Time magazine talked to Bush's guru for Plame story.
Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.
Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.
But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."
He noted that Rove had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.
"He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said.
J.R. said...
Does anyone REALLY believe that if Karl Rove was the leaker that the main stream news media wouldn't have revealed him before the 2004 elections to damage the Bush Administartion. Get Real !
The last paragraphs also tell the story. Rove testified before the Grand Jury and even signed a waiver that would allow the reporters to testify as to their conversation with Rove.
I just don't see these main stream news media journalists falling on their sword for Rove.
This will probably be much to do about nothing. As it should be.
J.R.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Alledged Gitmo Abuse is more like Self defense !
Alledged Gitmo Abuse is more like Self defense !
Today I was reading an article entitled, " Guantanamo Inmates Defy American Guards" . As I read the article I became more convinced than ever that the alledged abuse of Gitmo detainees certainly sounded more like the American Soldiers guarding them were defending themselves against attack.
The opening paragraph basically says it all:
"The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat at Guantanamo Bay. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy � from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer." At this point I thought, Hey, maybe the main stream news media got it wrong, maybe it's the guards who are being abused.
How about this paragraph:
"And the American MPs at times retaliated with force � punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse."
Alledged Abuse ?, the detainees attack the guards, the guards defend themselves and the MSNM classifies this as abuse ..GET REAL !
"Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings."
Minor Discipline ? FOR WHAT ? Defending themselves from these terrorists ?
"What emerges from 278 pages of the newly released documents is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo."
Can we discipline them istead ?
"Some prisoners at the U.S. base in eastern Cuba have gone on the attack, as in April 2003 when a detainee got out of his cell during a search for contraband food and knocked out a guard's tooth with a punch to the mouth and bit him before he was subdued by MPs. One soldier delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio, the documents show."
Better the radio than an M-16 !
"The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place."
Hey these are terrorists, this is Gitmo, not Boy's Town !
Anyway you get my point, these detainees are attacking our soldiers. Our sodiers are defending themselves, and tha main stream new media, along with officials like Durbin the Turbin are calling this ABUSE. Please read the whole artcicle folks. How anyone can read the article and say that soldiers responding to be attacked are abusing inmates is beyond me. Inmates are throwing urine and spitting on our soldiers and physically attacking them and if our guys defend themselves they are being disciplined and the leftist liberals are calling them Nazis. It is a classic case of the news media spinning the story for their benefit and attacking the US Military and our country. Who could blame any soldier for not wanting duty at Gitmo. It appears that the inmates can attack at will but the soldiers can harm not a hair lest they get disciplined.
Today I was reading an article entitled, " Guantanamo Inmates Defy American Guards" . As I read the article I became more convinced than ever that the alledged abuse of Gitmo detainees certainly sounded more like the American Soldiers guarding them were defending themselves against attack.
The opening paragraph basically says it all:
"The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat at Guantanamo Bay. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy � from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer." At this point I thought, Hey, maybe the main stream news media got it wrong, maybe it's the guards who are being abused.
How about this paragraph:
"And the American MPs at times retaliated with force � punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse."
Alledged Abuse ?, the detainees attack the guards, the guards defend themselves and the MSNM classifies this as abuse ..GET REAL !
"Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings."
Minor Discipline ? FOR WHAT ? Defending themselves from these terrorists ?
"What emerges from 278 pages of the newly released documents is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo."
Can we discipline them istead ?
"Some prisoners at the U.S. base in eastern Cuba have gone on the attack, as in April 2003 when a detainee got out of his cell during a search for contraband food and knocked out a guard's tooth with a punch to the mouth and bit him before he was subdued by MPs. One soldier delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio, the documents show."
Better the radio than an M-16 !
"The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place."
Hey these are terrorists, this is Gitmo, not Boy's Town !
Anyway you get my point, these detainees are attacking our soldiers. Our sodiers are defending themselves, and tha main stream new media, along with officials like Durbin the Turbin are calling this ABUSE. Please read the whole artcicle folks. How anyone can read the article and say that soldiers responding to be attacked are abusing inmates is beyond me. Inmates are throwing urine and spitting on our soldiers and physically attacking them and if our guys defend themselves they are being disciplined and the leftist liberals are calling them Nazis. It is a classic case of the news media spinning the story for their benefit and attacking the US Military and our country. Who could blame any soldier for not wanting duty at Gitmo. It appears that the inmates can attack at will but the soldiers can harm not a hair lest they get disciplined.
MSNBC Analyst Says Karl Rove Source in Plame Case
Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:
"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.
"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."
Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks:
"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.
"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."
Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:
"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.
"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."
Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks:
"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.
"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."
Guantanamo inmates defy American guards
Violence, chaos often breaks out in prison camp, documents show
The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat at Guantanamo Bay. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy � from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer.
And the American MPs at times retaliated with force � punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse.
Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings. What emerges from 278 pages of the newly released documents is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.
Some prisoners at the U.S. base in eastern Cuba have gone on the attack, as in April 2003 when a detainee got out of his cell during a search for contraband food and knocked out a guard's tooth with a punch to the mouth and bit him before he was subdued by MPs. One soldier delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio, the documents show.
"Several guards were trying to hold down the detainee who was putting up heavy resistance," recounted a translator who saw the incident. "The detainee was covered in blood as were some of the guards."
The soldier who struck the inmate, and was dropped in rank to private first class as a result, described it as a close call. "The detainee was fighting as if he really wanted to hurt us. ... We all saved each other's lives in my opinion," he wrote.
The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place.
The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat at Guantanamo Bay. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy � from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer.
And the American MPs at times retaliated with force � punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse.
Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings. What emerges from 278 pages of the newly released documents is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.
Some prisoners at the U.S. base in eastern Cuba have gone on the attack, as in April 2003 when a detainee got out of his cell during a search for contraband food and knocked out a guard's tooth with a punch to the mouth and bit him before he was subdued by MPs. One soldier delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio, the documents show.
"Several guards were trying to hold down the detainee who was putting up heavy resistance," recounted a translator who saw the incident. "The detainee was covered in blood as were some of the guards."
The soldier who struck the inmate, and was dropped in rank to private first class as a result, described it as a close call. "The detainee was fighting as if he really wanted to hurt us. ... We all saved each other's lives in my opinion," he wrote.
The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place.
Friday, July 01, 2005
U.S. troops missing, Taliban claims to hold one
.S. helicopters and hundreds of troops were searching on Friday for soldiers who went missing in Afghanistan just before a helicopter coming to their aid was shot down, while the Taliban claimed to be holding one American.
U.S. forces looking for members of the reconnaissance team since Tuesday's helicopter crash in mountainous Kunar province bordering Pakistan have no reason to believe any of them have been killed or captured, U.S. spokesmen said.
Col. Jim Yonts said he could neither confirm nor deny a claim by Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi that insurgents killed seven U.S. "spies" before the Chinook helicopter was shot down. All 16 Special Forces soldiers aboard were killed.
