obby

Time to bust out your dildo

Button pushed!! This is something which should not even need to be explained...The fact that I must, really has me scratching my head as to why? Then again, it really does confirm my opinion that some people just don't get it. Some by choice, others by language barrier and others by pure ignorance,,,,, Why Israel doesn't have any troops (boots on the ground) in this coalition of the willing for the WAR ON TERROR? Okay, this brilliant question (NOT) will require clear thinking logic, not conspiracy kookiness. There is one thing in the mid-east which unifies the Arab world, their hatred of the Jews. Now, w/ this common understanding, it would be insane to have Jewish troops on the ground fighting and killing other Arabs. This would only hamper the effort we are doing there. Whatever cooperation we are getting from locals would essentially end and we could just forget about any assistance from surrounding Arab countries (Intel, freezing funds of suspects, etc..). Israelis would be more of a liability in our war on terror than an asset. If this war were being fought in America, make no mistake, Israeli troops would be there. They are currently helping us in what they can,,which probably is Intel. Now, the fact that someone actually found logic in this question about Jews and their support of the coalition really boggles the mind(aka- psycho-babble). Exactly who's side are you on? Are you trying to undermine the sacrifices the coalition has made and continues to make or are you defending terrorists (aka- THE ENEMY)? Pick your poison Einstein! Recent history refresher: Axis of evil: Iran, Iraq & N. Korea What countries border Iran? Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (and 2 large bodies of water) We've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan is working w/ us more than they ever have. Are you starting to see the bigger picture yet? I sure hope so. Yes, N. Korea is still out there, but they've got China and S. Korea to deal w/. Now, does this help clear up our strategy against the AXIS OF EVIL? It does for me. This vision Bush has laid out is bold and after 9/11, NECESSARY if we intend of defeating our enemy in the hope of maintaining our way of life while planting the seed of freedom. This is a clear example of LEADERSHIP. Learn it, Live it, Love it! Class dismissed. Good day

LOL

I agree!!!! I also disagree with "the wall" 100% This is big huh???? Good day

Congrats. May things only get better for you and your family. OBBY

Great quote. Reminds me of this recent picture my bro sent me.

I found this picture to be pretty cool. Hope you guys enjoy it.

The Yellowcake Con The Wilson-Plame "scandal" was political pulp fiction. Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT So now the British government has published its own inquiry into the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq, with equally devastating implications for the credibility of the Bush-Blair "lied" crowd. Like last week's 511-page document from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the exhaustive British study found some flawed intelligence but no evidence of "deliberate distortion." Inquiry leader Lord Butler told reporters that Prime Minister Tony Blair had "acted in good faith." What's more, Lord Butler was not ready to dismiss Saddam Hussein as a threat merely because no large "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction have been found. The report concludes that Saddam probably intended to pursue his banned programs, including the nuclear one, if and when U.N. sanctions were lifted; that research, development and procurement continued so WMD capabilities could be sustained; and that he was pursuing the development of WMD delivery systems--missiles--of longer range than the U.N. permitted. But the part that may prove most salient in the U.S. is that, like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." We're awaiting apologies from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, and all those who championed him, after his July 2003 New York Times op-ed alleging that Mr. Bush had "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The news is also relevant to the question of whether any crime was committed when a still unknown Administration official told columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee and that's why he had been recommended for a sensitive mission to Niger. A Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating the case, with especially paralyzing effect on the office of the Vice President. In that New York Times piece, readers will recall, Mr. Wilson outed himself as the person who had been sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq might have been seeking yellowcake ore for its weapons program. Vice President Dick Cheney had asked for the CIA's opinion on the issue after reading a Defense intelligence report. Mr. Wilson wrote that "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." He claimed he informed the CIA of his findings upon his return, was certain reports of his debrief had circulated through appropriate channels, and that the Administration had chosen to ignore his debunking of the story. After the Novak column appeared, Mr. Wilson charged that his wife was outed solely as punishment for his daring dissent from White House policy. To that end, he has repeatedly denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his book "The Politics of Truth." "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." A huge political uproar ensued. But very little of what Mr. Wilson has said has turned out to be true. For starters, his wife did recommend him for that trip. The Senate report quotes from a February 12, 2002, memo from Ms. Plame: "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This matters a lot. There's a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent's identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this "crazy report" (his wife's words to the Senate). We'd argue that once her husband broke his own cover to become a partisan actor, Ms. Plame's own motives in recommending her husband deserved to become part of the public debate. She had herself become political. Mr. Wilson also seems to have dissembled about how he concluded that there was nothing to the Iraq-Niger uranium story, serving for example as the anonymous source for a June 12, 2003, Washington Post story saying "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " There were some forged documents related to an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Trouble was, such documents had not even come to the intelligence community (never mind to Mr. Wilson's attention) by the time of his trip, and obviously hadn't been the basis of the report he'd been sent to investigate. He told the Senate he may have "mispoken"--at some length we guess--on this issue. The Senate Intelligence Committee found, finally, that far from debunking the Iraq-Niger story, Mr. Wilson's debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Why? Because he'd reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss "commercial relations," which the leader of the one-industry country logically interpreted as interest in uranium. Remember that Messrs. Bush and Blair only said that Iraq had "sought" or was "trying to buy" uranium, not that it had succeeded. It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible. All of this matters because Mr. Wilson's disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush's credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a "liar," regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are.

