| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
911 & al Qaeda
Does It Add Up? by Robert M. Liu In mid-June 2004, a headline caught my eye: NO LINKS BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND IRAQ, SAYS 9/11 COMMISSION. Yet when I read the news report below the headline, these words sprang out: "Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan at the urging of his allies eager to protect their ties to Iraq." The report also mentioned that bin Laden had provided support to an anti-Baathist Iraqi Islamist group. After the 1994 meeting between bin Laden and the Iraqi intelligence officer, bin Laden suspended his support for the group -- an indication that the antagonism between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ended after the meeting. [A historical note: Despite the ideological antagonism between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, the two totalitarian tyrants cemented their collaborative relationship in the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on August 23, 1939. Stalin’s collaboration, which enabled Nazi Germany to annex Poland in September 1939 and then attack France and Britain in spring of 1940, continued up until June 22, 1941, when Hitler’s troops swept into Soviet Union.] Osama bin Laden’s allies should be regarded as part of the al Qaeda terrorist network. Therefore, the ties between bin Laden’s allies and Saddam Hussein should be regarded as links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. These bin Laden allies had collaborative ties to Iraq, and because they were eager to protect their ties -- an indication that they were in receipt of assistance from Saddam Hussein, they urged bin Laden to meet Saddam Hussein’s top intelligence officer. So, the meeting was significant in that its purpose was to turn the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq into a collaborative one in order to fight a common enemy (i.e. the U.S.A.). Although the 9/11 Commission says it has found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, this doesn’t mean there was no collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Logic would lead one to think there was. In fact, after Abdul Rahman Yasin (one of the al Qaeda culprits in the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing) fled to Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s regime provided him with housing and monthly payments. Former Iraqi intelligence chief Faruk Hijazi (now in U.S. custody) has confirmed that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his associates on multiple occasions. CIA chief George Tenet says: "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda’s leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gas and making conventional bombs." Present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" which decided on the 9/11 plot was an Iraqi by the name of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport and so was able to act as a guide for other al Qaeda members. More importantly, Shakir had managed to get his job at the airport with the assistance of an Iraqi intelligence officer at the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia. Just a coincidence, no collaborative relations? In my opinion, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was planted at the Kuala Lumpur airport -- a strategically important spot for al Qaaeda -- by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi intelligence agency to facilitate al Qaeda’s 9/11 plot against the United States. This piece of evidence should not be ignored by the CIA or the 9/11 Commission. In a court of law, the prosecutor needs to provide evidence of guilt, including circumstantial evidence, to the jury, and the members of the jury need to use their judgement to reach a verdict, guilty or not guilty. Sometimes, because they disagree with each other, they can’t reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. So-called "judgement" is something like educated guesswork. The jury could be wrong despite the evidence placed before court. But once a verdict is reached, it has to be carried out. That’s how the judicial system works. On the other hand, if the jury can’t reach a verdict, the accused is off the hook. The intelligence community is not a court of law. But like a jury in court, those work in the intelligence community need to use their judgement and analytical ability to reach a conclusion on the basis of available evidence. Needless to say, oftentimes they disagree with each other. Unfortunately, the views and judgements of intelligence experts can be tainted by their partisan affiliations and political ideologies. This phenomenon alone precludes "a unanimous verdict" on such issues as whether there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, whether Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc. But someone had to decide what course of action to pursue -- even without "a unanimous verdict". That someone was the president of the United States. You can use your judgement to reach your own "verdict". You can agree with Bush or second-guess his decision. Either way, you will find as many people agree with you as disagree with you, that is, no "unanimous verdict". Back to the "No-Links" headline mentioned above, I feel it doesn’t add up because the relevant report clearly pointed to collaborative ties between Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies as well as collaborative ties between bin Laden’s terrorist allies and Saddam Hussein’s regime. Those sitting on the 9/11 Commission shouldn’t underestimate such collaborative ties, while pretending they are impartial "non-partisan" players capable of reaching "a unanimous verdict". They have the word "partisan" printed on their foreheads. The 9/11 Commission itself is just one more playground for partisan politics. Even some of the members of the 9/11 victim families are partisan too. Aren’t they voters? As long as they vote, they have to take sides with a certain political party. Their views cannot be free of their political affiliations. But if you are an intelligence expert seeking employment with a Kerry administration, you’d better stick by your "No-Links verdict". That should serve you better. Whether it adds up or not is another matter. Remember what former secretary of state Albright said about the relations between former president Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? She said the allegations were untrue. That made a lot of sense for her at the time, didn’t that? As to whether Saddam Hussein had WMD, the answer is yes, according to United Nations documents. But the U.S.-led coalition’s WMD search team has so far found no big stockpiles of WMD in Iraq -- though some old shells laced with sarin (i.e. WMD too) have turned up. In addition, according to David Kay (former Iraqi WMD searcher), his team "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during the inspections that began in late 2002." My simple explanation is: Saddam Hussein did possess WMD as documented by the UN, but then under pressure, he made his WMD disappear by various means. Possibility (1): He may have buried his WMD. Possibility (2): He may have hidden his WMD under sea water. Possibility (3): He may have shipped his WMD out of Iraq. Possibility (4): He may have secretly destroyed his WMD. Possibility (5): He may have chosen to pursue all of the four options listed above, that is, he may have buried some, hidden some under sea water, shipped some out of Iraq, and secretly destroyed some. I remember in early 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell played an audio-tape at the UN It was a conversation between Iraqi officials picked up by CIA satellites, indicating they were trying to hide something. If the "UN-documented" weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by Iraq, why is there no documentation and no witness? Anyway, Saddam Hussein failed to account