On Friday Hakimi, whose information has often proved unreliable, said guerrillas in Kunar captured an American soldier on Wednesday who had been aboard the helicopter when it crashed.
"He was trying to escape up the mountain when our mujahideen (holy warriors) caught him," he said.
Asked what evidence the Taliban had that they were holding a U.S. soldier, he replied: "The Americans have announced themselves that some of their soldiers are missing.
"We don't need to tell lies. When we kill him, we will tell the Americans to go and get the body and that will be the proof."
While Hakimi's information has often been inaccurate in the past, he has appeared well informed about the downing of the helicopter, although the U.S. military has identified the Kunar insurgents as more feared al Qaeda fighters rather than Taliban.
Another U.S. spokesman, Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara, said there was no evidence soldiers had been killed, captured, hurt or were hiding out. "The only thing we do know is they are missing."
He declined to comment on a BBC report that quoted military officials at the main U.S. base in Kunar as saying they had had "several indications" the troops were still alive.
The BBC said a number of Afghan guides working with the U.S. military were also missing.
BIG OPERATION
The U.S. military initially said 17 soldiers had been aboard the helicopter, but revised the figure down to 16 -- eight from airborne special forces units and eight Navy Seal commandos.
Yonts said the Chinook was sent in after the reconnaissance team requested support, but the team was not at the site when the aircraft arrived and was shot down. He could not say how many were in the unit or whether they were also Special Forces.
Yonts said a large anti-insurgent operation codenamed "Redwing" was under way in Kunar to try to find the missing team and complete recovery and investigation work at the crash site.
The U.S. network ABC news said as many as 1,000 troops were taking part. O'Hara declined to give numbers but said: "We are using all available assets to find our missing."
Dozens of vehicles packed with U.S. and Afghan troops were seen heading toward the crash site about 30 km (19 miles) northwest of Kunar's capital Asadabad and more than a dozen U.S. helicopters were seen overhead, an Afghan reporter there said.
Hundreds more troops had set up a camp in the Shorak valley close to the site of the crash, he said.
The U.S. military has said work at the crash site has been hampered by the presence of militants in the area, cloudy weather and mountainous, heavily wooded terrain.
The crash was the biggest single combat blow to U.S. forces since they overthrew the Taliban in 2001. The insurgents have stepped up their activity to try to derail Sept. 18 elections, the next big step in Afghanistan's difficult path to stability.
U.S. forces looking for members of the reconnaissance team since Tuesday's helicopter crash in mountainous Kunar province bordering Pakistan have no reason to believe any of them have been killed or captured, U.S. spokesmen said.
Col. Jim Yonts said he could neither confirm nor deny a claim by Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi that insurgents killed seven U.S. "spies" before the Chinook helicopter was shot down. All 16 Special Forces soldiers aboard were killed.
On Friday Hakimi, whose information has often proved unreliable, said guerrillas in Kunar captured an American soldier on Wednesday who had been aboard the helicopter when it crashed.
"He was trying to escape up the mountain when our mujahideen (holy warriors) caught him," he said.
Asked what evidence the Taliban had that they were holding a U.S. soldier, he replied: "The Americans have announced themselves that some of their soldiers are missing.
"We don't need to tell lies. When we kill him, we will tell the Americans to go and get the body and that will be the proof."
While Hakimi's information has often been inaccurate in the past, he has appeared well informed about the downing of the helicopter, although the U.S. military has identified the Kunar insurgents as more feared al Qaeda fighters rather than Taliban.
Another U.S. spokesman, Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara, said there was no evidence soldiers had been killed, captured, hurt or were hiding out. "The only thing we do know is they are missing."
He declined to comment on a BBC report that quoted military officials at the main U.S. base in Kunar as saying they had had "several indications" the troops were still alive.
The BBC said a number of Afghan guides working with the U.S. military were also missing.
BIG OPERATION
The U.S. military initially said 17 soldiers had been aboard the helicopter, but revised the figure down to 16 -- eight from airborne special forces units and eight Navy Seal commandos.
Yonts said the Chinook was sent in after the reconnaissance team requested support, but the team was not at the site when the aircraft arrived and was shot down. He could not say how many were in the unit or whether they were also Special Forces.
Yonts said a large anti-insurgent operation codenamed "Redwing" was under way in Kunar to try to find the missing team and complete recovery and investigation work at the crash site.
The U.S. network ABC news said as many as 1,000 troops were taking part. O'Hara declined to give numbers but said: "We are using all available assets to find our missing."
Dozens of vehicles packed with U.S. and Afghan troops were seen heading toward the crash site about 30 km (19 miles) northwest of Kunar's capital Asadabad and more than a dozen U.S. helicopters were seen overhead, an Afghan reporter there said.
Hundreds more troops had set up a camp in the Shorak valley close to the site of the crash, he said.
The U.S. military has said work at the crash site has been hampered by the presence of militants in the area, cloudy weather and mountainous, heavily wooded terrain.
The crash was the biggest single combat blow to U.S. forces since they overthrew the Taliban in 2001. The insurgents have stepped up their activity to try to derail Sept. 18 elections, the next big step in Afghanistan's difficult path to stability.
NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
Brian Williams equates 1st U.S. leaders to Iran president-elect
In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."
At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.
Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.
At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."
The former students who carried out the seizure and held the Americans in Tehran said Ahmadinejad had no role in taking the embassy or guarding the hostages, but that he preferred to target the Soviet Embassy, the Associated Press reported.
"He was not part of us. He played no role in the seizure,'' Abbas Abdi, one of six leaders of the group, told AP.
Members of Ahmadinejad's office refused to look at the photos or comment on the allegations.
In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."
At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.
Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.
At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."
The former students who carried out the seizure and held the Americans in Tehran said Ahmadinejad had no role in taking the embassy or guarding the hostages, but that he preferred to target the Soviet Embassy, the Associated Press reported.
"He was not part of us. He played no role in the seizure,'' Abbas Abdi, one of six leaders of the group, told AP.
Members of Ahmadinejad's office refused to look at the photos or comment on the allegations.
Bush: Kyoto Treaty Would Have 'Wrecked' Economy
President Bush said in a Danish TV interview aired Thursday that adhering to the Kyoto treaty on climate change would have "wrecked" the U.S. economy, and he called U.S. dependence on Gulf oil a "national security problem."
"I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush told the Danish Broadcasting Corp., noting that the treaty did not include other nations - including India and China - that he called "big polluters."
In Bush's view, the Kyoto treaty's mandatory limits also would not ensure that climate risks would be addressed unless countries like China also make emission cuts. He also says more study is needed to determine whether human activity is primarily to blame for rising temperatures.
The interview was recorded Wednesday at the White House. Bush will visit Denmark next week before going to a G-8 summit in Scotland.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to make cutting greenhouse gas emissions a key theme at the G-8 meeting. On Wednesday, Blair told The Associated Press it was not possible to persuade the United States to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
"There is no point in setting a task that is not achievable," Blair said in an exclusive interview with the AP. "Obviously, there is a disagreement over the Kyoto treaty and you are not going to resolve that disagreement."
