of 9/11

 

You want conclusive proof? Look elsewhere... this administration doesnt need PROOF to do anything! It's all in the formula

[Guest Cerebus]

Actually, there was evidence before the war coming from the Neo-Con Rag the New Yorker and that Right Wing Propganda Machine PBS.

[Guest MikeSC]

This makes everything he says suspect, true.

 

Yet, some how, saying there was an Iraq/Sep11 link warrants it's own thread and is quite possibly the truth.

 

 

 

Whatever.

Nope --- just pointing out that he contradicts himself CONSTANTLY --- but mentioning it is just being a Bush "attack dog".

 

Do you think many Iraqis acted WITHOUT Saddam's blessing?

-=Mike

...Do I think Iraq was involved? Yes.

Would I believe Clarke if he said oxygen was good for you? No.

[Guest thebigjig]

Actually, there was evidence before the war coming from the Neo-Con Rag the New Yorker and that Right Wing Propganda Machine PBS.

a-ha, but no conclusive link... the administration says so

 

except for Cheney... but everyone else admits there is no link

[Guest Cerebus]

For God's sake, there is no "conclusive proof" that any of the garbage Clarke is spewing out is true either. You take what you can and make judgements based on that evidence.

[Ripper 0]

I thought that the right had conceded that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Bush really even avoided using the link as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Except for that part where he would alway put the two in the same sentence. "If we allow Iraq to stay in its current state we are asking for another 9-11" is basically the same as saying Iraq=9-11...technically not, but come on.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Nope --- just pointing out that he contradicts himself CONSTANTLY --- but mentioning it is just being a Bush "attack dog".

I'm not saying you're being an attack dog. It probably wouldn't be too inaccurate sometimes if I did, but my point is that, if I just go ahead and take the NRO (which has a history of right wing politically, as does Fox, as does Weekly Standard, as does others) this is just another sign of Clarke saying one thing and then saying a complete 180. Okay, fine, but why doesn't that go in the already established Clarke thread?

 

Because this time he said something you agree with.

 

You may not notice it yourself, Mike, but I've noticed a subtle flow of posts coming in as new topics just because it's something that agrees with you. Like, why couldn't all those "Not saying anything but..." threads of Kerry flip-flops or goofs in seperate threads?

 

I'm not criticizing you, I'm not even telling you to tone down your posting or anything because I think on any other week we probably post the same amount of stuff, I'm just asking you to take a look at the first page of topics or so and see if there's a topic for it.

 

We technically could have had five different Clarke topics by now for each little revelation about his credibility, but that's cluttered.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You may not notice it yourself, Mike, but I've noticed a subtle flow of posts coming in as new topics just because it's something that agrees with you. Like, why couldn't all those "Not saying anything but..." threads of Kerry flip-flops or goofs in seperate threads?

 

I've been meaning to post something like that. This isn't just MikeSC. The CE folder is cluttered with biased editorials criticizing either side for one thing or another. A quick glance down the first page shows at least 10 threads started entirely on editorials. There's got to be a better way about arguing a point. Otherwise we might as well say to hell with it and just rename this folder "conservatives vs. liberals".

[tommytomlin 0]

I'm just glad Mike has stopped blaming everything on the 'Int'l left'.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope --- just pointing out that he contradicts himself CONSTANTLY --- but mentioning it is just being a Bush "attack dog".

I'm not saying you're being an attack dog. It probably wouldn't be too inaccurate sometimes if I did, but my point is that, if I just go ahead and take the NRO (which has a history of right wing politically, as does Fox, as does Weekly Standard, as does others) this is just another sign of Clarke saying one thing and then saying a complete 180. Okay, fine, but why doesn't that go in the already established Clarke thread?

 

Because this time he said something you agree with.

ACTUALLY, he stated he DISAGREES with that --- but as usual, his statements dispute that.

 

Read the article again.

You may not notice it yourself, Mike, but I've noticed a subtle flow of posts coming in as new topics just because it's something that agrees with you. Like, why couldn't all those "Not saying anything but..." threads of Kerry flip-flops or goofs in seperate threads?

Because the OaO threads that litter other boards are obscenely lame.

I'm not criticizing you, I'm not even telling you to tone down your posting or anything because I think on any other week we probably post the same amount of stuff, I'm just asking you to take a look at the first page of topics or so and see if there's a topic for it.

 

We technically could have had five different Clarke topics by now for each little revelation about his credibility, but that's cluttered.

Oh, in another week, he'll be as relevant as Paul O'Neill. I hope him making a jerk of himself was worth the book deal he received.

I've been meaning to post something like that. This isn't just MikeSC. The CE folder is cluttered with biased editorials criticizing either side for one thing or another. A quick glance down the first page shows at least 10 threads started entirely on editorials. There's got to be a better way about arguing a point. Otherwise we might as well say to hell with it and just rename this folder "conservatives vs. liberals".

Seeing as how politics is THE issue in Current Events, it tends to reason that it will be the focus here.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I thought that the right had conceded that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11.  Bush really even avoided using the link as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Except for that part where he would alway put the two in the same sentence. "If we allow Iraq to stay in its current state we are asking for another 9-11" is basically the same as saying Iraq=9-11...technically not, but come on.

well yes to some degree. I would call it the power of suggestion. Basically after 9/11, Bush would strategically use, "Terrorism, Afganistan, Iraq, Bin Laden, Saddam" in the same sentences/phrases OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, because as long as Bin Laden was part of the discussion people would pay attention. Eventually Bush just dropped the "Bin Laden" and "Afganistan" part out of the phrases slyly and people were still paying attention. It is just the power of suggestion and it worked. If Bush would have made a case for invading Iraq a week after 9/11 people would have looked at him like he was a crazy man, it took a while of mounting propogandha and sly deliveries of speeches, until people were finally convinced.

 

And to those who call Richard Clarke the "darling of the left" just get over it already. I am a member of "the left" and I don't think Clarke is all that honorable. Quite honestly, I have an issue with why he didn't up and quit and go public the very minute Bush supposedly started the manipulation in the first place, and I would really question why he waited till after the Iraqi war was a forgone conclusion and troops were there and dying, before he decided to go public. It seems if he was trying to do a "service" for the american people, he would have tried to put a stop to the war in Iraq, not just naysay about it after the fact. Now with that said, at the same time, there really is no "timeline" as to when you feel you should go public, but I think the affect in 2004, would be more directed towards the election(which I am not even accusing him of directly trying to influence because if I understand correctly, he is a Republican) rather then trying to save Americans tax money and american soldiers their lives.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My only complaints with the discredit of Clarke is how people who do it will agree wholeheartedly with his previous comments.

 

He's either a lying sack of shit or he's not. Get over it and stop trying to maneuver into some sort of position where he was an honest man when talking about how Clinton was a total bumfuck when it came to terrorism but is now lying when he says the same about Bush.

[Guest MikeSC]

My only complaints with the discredit of Clarke is how people who do it will agree wholeheartedly with his previous comments.

 

He's either a lying sack of shit or he's not. Get over it and stop trying to maneuver into some sort of position where he was an honest man when talking about how Clinton was a total bumfuck when it came to terrorism but is now lying when he says the same about Bush.

Who calls him an honest man? He was a guy Bush should have turfed when he took office.

 

We mention his earlier comments because they are in such STARK contrast to his current comments --- you know, the ones that NoCalMike and yourself seem to mistake for holy writ.

-=Mike