They are Marines smart guy. and you forgot to add tornadoes, wildfires and floods to the list of "what's Bush's fault" ohhh and crack. Crack kills too. Lets add that to Bush's list. If only all Americans could be as brave as them.

I like this girl!!!!! Lauren, tell Moe to evolve and start booking other locals. There is soooo much talent in our underground scene that you could not even emagine.

Do you think she will be brave enough to recommend better cooking recepies to the inmates who do the cooking? She's a tough bitch so I won't put it passed her to get into brawls and actually whoop some ass.

The CFO of Enrons wife is getting 1 year for lieing on their tax returns but yet Martha only gets 5 months. I was told that she will be able to choose the prison of her choice. If thats true then all I can say is that maybe insider trading is worth the time spent in the pen. SOTUorlando, any inside info you can give me?

Happy B Day Felicia. Hope you guys have a great trip. Be safe and have fun.

What a crock of shit. 5 months only? I think she should have been slapped with at least 1 year minimum.

Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? Is so, where are they? Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States? Should Americans be bracing for a nuclear attack? Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime and international terrorism and a seasoned investigative reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential for nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams describes how the theft of tactical nuclear weapons from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United States in preparation for the next terrorist attack. Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable Russian nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," each suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of Americans while exposing millions more to deadly radioactive fallout. According to Williams, reliable sources indicate that these bombs may already be in the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such major cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Las Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a statement boasting of his intent to have America experience a "Hiroshima." Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters to America" and his "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." These crucial documents highlight the rationale behind and the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama has the international network of embedded terrorists to carry out his threats. Although the media have reported on some of these threatening developments and government insiders have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, until now no one has put all the pieces together in a coherent, nonsense way. Williams makes a persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies have the motive and the means and are just waiting for the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on the "Great Satan" of America.

When John Flip-Flop Kerry boasted to a group of fat-cat supporters in Boston that he and running mate John Edwards were "proud" they had voted against funding the troops they had voted to send to Iraq, you weren't supposed to hear that. Had it been up to the media establishment, you wouldn't have heard that. So, why did you hear it? You can thank President Bush's re-election campaign. Story Continues Below The pro-Kerry New York Times fretted today that, taking a cue from "Bill Clinton's pioneering effort in 1992," the president's "operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack." After the Bushies alerted the media to Kerry's latest gaffe, even the likes of the Washington Post, Boston Globe and the Times itself had to report the news or risk being upstaged by rivals. Exposed and Humiliated "Several journalists who cover Mr. Kerry later said they were too embarrassed to say publicly that it took the Bush operatives to spot what was notable in Mr. Kerry's remarks," the Times noted. Don't worry, "operatives" of Big Media. The Republicans will keep helping you do the job you're too biased or lazy to do yourselves.