On Thursday, Blair told an MTV audience there would be no solution for global warming without U.S. involvement. The United States is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, which have been blamed for contributing to global warming.
Later in the Danish interview, Bush said the United States was looking for ways to "diversify away from fossil fuels" to reduce its dependence on Middle East oil.
"We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," Bush said.
"I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush told the Danish Broadcasting Corp., noting that the treaty did not include other nations - including India and China - that he called "big polluters."
In Bush's view, the Kyoto treaty's mandatory limits also would not ensure that climate risks would be addressed unless countries like China also make emission cuts. He also says more study is needed to determine whether human activity is primarily to blame for rising temperatures.
The interview was recorded Wednesday at the White House. Bush will visit Denmark next week before going to a G-8 summit in Scotland.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to make cutting greenhouse gas emissions a key theme at the G-8 meeting. On Wednesday, Blair told The Associated Press it was not possible to persuade the United States to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
"There is no point in setting a task that is not achievable," Blair said in an exclusive interview with the AP. "Obviously, there is a disagreement over the Kyoto treaty and you are not going to resolve that disagreement."
On Thursday, Blair told an MTV audience there would be no solution for global warming without U.S. involvement. The United States is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, which have been blamed for contributing to global warming.
Later in the Danish interview, Bush said the United States was looking for ways to "diversify away from fossil fuels" to reduce its dependence on Middle East oil.
"We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," Bush said.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
1999 ABC News Report : The Osama - Hussein Connection
http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC News, January 14, 1999
'". . . [Mamdouh Mahmud] Salim, alleged to be a key military advisor and
believed to be privy to bin Laden's most secret projects, is also
apprehended. The US government alleges that he was under secret orders to
procure enriched uranium for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons.
These are allegations bin Laden does not now deny. "It would be a sin for
Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels
from inflicting harm on Muslims, but how we could use these weapons if we
possessed them is up to us.
With an American price on his head, there weren't many places bin Laden
could go, unless he teamed up with another international pariah, one also
with an interest in weapons of mass destruction. Osama believes in the
'enemy of my enemy is my friend, and someone I should cooperate with.' That
is certainly the current case with Iraq. Saddam Hussein has a long history
of harboring terrorists: Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nida, Abu Abbas. The most
notorious terrorist of their era all found shelter and support at one time
in Baghdad.
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began
as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after the bombing, on August 31st,
bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's vice
president arrives in Khartoon to show his support for the Sudanese after the
US attack. ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese
officials, acting on behalf of bin Laden, asked if Saddam Hussein would
grant him asylum.
Iraq was indeed interested. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi
intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey,
made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence
agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost
certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in
Baghdad.''
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC News, January 14, 1999
'". . . [Mamdouh Mahmud] Salim, alleged to be a key military advisor and
believed to be privy to bin Laden's most secret projects, is also
apprehended. The US government alleges that he was under secret orders to
procure enriched uranium for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons.
These are allegations bin Laden does not now deny. "It would be a sin for
Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels
from inflicting harm on Muslims, but how we could use these weapons if we
possessed them is up to us.
With an American price on his head, there weren't many places bin Laden
could go, unless he teamed up with another international pariah, one also
with an interest in weapons of mass destruction. Osama believes in the
'enemy of my enemy is my friend, and someone I should cooperate with.' That
is certainly the current case with Iraq. Saddam Hussein has a long history
of harboring terrorists: Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nida, Abu Abbas. The most
notorious terrorist of their era all found shelter and support at one time
in Baghdad.
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began
as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after the bombing, on August 31st,
bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's vice
president arrives in Khartoon to show his support for the Sudanese after the
US attack. ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese
officials, acting on behalf of bin Laden, asked if Saddam Hussein would
grant him asylum.
Iraq was indeed interested. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi
intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey,
made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence
agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost
certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in
Baghdad.''
Bin Laden and Iraq
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 14, 2003
I decided to look back to 1999 to see what links there may have been between Saddam and OBL. I found hundreds of articles. Here are condensed summaries of some of the more relevant ones. I wonder why no one is talking about these articles and links today.
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.
THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West� ...
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.
"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."
The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to �500m has been whittled down to single figures ...
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."� ....
- - - - -
United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...
Click on the title link for MORE !
I decided to look back to 1999 to see what links there may have been between Saddam and OBL. I found hundreds of articles. Here are condensed summaries of some of the more relevant ones. I wonder why no one is talking about these articles and links today.
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.
THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West� ...
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.
"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."
The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to �500m has been whittled down to single figures ...
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."� ....
- - - - -
United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...
Click on the title link for MORE !
Saddam link to Bin Laden
THE GUARDIAN ^ | 2/6/1999 | Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received.
In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world.
Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."
An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. "Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there's no one here who is going to comment on it."
Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, was "the perfect man to send to Afghanistan".
Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.
Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden's position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.
Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received.
In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world.
Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."
An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. "Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there's no one here who is going to comment on it."
Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, was "the perfect man to send to Afghanistan".
Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.
Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden's position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.
Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.
Amendment Would Reverse Ruling on Ten Commandments
Over 100 congressmen have introduced a constitutional amendment to protect religious expression on public property.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) joined Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), other congressmen and pro-family groups to propose the Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA), an effort to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which removed the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky courthouse.
"Deeply religious European colonists escaped the two tyrannies of the crown and the church and came to America," said Bartlett in a statement. "Our founders created a country and a Constitution that protected the ability of individuals to freely express their respective religions in public life.
"They had no fear of religion in the public square. They felt that religious faith was vitally important to create and maintain our democratic republic as a just society. What they opposed was a state religion. The latest pair of Supreme Court decisions adds to decades of confusion about what seems so simple to most Americans," said Bartlett.
"The Supreme Court has sent a clear message to public officials everywhere: They will face an onslaught of expensive litigation unless they remove the Ten Commandments from public property," said Istook in a statement.
"Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," added Istook.
The amendment reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."
A two-thirds vote in the House and Senate is required to pass the constitutional amendment. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states, without necessary approval by the president or the governors.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) joined Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), other congressmen and pro-family groups to propose the Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA), an effort to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which removed the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky courthouse.
"Deeply religious European colonists escaped the two tyrannies of the crown and the church and came to America," said Bartlett in a statement. "Our founders created a country and a Constitution that protected the ability of individuals to freely express their respective religions in public life.
"They had no fear of religion in the public square. They felt that religious faith was vitally important to create and maintain our democratic republic as a just society. What they opposed was a state religion. The latest pair of Supreme Court decisions adds to decades of confusion about what seems so simple to most Americans," said Bartlett.
"The Supreme Court has sent a clear message to public officials everywhere: They will face an onslaught of expensive litigation unless they remove the Ten Commandments from public property," said Istook in a statement.
"Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," added Istook.
The amendment reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."
A two-thirds vote in the House and Senate is required to pass the constitutional amendment. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states, without necessary approval by the president or the governors.