for the many tons of WMD documented by the United Nations weapons inspection team, in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which provided for "serious consequences" (a term which means war in international geopolitics) in the event of such failure. In consequence, President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, and the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown. Remember: Under various UN resolutions, it was the Saddam Hussein regime, not the international community, that had an obligation to account for the WMD documented by the UN. Saddam Hussein’s failure to account for his WMD entitles the international community to assume that the Weapons of Mass Destruction documented by the UN have not been destroyed. While there is no proof of their present existence, there is no proof that they have been destroyed either. So, please hold Saddam Hussein, not anybody else, accountable. Now, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who voted for the Iraq War but voted against the $87 billion financing the Iraq War, says, Bush "shouldn’t have rushed to war." Since when had America’s options (vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein) multiplied? The way Kerry utters his "nuances", one would think that between going to war and not going to war with Iraq, there was somehow a third choice. At the time, France had made clear it would veto any UN resolution categorically authorizing military action against Iraq, the UN weapons inspection team couldn’t find WMD in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, while preventing Iraqi scientists from being interviewed by UN inspectors without the presence of Iraqi minders, refused to account for the many tons of WMD documented by the UN The choice was either go to war or not go to war with Iraq -- not between "rushing" and "not rushing" to war. This "shouldn’t have rushed to war" rhetoric indicates that perhaps John Kerry is now against the Iraq War. If so, he should be honest with voters and make clear that he regrets he voted for the Iraq War. Otherwise, he is in danger of appearing to play a dishonest game with the public, signaling to those in favor of the Iraq War that he supports it, while at the same time also signaling to those against the Iraq War that he opposes it. It is said that most women tend to vote Democratic. But women also tend to expect a man to be straightforward and decisive, because they see these two traits as signs of manliness. Is John Kerry manly enough to be president of the United States of America? Watching Kerry tell his supporters that he and John Edwards make "a dream ticket", even as Edwards babbles about a dreamlike future for Americans as if his voluminous lip service could make all the problems of the world go away, one would wonder just how many voters will take this hot air seriously. Some of Kerry’s moves appear to be calculated to please everybody, but somewhere something just doesn’t add up. For instance, he promises jobs to laid-off workers as if those manufacturing jobs already lost to China would fly back to America once a Kerry presidency were in place. In the meantime, he also promises to raise the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per hour to $7 per hour. That is a 35.92% wage increase. The question is: Why should corporate America hire more people in the U.S. or bring manufacturing jobs back to America at even higher labor costs while the global market environment is getting more and more competitive by the day? The two members of the Kerry-Edwards "dream ticket" should know that demagogic "economics" only works in their dream world. In the real world of globalization, such increases in the minimum wage as proposed by Kerry are more likely to cause companies to hire fewer, not more, workers in America. John Kerry promises universal health care coverage -- something Hillary Clinton introduced to the American public only to cause the Democrats to lose Congressional control in late 1994. Voters knew Hillary Clinton’s program would lead to higher federal spending. This time around, Kerry is even bolder -- he promises both universal health care coverage and federal deficit reductions. How could he perform this feat without tax increases? Kerry says his health care plan would save $350 billion in paperwork, administrative and overhead costs, thereby allowing premiums to fall. To enhance efficiency and save money is always a good idea. But paperwork is not just paper. It is work done by employees. Cutting paperwork means cutting jobs. Cutting administrative costs means fewer managers doing a better job. Cutting overhead costs means Kerry’s universal health care coverage program would have to be managed from either smaller or cheaper or fewer offices. Back to the topic of the Iraq War, the mantra from the political left is: "Saddam Hussein had no WMD and so posed no imminent threat. Therefore, the Iraq War was unnecessary. Besides, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime has not made America safer." But it was John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards who, shortly after 9/11, said Iraq was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country... I don’t think we should be bound by what the United Nations does." Contradictions aside, below is some thought-provoking information: Recently, President Putin of Russia disclosed that Russian intelligence has evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime was planning terrorist attacks on the United States. As we know, Russia was opposed to the Iraq War. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of this intelligence provided by the Russians. An article in the Financial Times in late June 2004 revealed that European intelligence agencies continue to believe Saddam Hussein’s regime wanted to purchase "yellow case" uranium from Niger and that three European intelligence agencies have intelligence from 1999 about Niger officials having discussed sales of "yellow cake" with five countries including Iraq. Also in late June 2004, the U.S. government expelled two Iranian security guards working for the Iranian mission at the United Nations, because they had been videotaping the Statue of Liberty, subway, bridges and other New York landmarks. You may say videotaping the Statue of Liberty and other New York landmarks is innocent tourist behavior, but please read on and decide for yourself if there is something sinister going on... According to the New York Sun, in mid-June 2004, in Tehran, Hassan Abassi, head of Revolutionary Guards' Center for Doctrinaire Affairs of National Security Outside Iran’s Borders -- sounds like an intelligence service -- said, "We will map 29 sensitive sites in the United States and give the information to all international terror organizations." In its June 17, 2004, report, the Middle East Media Research Institute also mentioned Hassan Abassi’s statement about compiling a target list of "29 sensitive sites in the U.S." The Institute quoted Abassi as saying, "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization." Now, dear reader, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, left-wing or right-wing, if you are a law-abiding citizen and believe you are guided by logic and common sense, please ask yourself the following questions: (1) Do the anti-U.S. forces in Iran pose a threat, given their evil intentions toward the United States and their evil strategy for mass destruction of Western civilization? (2) If Iran’s anti-U.S. forces have collaborative ties to "all international terror organizations" as Mr. Abassi claims and harbor evil intentions toward America, can you convince yourself that Saddam Hussein’s regime had no collaborative ties to "all international terror organizations", harbored no evil intentions toward America, and posed no threat to America? Does it add up? (July 11, 2004) About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|