WASHINGTON – Seeking to bolster support for the Patriot Act, the Justice Department provided Congress on Tuesday with details of numerous cases in which the anti-terrorism law has been used. The 29-page report is part of the Bush administration's effort to discourage Congress from weakening a law that critics say threatens civil liberties by giving authorities more latitude to spy on people. Key sections of the law expire at the end of 2005. Story Continues Below Release of the document comes less than a week after House Republican leaders barely turned back an amendment that would have prevented the FBI from using Patriot Act authority to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. The report says that in the period starting with the Sept. 11 attacks and ending May 5, Justice Department terrorism investigations resulted in charges against 310 people, with 179 convictions or guilty pleas. The Patriot Act, it says, was instrumental in these cases. Attorney General John Ashcroft, appearing at a news conference with House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the report provides "a mountain of evidence that the Patriot Act continues to save lives." "The Patriot Act is al-Qaida's worst nightmare," Ashcroft said. Among the specific examples: It allowed intelligence agents to share with FBI criminal investigators evidence that an anonymous letter sent to the FBI had come from an individual with al-Qaida ties. That letter began the investigation into an alleged terror cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., that has resulted in six guilty pleas. That same information-sharing authority was used against members of an alleged terror cell in Portland, Ore., that an undercover informant said was preparing for possible attacks against Jewish schools or synagogues. Continued surveillance under the Patriot Act of one suspect led to six others, who likely would have scattered or fled if the first suspect had been arrested right away. Terror financing provisions of the law were used in numerous cases, including charges against a member of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, on charges of being an unlicensed money transmitter. The same authority has been used to prosecute people illegally sending money to Iraq, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and India. Powers permitted under the Patriot Act have also been used in investigations involving potential school bomb attacks, computer hackers, child pornography, violent fugitives and illegal weapons sales. In one case, electronic communications authorities allowed law enforcement agencies to identify a person who had sent 200 threatening letters laced with white powder in Lafayette, La., the department said. The report did not say whether the FBI had used its authority to obtain library or bookstore records. That information is classified, but Ashcroft last year issued a declassified statement saying that, up to that point, the power had not been used. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused the department of selectively releasing information about the Patriot Act and refusing to address concerns about civil liberties. "Coupled with the department's consistent record of exaggerating their record about terrorism, this entire report is suspect," Conyers said. Sensenbrenner said opponents were guilty of being selective in information they used to undermine the law. "The people who criticize the Patriot Act cherry-pick their contentions the same way," he said. © 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I try

How about these two hotties http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=234301

That shit still exsist?

Is it me or that looks like regs?