AP: Most Iraq Suicide Bombs by Foreigners
The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners � mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs � and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their deaths, the officials told The Associated Press. The young men are not so much fighters as human bombs � a relatively small but deadly component of the Iraqi insurgency.
"The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation," said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq.
Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has confirmed that thinking.
Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.
The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their deaths, the officials told The Associated Press. The young men are not so much fighters as human bombs � a relatively small but deadly component of the Iraqi insurgency.
"The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation," said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq.
Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has confirmed that thinking.
Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.
Widow tells Bush to stay the course in Iraq war
President Bush, who met with relatives of fallen soldiers before Tuesday's Fort Bragg speech, was urged to stay the course in Iraq by a woman who gave him a bracelet honoring her late husband.
"I said: 'I know people are pushing you, but please don't pull the guys out of Iraq too soon,' " said Crystal Owen, whose husband, Staff Sgt. Mike Owen, was killed in Iraq last year.
"Don't let my husband -- and 1,700-plus other deaths -- be in vain," she added during a private meeting with Mr. Bush at the North Carolina base. "They were over there, fighting for a democratic nation, and I hope you'll keep our service members over there until the mission can be accomplished."
Mrs. Owen gave the president a stainless steel bracelet engraved with the names of her husband and another soldier, Cpl. John Santos, both of whom were killed on Oct. 15.
The president slipped the bracelet on his left wrist and wore it throughout his 28-minute prime-time address to the nation, becoming visibly emotional at times.
"We have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home," he said as his eyes turned glassy. "I've met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon."
Before his speech, as is his custom, the president met for three hours with more than 90 spouses, children and parents of 32 soldiers killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The last person he met was Mrs. Owen.
"Even though he'd met with 31 other families prior to me, it was like I was the only one -- I mean, he made me feel special," she told The Washington Times yesterday. "He wanted to know about Mike and about me and if I was OK.
"I did get teary-eyed and he kind of held my hands for a while," she added. "He was very sincere and gave me a kiss on the cheek as he left -- I was a little flabbergasted."
"I said: 'I know people are pushing you, but please don't pull the guys out of Iraq too soon,' " said Crystal Owen, whose husband, Staff Sgt. Mike Owen, was killed in Iraq last year.
"Don't let my husband -- and 1,700-plus other deaths -- be in vain," she added during a private meeting with Mr. Bush at the North Carolina base. "They were over there, fighting for a democratic nation, and I hope you'll keep our service members over there until the mission can be accomplished."
Mrs. Owen gave the president a stainless steel bracelet engraved with the names of her husband and another soldier, Cpl. John Santos, both of whom were killed on Oct. 15.
The president slipped the bracelet on his left wrist and wore it throughout his 28-minute prime-time address to the nation, becoming visibly emotional at times.
"We have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home," he said as his eyes turned glassy. "I've met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon."
Before his speech, as is his custom, the president met for three hours with more than 90 spouses, children and parents of 32 soldiers killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The last person he met was Mrs. Owen.
"Even though he'd met with 31 other families prior to me, it was like I was the only one -- I mean, he made me feel special," she told The Washington Times yesterday. "He wanted to know about Mike and about me and if I was OK.
"I did get teary-eyed and he kind of held my hands for a while," she added. "He was very sincere and gave me a kiss on the cheek as he left -- I was a little flabbergasted."
Blair 'Astonished' by Claims U.S. Rushed to War
Prime Minister Tony Blair firmly denied Wednesday that the Bush administration signaled just months after Sept. 11 that a decision was made to invade Iraq, saying he was "astonished" by claims that leaked secret memos suggested the U.S. was rushing to war.
In an interview with The Associated Press a day after President Bush delivered a televised defense of the war in Iraq (search), Blair said defeating the insurgency was crucial to protecting security worldwide, and joined Bush in linking the war with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed," said Blair, interviewed on the stone terrace overlooking the garden of his No. 10 Downing Street (search) offices, where policy meetings on Iraq were held before the invasion.
After Sept. 11, it was necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years," he said. "I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."
In an interview with The Associated Press a day after President Bush delivered a televised defense of the war in Iraq (search), Blair said defeating the insurgency was crucial to protecting security worldwide, and joined Bush in linking the war with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed," said Blair, interviewed on the stone terrace overlooking the garden of his No. 10 Downing Street (search) offices, where policy meetings on Iraq were held before the invasion.
After Sept. 11, it was necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years," he said. "I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."
Annan Wants US Troops to Help UN Troops in Haiti
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wants the United States to send troops to Haiti to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission that is having troubling keeping the peace, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.
Iran leader a 1979 hostage-taker?
Already saddled with resolving a looming nuclear showdown with Iran, the Bush administration now faces the possibility that that country's new leader helped take 52 Americans hostage in 1979.
"Many questions" have been raised by five former U.S. hostages who have identified Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) as one of their captors more than 25 years ago, President Bush said Thursday
"I have no information," Bush said in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of a trip to Scotland next week. "But obviously his involvement raises many questions
Earlier, the White House indicated that some kind of investigation was in the works.
"I think the news reports and statements from several former American hostages raise many questions about his past," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We take them very seriously and we are looking into them to better understand the facts."
Five Americans who were held for more than a year in the hostage crisis believe that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors.
"You don't forget, even years later," Chuck Scott told FOX News on Thursday. "Even if he dyed his hair blond and shaved his beard, I'd still recognize him."
"Many questions" have been raised by five former U.S. hostages who have identified Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) as one of their captors more than 25 years ago, President Bush said Thursday
"I have no information," Bush said in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of a trip to Scotland next week. "But obviously his involvement raises many questions
Earlier, the White House indicated that some kind of investigation was in the works.
"I think the news reports and statements from several former American hostages raise many questions about his past," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We take them very seriously and we are looking into them to better understand the facts."
Five Americans who were held for more than a year in the hostage crisis believe that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors.
"You don't forget, even years later," Chuck Scott told FOX News on Thursday. "Even if he dyed his hair blond and shaved his beard, I'd still recognize him."
Army Recruiting Improves in June
The Army has exceeded its recruiting goal for June after four months of shortfalls, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.
Still, the service is far behind its annual goal of 80,000 recruits. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a town-hall meeting of Pentagon personnel that the recruiting picture had improved.
"I will tell you that, for the month of June, United States Army active recruiting is over 100 percent of its goal, which is a turnaround from where they've been in the last several months," he said. "So there's a bit of good news in here, and we'll see how it works out the rest of the year."
Pentagon officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Army has not formally announced its numbers, said the Army Reserve also met its recruiting goal in June.
The Army's goal for its active-duty force June was 5,650 recruits; so far, more than 6,150 signed up, the officials said, citing preliminary statistics from recruiting stations.
The Army Reserve hoped to sign up 3,610; it has barely exceeded that goal, the officials said.
There were no figures available for the Army National Guard, which is also well behind its annual goal.
The active-duty Army is still 7,800 recruits behind its year-to-date goal. The service hoped to recruit 80,000 into its ranks between Oct. 1, 2004, and this Sept. 30.
The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February. Each month was worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent.
In May, the Army fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350. The June target was not lowered, officials said.
The Army Reserve is more than 2,350 behind its year-to-date goal. Reserve forces throughout the military have been missing recruiting goals.
Pentagon officials attributed the increase in recruits to the end of the school year. The summer months are typically when the services draw the most interest. The higher goals in the coming month reflect that.
But many young people and parents are turning away from Army service because of the ongoing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, opinion polls show. The Army also says today's economy offers attractive alternatives to many high school and college graduates.
In response, the Army has increased its incentives for those signing up and augmented its recruiting force.
Top officials also say that Army retention is at or exceeding goals, suggesting that those who have been to Iraq or Afghanistan want to stay in the military to finish the job there.
Still, the service is far behind its annual goal of 80,000 recruits. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a town-hall meeting of Pentagon personnel that the recruiting picture had improved.
"I will tell you that, for the month of June, United States Army active recruiting is over 100 percent of its goal, which is a turnaround from where they've been in the last several months," he said. "So there's a bit of good news in here, and we'll see how it works out the rest of the year."
Pentagon officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Army has not formally announced its numbers, said the Army Reserve also met its recruiting goal in June.
The Army's goal for its active-duty force June was 5,650 recruits; so far, more than 6,150 signed up, the officials said, citing preliminary statistics from recruiting stations.
The Army Reserve hoped to sign up 3,610; it has barely exceeded that goal, the officials said.
There were no figures available for the Army National Guard, which is also well behind its annual goal.
The active-duty Army is still 7,800 recruits behind its year-to-date goal. The service hoped to recruit 80,000 into its ranks between Oct. 1, 2004, and this Sept. 30.
The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February. Each month was worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent.
In May, the Army fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350. The June target was not lowered, officials said.
The Army Reserve is more than 2,350 behind its year-to-date goal. Reserve forces throughout the military have been missing recruiting goals.
Pentagon officials attributed the increase in recruits to the end of the school year. The summer months are typically when the services draw the most interest. The higher goals in the coming month reflect that.
But many young people and parents are turning away from Army service because of the ongoing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, opinion polls show. The Army also says today's economy offers attractive alternatives to many high school and college graduates.
In response, the Army has increased its incentives for those signing up and augmented its recruiting force.
Top officials also say that Army retention is at or exceeding goals, suggesting that those who have been to Iraq or Afghanistan want to stay in the military to finish the job there.
Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorists
In the wake of President Bush's speech to the nation Tuesday night, Democrats are complaining that he talked too much about 9/11, falsely implying that Iraq was a terrorist threat.
Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded. According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:
� Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.
Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.
� Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.
� Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.
In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.
� Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.
� Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.
In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.
After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.
Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded. According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:
� Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.
Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.
� Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.
� Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.
In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.
� Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.
� Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.
In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.
After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Flash Poll: Instant Reaction to Bush's Iraq Speech
Speech watchers become somewhat more positive on war
Those who watched President Bush's speech Tuesday night now hold a slightly more positive outlook on the war than they did before the address, even though the speech itself was not rated as positively as others Bush has given. Compared with their responses before the speech, people who tuned in are now more likely to say the United States and its allies are winning the Iraq war, that Bush has a clear plan for handling the war, and that the United States should keep troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better. The audience was apparently rather small and composed largely of Bush supporters -- 50% of those who tuned in were Republicans, a much higher proportion than exists in the general population but similar to what Gallup has found in polling following other Bush speeches.
Overall, the sample of 323 speech watchers rated Bush's speech in positive terms -- with 46% describing their reaction as "very positive" and an additional 28% "somewhat positive." That is well below average when compared with other major speeches Bush has given, which have averaged a 60% very positive rating in similar flash polls. That includes a 67% very positive rating for the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech he gave aboard an aircraft carrier in May 2003, in which he declared the major fighting phase of the Iraq war to be over.
What was your overall reaction to Bush's speech tonight -- [ROTATED: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, (or) very negative]?
Those who watched President Bush's speech Tuesday night now hold a slightly more positive outlook on the war than they did before the address, even though the speech itself was not rated as positively as others Bush has given. Compared with their responses before the speech, people who tuned in are now more likely to say the United States and its allies are winning the Iraq war, that Bush has a clear plan for handling the war, and that the United States should keep troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better. The audience was apparently rather small and composed largely of Bush supporters -- 50% of those who tuned in were Republicans, a much higher proportion than exists in the general population but similar to what Gallup has found in polling following other Bush speeches.
Overall, the sample of 323 speech watchers rated Bush's speech in positive terms -- with 46% describing their reaction as "very positive" and an additional 28% "somewhat positive." That is well below average when compared with other major speeches Bush has given, which have averaged a 60% very positive rating in similar flash polls. That includes a 67% very positive rating for the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech he gave aboard an aircraft carrier in May 2003, in which he declared the major fighting phase of the Iraq war to be over.
What was your overall reaction to Bush's speech tonight -- [ROTATED: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, (or) very negative]?
Gannett Editor Promises to Burn Flag If Burning Amendment Passes
The top editor at a newspaper owned by Gannett, which publishes USA Today, promised in a Sunday column to burn an American flag if the Senate passes an anti-flag burning amendment. Linda Grist Cunningham, Executive Editor of the Rockford Register Star in Illinois, pledged: "If the U.S. Senate follows its silly siblings in the House of Representatives and votes for a ban on burning the American flag, I'm going to burn one. It never occurred to me to burn a flag -- except in some flag-retiring ceremony -- but just the idea that Congress has nothing better to do than spend time on this nutty issue makes we want to burn one." She also displayed her disgust with critics of Senator Dick Durbin, complaining that people "with an ax to grind" took "a couple of lines out of context."
In Midst of Listing Problems in Iraq, ABC Notes Positive Trends
the midst of a Tuesday World News Tonight story on the problems facing Iraqis, ABC's David Kerley also pointed out benefits gained by Iraqis thanks to the U.S. removal of Saddam Hussein. Kerley showcased one family with "a computer, which their teenage daughter uses to chat online, and satellite TV, which the family often gathers around -- two things they were not allowed to own under Saddam." But, he added, "the electricity is unreliable" and "went out during our interview." Kerley noted, however, that "more electricity is being generated than before the war" and the problem is prosperity: "With the purchase of so many appliances -- TVs and air conditioners -- demand far outstrips the supply of electricity." He cited other successes: "Internet and telephone subscribers have doubled" and "more children are attending school."