By Jeff Gannon Talon News July 13, 2004 WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- While the report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday delivered stinging criticism of the CIA, it also refuted a number of claims made by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The agency sent Wilson to Niger in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium from the African nation. Both Wilson and his report received little notice until President Bush uttered the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Wilson went public in early July 2003, writing an article for the New York Times in which he said that his investigation did not discover any evidence to substantiate Bush's assertion, even though the president cited British intelligence in his remarks. The ambassador's challenge resulted in the administration backing off from the claim and added pressure to Congress to look into the use of pre-war intelligence. British intelligence continues to maintain that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that CIA analysts didn't brief Vice President Cheney about Wilson's report because they believed it didn't add any new information or clarify the Iraq-Niger uranium issue. Wilson was emphatic in his belief that any such deal was never consummated, but offered little proof that no overtures were made. Some documents provided to Italian intelligence about such a deal were later determined to be forgeries, but not all agencies based their assumptions on them. The Financial Times recently cited independent reports of intermediaries making inquiries on behalf of Iraq. "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger," the Financial Times reported. "One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq." Wilson was chastised by the Senate Intelligence Committee for informing it that he was the source of a Washington Post article which said, "Among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" In fact, the ambassador had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. Wilson said he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." A week following the publication of Wilson's New York Times piece, Robert Novak wrote in his column that a member of the administration told him the ambassador was chosen for the Niger mission because his wife was a CIA employee. He identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, by name and referred to her as an "operative" specializing in weapons of mass destruction. The CIA requested an investigation into the source of the leak, suggesting that Plame was a covert agent and publication of her name blew her cover. The Justice Department began its inquiry last September, interviewing members of the administration and issuing subpoenas for White House communications with about a dozen journalists. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald questioned both Bush and Cheney about the leak. Wilson denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission when questioned by Talon News during an October 2003 interview. He repeated those denials in his book, "The Politics of Truth." But the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered a memo from Plame dated February 12, 2002 to the Deputy Chief of the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) that "offered up his name." It was also revealed that Wilson traveled to Niger for the CIA in 1999 on a mission whose details are redacted from the report. In October 2003, Talon News reported on an internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel that detailed a meeting where Plame suggested Wilson be sent to Niger. Wilson claimed to have never been in a meeting with his wife, but a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst's notes indicated that a meeting was "apparently convened" by Plame who had proposed her husband go on the mission. Plame told the committee that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes. A CIA source told the Washington Post in December 2003 that the INR memo was still classified and disputed its contents. As a result of asking Wilson about the memo during an October 2003 interview, FBI agents questioned Talon News under the guise of the leak probe to discover the source of the memo that refuted the assertions of the agency and Wilson about the circumstances by which he was chosen for the trip. The Senate Intelligence Committee report may have a significant impact on the leak probe. Loss of confidence in the agency and its attempts to discredit evidence that suggests alternate motivations by sub-groups within it may serve to undermine the case. The INR memorandum may have revealed Plame's identity prior to Novak's column and therefore any statements by the administration might only qualify as simple gossip. Even if that is not the case, the federal statute requires that the exposure of Plame would have had to be deliberate and malicious, a threshold that may not be reached by the investigation, particularly in light of new information revealed by the Committee report.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:52 a.m. EDT 9/11 Commission: U.S. Terror War has Stymied al Qaida The Sept. 11 Commission has found that the Bush administration's war on terror has severely impaired al Qaida's ability to organize another spectacular attack against the U.S. homeland by capturing or killing the deadly terror group's key leaders, drying up their financial resources and severely limiting their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." The bombshell finding, buried at the end of the Commission's Staff Statement No. 15, should have been hailed in the press as evidence that we've at least turned the corner in the war on terror - and may indeed have the enemy on the run. Instead, reporters have ignored this particular Commission finding since its release on June 16. Here's the part of Staff Statement 15 that the press decided Americans didn't need to hear about, as reported by the Commission under the heading "Al Qaeda* Today." "Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money. "Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda. "Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income." [END OF EXCERPT] And the good news for America - not to mention the Bush administration - doesn't end there. In the same section, Staff Statement 15 notes: "Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." But now, says the Commission, "Bin Ladin's* seclusion [has] forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him." [END OF EXCERPT] In other words, whether dead or alive, the prime mover behind the Sept. 11 attacks has been taken out of commission, with operational authority handed over to allies of convenience like Abu Musab al Zarqawi. And while Zarqawi has mounted dozens of operations throughout the Middle East in recent months, including a deadly chem-bomb plot foiled by Jordanian authorities in April, his focus these days seems to be pretty much on Iraq - not America. And even there, Zarqawi seems to be feeling the heat lately. According to the recent communique he sent to bin Laden, published on Islamic web sites earlier this month, he complained about being "squeezed" by U.S. forces. "The space of movement is starting to get smaller," he told the 9/11 chief. "The [u.S.] grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future [for our side] is becoming frightening." To be sure, the 9/11 Commission did not attribute any success in the terror war to the president by name, though as its leader and chief strategist, that conclusion is inescapable. And neither does Staff Statement 15 say that al Qaeda has been completely vanquished, warning instead that the bin Laden network is still able to execute smaller operations and is "striving to attack the U.S. and inflict mass casualties" - using nuclear weapons if possible. Still, when the 9/11 Commission reports: "Al Qaeda today is more a loose collection of regional networks with a greatly weakened central organization," it's hard not to conclude President Bush's war on terror is making significant progress. Unless you're a journalist. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/29/121539.shtml Monday, June 21, 2004 1:25 p.m. EDT Media in Denial Over 9/11 Commish Lehman's Revelation Once again, the press is being disingenuous when it comes to information disseminated by the 9/11 Commission, this time in its coverage of a 9/11 commissioner's revelation yesterday that a top al-Qaida operative was also a high-ranking member of Saddam Hussein's most elite military unit. "There's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written," former Navy Secretary John Lehman announced Sunday on "Meet the Press." He explained that documents uncovered in Baghdad "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaida." Actually, the only thing new about this intelligence is that the 9/11 Commission, along with the mainstream press, is finally paying attention to it. In fact, as "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert certainly had to know, the Wall Street Journal reported on these very same documents three weeks ago. "One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work," reported the Journal on May 27. "Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel." Another bit of deviousness by the press is the way reporters are covering Lehman's not-so-new revelation. The New York Daily News, for instance, headlined its report "Iraq-al Qaeda Link Teases 9/11 Panel." But this particular Iraqi officer's membership in al-Qaida does much, much more than establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. As the same Journal report noted: "This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda 'summit' in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned." That's right. After months and months of media assurances that there was no link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission is now reviewing evidence that strongly suggests otherwise. To be fair to the press, even Lehman seemed not to appreciate the significance of his announcement, telling "Meet the Press" he still had no evidence of an Iraq-9/11 link. Then there are those Commission members, such as Richard Ben Veniste, who won't accept an Iraq-9/11 link unless videotape emerges of Saddam at the controls of one of the hijacked planes. "Take it to the bank, there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11," Ben Veniste announced haughtily while sitting next to Lehman on the same broadcast. "Let's put that to bed. That's what our commission found. ... We looked at everything available. No connection between Iraq and the 9/11 catastrophe." Don't look now, Mr. Ben Veniste, but some relevant evidence pointing to Saddam's involvement in 9/11 just became "available." http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/21/132701.shtml Friday, June 18, 2004 9:21 a.m. EDT 9/11 Chair Hamilton Slams Media Distortions Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al-Qaida, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions. "The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq. Hamilton's comments followed a deluge of mainstream reports falsely claiming that the 9/11 Commission had discredited the Bush administration's claim of longstanding links between Baghdad and bin Laden. But the Indiana Democrat said the press accounts were flat-out wrong. "There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report. "There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants." Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts." http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/18/92642.shtml Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:13 p.m. EDT Media Mislead on 9/11 Commission Finding on Iraq-al Qaida Link Reports Wednesday morning that the 9/11 Commission has determined there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida are completely false - and are undoubtedly driven by the media's determination to contradict the Bush administration's claims that such a link exists. "9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden" reads the headline on the Associated Press report on today's Commission staff statement. But that's not what the Commission staff report actually said. The below passage, for instance, does more to confirm the Bush administration's claims of an Iraq-al Qaida link than it does to contradict them. "The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*. "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [staff Statement No. 15, Page 5] Apparently never responded? How, pray tell, does the AP derive from those words the conclusive claim that Iraq "rebuffed" bin Laden? The Commission statement continues: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." What's the evidence for this less-than-conclusive surmise? "Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," says the Commission. Such a statement begs the question: Why does the Commission, let alone the press, take the word of two senior bin Laden associates over, say, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Last December he told the London Telegraph, "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda." Reacting to the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document placing 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks, he continued: "This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." In fact, nowhere does the Commission make the claim that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. What it does say is "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [NewsMax italics] Apparently Dr. Allawi's asssement counts for nothing. Even so, it's worth noting that elsewhere in today's staff statement, the 9/11 Commission asserts: "With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [staff Statement No. 15, Page 3] In other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden. Another problem: If the press is going to take today's staff statement as gospel, certain long-held media assumptions will need to be drastically revised, such as the widely accepted notion that al-Qaida was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing. Not true, says the Commission. "Whether Bin Ladin and his organization had roles in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center ... remains a matter of substantial uncertainty," the staff statement says, before insisting, "We have no conclusive evidence" of a bin Laden link. [staff Statement No. 15, Page 6] The same goes for "Operation Bojinka," the 1995 plot to hijack 12 airliners hatched by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that experts say was the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks. "[Mohammed] was not, however, an al Qaeda member at the time of the Manilla [bojinka] plot," Commission staffers say, even though they acknowledge that he went on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. The press is furiously spinning the 9/11 Commission staff statement in a bid to discredit the Bush administration. Americans should go to the Sept. 11 Commission Web site and read the conclusions for themselves: http://www.9-11commission.gov/ http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml Knight Ridder Gets It Wrong The news service giant puts