CNN Team Upset by Bush Tying 9/11 to Iraq, Gergen "Offended"
The CNN analysis team, after President Bush' national address Tuesday night from Ft. Bragg, seemed obsessed about Bush tying September 11th to the war in Iraq. Wolf Blitzer fretted: "We heard a lot of explanations of the connections to 9/11, the new world after 9/11. We heard no reference to the major argument that he made going into the war: weapons of mass destruction." David Gergen falsely asserted that Bush "never once called them 'Iraqi insurgents,' as the media does. He called them terrorists, you know, as if they're all associated and linked to the attacks here on 9/11." When Zahn asked if Bush "overreached with these multiple references to 9/11 when there has been absolutely no linkage established between the actions of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on that horrible day?", Gergen said he was "offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11" because "none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam, and, you know, there's been this myth for a long time that's just untrue that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11." But that wasn't Bush's point. He was just putting Iraq into the context of world threats post 9/11. On ABC, George Stephanopoulos also questioned Bush's linking of 9/11.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Most support staying in Iraq poll finds
As President Bush prepares to address the nation about Iraq tonight, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that most Americans do not believe the administration's claims that impressive gains are being made against the insurgency, but a clear majority is willing to keep U.S. forces there for an extended time to stabilize the country.
The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is, at best, several years away.
Amid broad skepticism about Bush's credibility and whether the war was worth the cost, there were some encouraging signs for the president. A narrow majority -- 52 percent -- currently believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States, a five-point increase from earlier this month.
The findings crystallize the challenges facing Bush this evening in his nationally televised address from Fort Bragg, N.C., an event the administration sees as a critical opportunity for the president to restate the case for his Iraq policies. The goal is to reinvigorate public support for a war that has grown unpopular over time and convince Americans the administration has a policy that will lead to success over time.
So far, continuing spasms of violence in Iraq are competing with regular declarations of progress in Washington. Few people agree with Vice President Cheney's recent claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The survey found that 22 percent of Americans -- barely one in five -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker, while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed, a view that matches the assessment offered last week in congressional testimony by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. John P. Abizaid.
Views of the current status of the insurgency were deeply colored by partisanship. More than a third of all Republicans, 35 percent, agreed with the administration that the insurgents were growing weaker in Iraq, compared with 13 percent of all Democrats and 19 percent of all political independents.
The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is, at best, several years away.
Amid broad skepticism about Bush's credibility and whether the war was worth the cost, there were some encouraging signs for the president. A narrow majority -- 52 percent -- currently believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States, a five-point increase from earlier this month.
The findings crystallize the challenges facing Bush this evening in his nationally televised address from Fort Bragg, N.C., an event the administration sees as a critical opportunity for the president to restate the case for his Iraq policies. The goal is to reinvigorate public support for a war that has grown unpopular over time and convince Americans the administration has a policy that will lead to success over time.
So far, continuing spasms of violence in Iraq are competing with regular declarations of progress in Washington. Few people agree with Vice President Cheney's recent claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The survey found that 22 percent of Americans -- barely one in five -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker, while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed, a view that matches the assessment offered last week in congressional testimony by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. John P. Abizaid.
Views of the current status of the insurgency were deeply colored by partisanship. More than a third of all Republicans, 35 percent, agreed with the administration that the insurgents were growing weaker in Iraq, compared with 13 percent of all Democrats and 19 percent of all political independents.
Text of Bush's address
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please be seated. Good evening. I'm pleased to visit Fort Bragg, "Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces." It's an honor to speak before you tonight.
My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people. And that's your calling, as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful, and so is your Commander-in-Chief.
The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror.
To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill -- in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.
My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people. And that's your calling, as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful, and so is your Commander-in-Chief.
The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror.
To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill -- in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.
Poll: Media Weakening U.S. Defenses
A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that a rising number of Americans are now concerned that media criticism of the military is hurting the U.S.'s ability to defend itself.
Nearly half - 47 percent - say that by criticizing the military so frequently, news organizations are weakening the nation's defenses. Forty-four percent say, on the other hand, that the media's criticism keeps the nation militarily prepared.
More than two-thirds of Republicans - 67 percent - objected to the way the press covers the military, while only 36 percent of Democrats disapproved of the media's anti-military coverage.
The number of those now saying that the press is anti-military has increased dramatically since the 9/11 attacks, when only a little more than a third of those surveyed thought the press was too critical.
Nearly half - 47 percent - say that by criticizing the military so frequently, news organizations are weakening the nation's defenses. Forty-four percent say, on the other hand, that the media's criticism keeps the nation militarily prepared.
More than two-thirds of Republicans - 67 percent - objected to the way the press covers the military, while only 36 percent of Democrats disapproved of the media's anti-military coverage.
The number of those now saying that the press is anti-military has increased dramatically since the 9/11 attacks, when only a little more than a third of those surveyed thought the press was too critical.
EMINENT DOMAINED: Application submitted to NH city council to condemn Justice Souter's house for hotel...
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf�" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf�" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
Media Misses Iraq al Qaeda Connection
The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.
"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri � then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.
According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.
Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.
On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."
In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.
The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more.
He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.
"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri � then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.
According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.
Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.
On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."
In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.
The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more.
He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.
Bush and Schr�der are on message about Iran
President George W. Bush said Monday that he and Chancellor Gerhard Schr�der of Germany had agreed on a firm line on Iran, saying that European negotiators should continue to send Tehran a "focused, concerted, unified message that says the development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."
Taking reporters' questions with Bush after a White House meeting, Schr�der endorsed the president's message. "We're going to continue being tough and firm," he said. "The message must stay very clear."
Taking reporters' questions with Bush after a White House meeting, Schr�der endorsed the president's message. "We're going to continue being tough and firm," he said. "The message must stay very clear."
Symposium covers radical Islamic threat to U.S.
Event featuring panel of experts meant to serve as wake-up call to nation
An event slated for September will bring together experts on radical Islam and terrorism to educate attendees on the state of national security and the threat posed by Muslim enemies of the U.S.
Sponsored by the People's Truth Forum, the event, titled "The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security," is scheduled for Sept. 21 in Plantsville, Conn.
"The symposium will sound a potent, nonpartisan alarm � a warning which is intended to serve as a wake-up call to all those in attendance," said Jeffrey Epstein, who is organizing the dinner event.
Epstein says he expects to have a "large contingent of first responders" who deal with national-security issues on a daily basis.
Among the speakers are Harvey Kushner, Ph.D., an internationally recognized authority on terrorism and related security matters. Kushner has advised and trained numerous governmental agencies, including the FBI, FAA, INS, and U.S. Customs.
Also scheduled to speak is Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East and a prominent Arab-American journalist. Having survived a terrorist bombing in her home in Lebanon, Gabriel is slated to present a first-hand account of her experience with Islamic jihad.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West and other books, also will speak.
The fourth speaker is epidemiologist Judith Jacobson, vice president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
Yesterday, members of the 9/11 commission criticized Congress and the Bush administration for getting complacent about the threat of nuclear terror to the United States. "We said on the 9/11 commission that there needed to be maximum effort and a sense of urgency. The sense of urgency is more a mood of complacency today," said former Commissioner Timothy Roemer.
"Rather than a brisk pace of activity, we are more seeing a business-as-usual approach," he said.
Noted Epstein: "We have ignored the problem for too long. Now that the vehicles of terrorism have invaded our shores we have a civic responsibility to act. This time, sticking our heads in the sand or making this a political issue may just cost us our lives."
Tickets for the event are $115 and the organizers have set a deadline of July 29 for reservations. More information can be obtained on the People's Truth Forum website.
An event slated for September will bring together experts on radical Islam and terrorism to educate attendees on the state of national security and the threat posed by Muslim enemies of the U.S.
Sponsored by the People's Truth Forum, the event, titled "The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security," is scheduled for Sept. 21 in Plantsville, Conn.
"The symposium will sound a potent, nonpartisan alarm � a warning which is intended to serve as a wake-up call to all those in attendance," said Jeffrey Epstein, who is organizing the dinner event.
Epstein says he expects to have a "large contingent of first responders" who deal with national-security issues on a daily basis.
Among the speakers are Harvey Kushner, Ph.D., an internationally recognized authority on terrorism and related security matters. Kushner has advised and trained numerous governmental agencies, including the FBI, FAA, INS, and U.S. Customs.
Also scheduled to speak is Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East and a prominent Arab-American journalist. Having survived a terrorist bombing in her home in Lebanon, Gabriel is slated to present a first-hand account of her experience with Islamic jihad.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West and other books, also will speak.
The fourth speaker is epidemiologist Judith Jacobson, vice president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
Yesterday, members of the 9/11 commission criticized Congress and the Bush administration for getting complacent about the threat of nuclear terror to the United States. "We said on the 9/11 commission that there needed to be maximum effort and a sense of urgency. The sense of urgency is more a mood of complacency today," said former Commissioner Timothy Roemer.
"Rather than a brisk pace of activity, we are more seeing a business-as-usual approach," he said.
Noted Epstein: "We have ignored the problem for too long. Now that the vehicles of terrorism have invaded our shores we have a civic responsibility to act. This time, sticking our heads in the sand or making this a political issue may just cost us our lives."
Tickets for the event are $115 and the organizers have set a deadline of July 29 for reservations. More information can be obtained on the People's Truth Forum website.
Democrats report no abuse at Gitmo
Two Democratic senators just back from reviewing U.S. detention facilities and interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said they saw no signs of abuse and said it would actually be worse to close the facility and transfer the detainees elsewhere.
"I strongly prefer the improved practices and conditions at Camp Delta to the outsourcing of interrogation to countries with a far less significant commitment to human rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, who toured the U.S. facility along with Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat.
The two Democrats were joined on the trip by two Republicans, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Sen. Michael D. Crapo of Idaho.
Their characterization contrasts with critics, including Democratic Party leaders, who have called for the camp to be closed as a bruise on America's human rights record.
But the four returning senators, in separate Republican and Democrat press conferences yesterday, said they saw no evidence of ongoing abuse.
"Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different," Mr. Nelson said.
Mr. Bunning said he observed six separate interrogations, and only one detainee was questioned while in restraints. Four of the six detainees spoke to their interrogators, and the other two refused to answer questions. The interrogators were usually women, and the translators were usually men, Mr. Bunning said.
Mr. Crapo said of the 70,000 people captured and detained globally in the war on terror, only 800 have been taken to Guantanamo. Many of those have been released or moved to other facilities, leaving 520 at Camp Delta.
He said there have been 400 visits by 1,000 reporters to the facility and that nearly 20 senators, a larger number of House members and 100 congressional staff members have visited the camp.
A delegation from the House of Representatives made a similar trip during the weekend, and one member reported similar findings.
"The detainees' meal was as good as any I had in my 31 years of Army Guard service, and I can see why the prisoners this year gained five pounds over last year," said Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican.
"I strongly prefer the improved practices and conditions at Camp Delta to the outsourcing of interrogation to countries with a far less significant commitment to human rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, who toured the U.S. facility along with Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat.
The two Democrats were joined on the trip by two Republicans, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Sen. Michael D. Crapo of Idaho.
Their characterization contrasts with critics, including Democratic Party leaders, who have called for the camp to be closed as a bruise on America's human rights record.
But the four returning senators, in separate Republican and Democrat press conferences yesterday, said they saw no evidence of ongoing abuse.
"Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different," Mr. Nelson said.
Mr. Bunning said he observed six separate interrogations, and only one detainee was questioned while in restraints. Four of the six detainees spoke to their interrogators, and the other two refused to answer questions. The interrogators were usually women, and the translators were usually men, Mr. Bunning said.
Mr. Crapo said of the 70,000 people captured and detained globally in the war on terror, only 800 have been taken to Guantanamo. Many of those have been released or moved to other facilities, leaving 520 at Camp Delta.
He said there have been 400 visits by 1,000 reporters to the facility and that nearly 20 senators, a larger number of House members and 100 congressional staff members have visited the camp.
A delegation from the House of Representatives made a similar trip during the weekend, and one member reported similar findings.
"The detainees' meal was as good as any I had in my 31 years of Army Guard service, and I can see why the prisoners this year gained five pounds over last year," said Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Ronald Reagan elected Greatest American ever
'Gipper' No. 1 in interactive poll over Lincoln, MLK, Washington
Former President Ronald Reagan was named the "Greatest American" of all time in an interactive contest tonight, topping fellow Republican Abraham Lincoln.
Of more than 2.4 million votes in the survey sponsored by America Online, Reagan, who died last year after a long bout with Alzheimer's disease, captured the title with 24 percent of ballots, just edging out Lincoln by 0.44 percent, according to host Matt Lauer.
"The memory is fresh," said Reagan's son, Ron Jr. "People remember the funeral. ... I'm sure he would be very honored to be in the company of all these great gentlemen."
The rest of the top five were civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. (19.7 percent), George Washington (17.7 percent) and Benjamin Franklin (14.9 percent).
"Ronald Reagan was a man of courage," said John Washington, ancestral nephew of George Washington. "These are all distinguished men, but Ronald Reagan, I think he deserves his place here at the top of this list."
The second half of the top 10, already established from voting in previous weeks, had President George W. Bush at No. 6, followed by Bill Clinton, Elvis Presley, Oprah Winfrey and Franklin Roosevelt.
The event was broadcast by the Discovery Channel, as ordinary citizens were able to cast votes by phone or the Internet.
Former President Ronald Reagan was named the "Greatest American" of all time in an interactive contest tonight, topping fellow Republican Abraham Lincoln.
Of more than 2.4 million votes in the survey sponsored by America Online, Reagan, who died last year after a long bout with Alzheimer's disease, captured the title with 24 percent of ballots, just edging out Lincoln by 0.44 percent, according to host Matt Lauer.
"The memory is fresh," said Reagan's son, Ron Jr. "People remember the funeral. ... I'm sure he would be very honored to be in the company of all these great gentlemen."
The rest of the top five were civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. (19.7 percent), George Washington (17.7 percent) and Benjamin Franklin (14.9 percent).
"Ronald Reagan was a man of courage," said John Washington, ancestral nephew of George Washington. "These are all distinguished men, but Ronald Reagan, I think he deserves his place here at the top of this list."
The second half of the top 10, already established from voting in previous weeks, had President George W. Bush at No. 6, followed by Bill Clinton, Elvis Presley, Oprah Winfrey and Franklin Roosevelt.