words in the president's mouth and then looks the other way on connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. by Stephen F. Hayes 07/14/2004 10:30:00 AM Increase Font Size Printer-Friendly Email a Friend Respond to this article President Bush continued to insist Monday that there was an operational link between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida despite reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the commission that's investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that there was no evidence that Saddam and Islamic terrorists collaborated to kill Americans. (Jonathan Landay and William Douglas, Knight Ridder Newspapers, July 12, 2004) [Emphasis added] THAT SENTENCE IS FALSE. It was the lead passage in a story about President Bush's speech Monday at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee. Bush did not claim an "operational link" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He could not have "continued to insist" on such an "operational link" because he has never done so before. And, finally, neither the September 11 Commission nor the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that there was "no evidence that Saddam and Islamic terrorists collaborated to kill Americans." Other than that, the sentence was accurate. The complete text of Bush's speech is here. By Wednesday, Knight Ridder had posted a correction. "President Bush's comments about terrorism were incorrectly reported in that saying the president insisted there was an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The president suggested that such a link existed, but didn't explicitly make that connection." The correction is incorrect. The president never even "suggested that such a link"--the referent is an "operational link"--existed. The sentence was hardly the only problem with the story, which ran under the headline "Bush Again Tries to Link Saddam, al Qaeda." Knight Ridder is the second largest newspaper chain in the United States. Its stories run in major metropolitan daily newspapers such as the Miami Herald, the Charlotte Observer and the Philadelphia Inquirer. According to a company press release from May 5, 2004, Knight Ridder "publishes 31 daily newspapers in 28 U.S. markets, with a readership of 8.7 million daily and 12.6 million Sunday." The authors continue: In its report, the Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed CIA analyses that found that while there had been contacts between al-Qaida and Iraqi intelligence officials during the 1990s, "these contacts did not add up to an established relationship." Again, not true. The report is misquoted. According to Conclusion 93 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report the "contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." [emphasis added] How many terrorist groups have "established formal relationships" with their state sponsors? State sponsors often--but not always--prefer to keep their terrorist connections loose and informal so that they might avoid detection, deniability being a major goal of states that use terrorists to do their dirty work. The Senate Intelligence Committee language is important for another reason: Documents from the Iraqi Intelligence service do suggest an "established relationship," just not "an established formal relationship." A report in the June 25, 2004, New York Times, was based on an internal Iraqi Intelligence document: When bin Laden left the Sudan in 1996, according to the Iraqi Intelligence document, Iraqi Intelligence began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of [bin Laden's] current location." The report also indicates that bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative" and that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." The Iraqis themselves, then, talked about the connection with al Qaeda in terms of the "relationship" and "cooperation." At the same time, bin Laden was reluctant to formalize the relationship. Does the lack of an "established formal relationship" preclude cooperation? Not according to bin Laden. The same internal Iraqi Intelligence document reports that bin Laden "requested joint operations against foreign forces" based in Saudi Arabia. THE KNIGHT RIDDER STORY also questions Bush administration claims on Abu Musab al Zarqawi. But rather than refer to the report prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss Zarqawi's activities, the authors turn to anonymous "U.S. intelligence officials": U.S. intelligence officials consider Zarqawi an associate of the terrorist network, not a member sworn to obey Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi, they think, is an independent operator who has an agenda similar to bin Laden's and cooperates with al Qaeda when it's convenient. He and some followers found sanctuary in an enclave in northern Iraq run by armed Kurdish Islamic extremists that was outside Saddam's control. In 2002, Zarqawi reportedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and set up cells in the city, leading Bush administration officials to view his presence there are proof that Saddam was collaborating with al Qaeda. U.S. Intelligence officials think it just as likely that Iraqi officials, who were hostile to Islamic extremists, gave him medical care and refuge because it was easier to monitor his activities in Baghdad than in northern Iraq. There are no doubt U.S. intelligence officials who have provided this assessment. Their views, however, were not included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. That report quotes a finished CIA report from January 2003 called Iraqi Support for Terrorism on the question of Zarqawi: A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]. A foreign government service asserted that the IIS [iraqi Intelligence Service] knew where al Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad's claims that it could not find him. The CIA calls Zarqawi a "senior al Qaeda terrorist planner" and adds the detail that the Iraqi regime claimed it could not find him. The Senate report concludes: Al Zarqawi and his network were operating both in Baghdad and in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. The HUMINT reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq.[emphasis added] So the Senate Intelligence Committee report, based on CIA findings, concludes not only that the Iraqi regime "certainly" knew of Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad, but also that Zarqawi and his network were "operating" in the Iraqi capital and in northern Iraq.These facts were left out of the Knight Ridder story, too. There is much we all have to learn about Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. As the Senate report makes clear, what knowledge we currently possess is based on inadequate intelligence collection from the U.S. intelligence community. What we are learning now--whether from detainees or captured Iraqi documents--reinforces one central fact: Iraq and al Qaeda had a relationship. And as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center--and this, too, was included in the Senate Intelligence Committee report--said in describing its aggressive analysis of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection: "Any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States." Any indication. That wasn't in the Knight Ridder story, either.

Heard you love pussy and love to burn too. It took me a while to teach her this trick.

So let me know then. We are hitting Sky Dive Miami off of 287 street and 217 avenue. Sky Dive Miami 28730 sw 217th Avenue (305) 759-3483 skydivemiami.com Right !!!!!!!! Don't confuse me for .........