The event was broadcast by the Discovery Channel, as ordinary citizens were able to cast votes by phone or the Internet.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
PEW survey finds public finds lack of patriotism in press...
Americans have a more favorable opinion of newspapers than other news media outlets, but slightly less than they did four years ago, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The survey, released Sunday, also indicated that more people are questioning the patriotism and fairness of the press.
Sixty percent of respondents said news organizations were politically biased, up from 53% two years ago. When asked what news outlets cared about most, a whopping 75% said attracting the biggest audience, compared to 19% who believed it was keeping them informed.
Americans also increased their scrutiny of the media as unpatriotic or anti-American, according to the survey. Only forty-two percent of those polled believed news organizations regularly �stand up for America,� compared to 51% just two years ago. Meanwhile, the percentage who believed the press was �too critical of America� rose from 33% in 2003 to 40% this year.
Still, most continue to have an overall favorable view of the new media.
�Those who expressed favorable opinions of daily newspapers, local TV news, network news and cable news struck similar themes in explaining their positive views of these news outlets,� the report stated. �Respondents most often cited the fact that they are able to get the news and information in a timely fashion; the breadth of coverage; and the ability to stay informed about a wide range of news developments, both locally and globally.�
The survey was conducted between June 8 and June 12, with 1,464 people responding to the questionnaire, the survey reported.
In another key finding, respondents indicated that they still go to newspapers for news more than the Internet.
But, among younger participants, the gap between newspapers and Web news sources is closing, the survey said.
The report also included a length essay by Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. In their piece, the pair pointed out that the public�s diminishing trust in journalism is not to be cited as just a lack of credibility, but as an ongoing demand by readers and viewers for journalistic standards to be upheld.
�The public is not rejecting the principles underlying traditional journalism,� the essay states. �Rather, it suspects journalists are not living up to those principles.�
In the survey, newspapers received the highest rating among news sources, with 80% offering a favorable opinion of the daily miracle. But, that was down slightly from the 82% rating in a similar 2001 survey. When asked to rate major national newspapers, the percentage dropped further to 61%, down from 74% during the earlier survey.
Those findings compared to 79% each for local TV and cable TV news and 75% for network TV news. Still, all news outlets topped several government entities, with President George W. Bush garnering a 55% favorable rating, while Congress received 54% and the Supreme Court 66%. All of those were down from the 2001 poll.
Fifty-four percent of those responding believed newspapers were mostly fact-based, compared to 31% who saw them as mostly opinion. Major national papers received an even lower view, with 45% considering them mostly fact, compared to 30% who viewed them as mostly opinion. Still, only local TV news had a better image, with 61% of respondents considering the local newscast as fact-based, while 25% believed it to be mostly opinion.
In the battle between newspapers and the Internet, the daily paper remained strong, but losing ground among younger Americans. Forty-four percent of those surveyed said newspapers remained their main source of news, compared to 24% who said the Internet. But, among those 18 to 25, the Web gained ground, with just 37 % of them naming newspapers and 36% citing the Internet. Television blew both away as 74% of those surveyed revealed the TV to be their main news source.
Among those who read newspapers, 40% said they read it mostly in print, while 16% cited the Web version of the paper as their main source. Younger readers again chose the Web more, with 23% of those under 25 citing the Web version as their key source, compared to 32% reading the print product.
Finally, slightly more than half of respondents, 52%, said the use of anonymous sources was too risky, compared to 44% who said it was okay because it could yield otherwise unreported news. Among those who said they had paid close attention to the recent Deep Throat revelation, 60% were �more positive� about the use of such sources, compared to 41% who had not followed the story that closely. And only 19% of those surveyed said sources should always be revealed, compared to 76% who said it was okay to sometimes keep them confidential.
Sixty percent of respondents said news organizations were politically biased, up from 53% two years ago. When asked what news outlets cared about most, a whopping 75% said attracting the biggest audience, compared to 19% who believed it was keeping them informed.
Americans also increased their scrutiny of the media as unpatriotic or anti-American, according to the survey. Only forty-two percent of those polled believed news organizations regularly �stand up for America,� compared to 51% just two years ago. Meanwhile, the percentage who believed the press was �too critical of America� rose from 33% in 2003 to 40% this year.
Still, most continue to have an overall favorable view of the new media.
�Those who expressed favorable opinions of daily newspapers, local TV news, network news and cable news struck similar themes in explaining their positive views of these news outlets,� the report stated. �Respondents most often cited the fact that they are able to get the news and information in a timely fashion; the breadth of coverage; and the ability to stay informed about a wide range of news developments, both locally and globally.�
The survey was conducted between June 8 and June 12, with 1,464 people responding to the questionnaire, the survey reported.
In another key finding, respondents indicated that they still go to newspapers for news more than the Internet.
But, among younger participants, the gap between newspapers and Web news sources is closing, the survey said.
The report also included a length essay by Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. In their piece, the pair pointed out that the public�s diminishing trust in journalism is not to be cited as just a lack of credibility, but as an ongoing demand by readers and viewers for journalistic standards to be upheld.
�The public is not rejecting the principles underlying traditional journalism,� the essay states. �Rather, it suspects journalists are not living up to those principles.�
In the survey, newspapers received the highest rating among news sources, with 80% offering a favorable opinion of the daily miracle. But, that was down slightly from the 82% rating in a similar 2001 survey. When asked to rate major national newspapers, the percentage dropped further to 61%, down from 74% during the earlier survey.
Those findings compared to 79% each for local TV and cable TV news and 75% for network TV news. Still, all news outlets topped several government entities, with President George W. Bush garnering a 55% favorable rating, while Congress received 54% and the Supreme Court 66%. All of those were down from the 2001 poll.
Fifty-four percent of those responding believed newspapers were mostly fact-based, compared to 31% who saw them as mostly opinion. Major national papers received an even lower view, with 45% considering them mostly fact, compared to 30% who viewed them as mostly opinion. Still, only local TV news had a better image, with 61% of respondents considering the local newscast as fact-based, while 25% believed it to be mostly opinion.
In the battle between newspapers and the Internet, the daily paper remained strong, but losing ground among younger Americans. Forty-four percent of those surveyed said newspapers remained their main source of news, compared to 24% who said the Internet. But, among those 18 to 25, the Web gained ground, with just 37 % of them naming newspapers and 36% citing the Internet. Television blew both away as 74% of those surveyed revealed the TV to be their main news source.
Among those who read newspapers, 40% said they read it mostly in print, while 16% cited the Web version of the paper as their main source. Younger readers again chose the Web more, with 23% of those under 25 citing the Web version as their key source, compared to 32% reading the print product.
Finally, slightly more than half of respondents, 52%, said the use of anonymous sources was too risky, compared to 44% who said it was okay because it could yield otherwise unreported news. Among those who said they had paid close attention to the recent Deep Throat revelation, 60% were �more positive� about the use of such sources, compared to 41% who had not followed the story that closely. And only 19% of those surveyed said sources should always be revealed, compared to 76% who said it was okay to sometimes keep them confidential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)