McCain selects VP
McCain has already decided on a VP. It's a win - win situation. For them anyway.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 07:09 AM — (Reply)
Dugg, all the left's got is HIllary and Obama..I'm sorry for them, too....imagine fighting FOR those two? but we're stuck with McCain and we're going to have to make the best of it. Better him than Socialist Lite, NO???
Ron Paul is gone, right? WHat're you going to do now?
Comment by Z— 2008/02/12 @ 10:27 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
this very thought came to mind when i saw this photo.
sadly.
Comment by nanc— 2008/02/08 @ 08:39 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2008/02/08 @ 08:44 AM — (Reply)
Look -- it's a his and hers necktie ad!!!
Comment by The Frank Family— 2008/02/08 @ 08:51 AM — (Reply)
I haven't decided anything
Comment by elmers brother— 2008/02/08 @ 11:45 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/08 @ 12:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 01:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/08 @ 12:41 PM — (Reply)
vote for beamish
I just realized he used this photo too
what I really wanted was the two of them on a campaign button
Comment by elmers brother — 2008/02/08 @ 12:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 01:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Burns— 2008/02/08 @ 02:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 02:07 PM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/08 @ 02:07 PM — (Reply)
One, two, three, four, FIFTEEN!
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 02:14 PM — (Reply)
If he wins... shoot him in the back!
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 02:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/08 @ 02:22 PM — (Reply)
truly mine, mos
Comment by HARRY G.— 2008/02/09 @ 01:57 PM — (Reply)
Thanks, Harry G...I've been hoping I'd run into someone with that '100 year' mantra. We are five years into a war and there are people warning about another NINETY-FIVE YEARS? Does that sound sane to you? And are you fighting to get us out of Korea after fifty years? getting out of Germany recently has made us less safe what with Bush's "friend, Vladimir" pulling his stuff. Why aren't you more worried about N. Korea than our staying in Iraq for ONE HUNDRED YEARS? That sounds almost insane (no offense) By the way...don't worry. If Islamofascists have their way and we don't start preventing here what's happening in Europe, we don't have another 100 years anyway. Have a great day.
Comment by Z— 2008/02/12 @ 10:24 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 10:52 AM — (Reply)
But dugg!! Does it ever make an impression on you when you consider that you and RP want exactly what the terrorists/AlQaeda, etc. want? Doesn't that make a dent?
Quit the ONE HUNDRED YEARS stuff..it's just bizarre to even consider that we put our safety aside now because "gee, we just don't want to be in Iraq in 100 years". You think THEY want us there that long? Of course not. Rest easy.
Comment by Z— 2008/02/12 @ 11:48 AM — (Reply)
Saddam is gone - let those people run their country and lets worry about our own border that is being invaded every day.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 12:57 PM — (Reply)
Does anybody see in that LOOOOOK what I think I SEE in that look?
BOY, if I were a conspiracy nut, I'd be thinking that look they're passing means "AGREED!"
i have to go off line now. It's too much to take!!!
Comment by Z— 2008/02/12 @ 10:28 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/12 @ 01:42 PM — (Reply)
"BASH" pow Mcain .... at ALL ...
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/12 @ 01:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 01:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/12 @ 02:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 03:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/12 @ 01:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 01:53 PM — (Reply)
such the humanitarian
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/12 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 02:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 02:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/12 @ 02:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 03:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/12 @ 02:25 PM — (Reply)
The administration realized that a peaceful solution to the crisis would undercut its grand ambitions. The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw. To justify war with Hussein, the Bush administration condoned a propaganda campaign on Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Americans were riveted by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti so-called refugee’s eyewitness accounts of Iraqi soldiers yanking newborn babies out of hospital incubators in Kuwait, leaving them on a cold floor to die.
The public didn’t know that the eyewitness was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States, and that her congressional testimony was reportedly arranged by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and paid for by Kuwait as part of its campaign to bring the United States into war.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 04:13 AM — (Reply)
I have to look for a minute for the other stuff.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 04:17 AM — (Reply)
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
but if you need to read it -
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu6EpC7NHXE0AUjlXNyoA?p=saddam+cia+asset&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8
More proof that Ron Paul is right - our insane policies have blowback that damage us for years. End the madness!
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 04:31 AM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/12 @ 05:13 PM — (Reply)
Goodnite
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/12 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/12 @ 05:18 PM — (Reply)
Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism.
Again Dugg some historical context would be nice.
Here's a transcript of the conversation our diplomat had with Saddam:
In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait’s borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie to an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. In them, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein:
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
"My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
"I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one."
Some have interpreted portions of these statements, particularly the language "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", as signaling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it handled everything “by the book” (in accordance with the U.S.’s official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League’s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam may have been influenced by the perception that the U.S. was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example, and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response.
and subsequently we warned him not to invade. hmmmm
Then he took Western hostages and would not give them exit visas to try and coerce us out of stopping his invasion of Kuwait.
Dugg do you think his atrocities are made up? Do you think he didn't gas the Kurds? or kill 400,000 of his own people?
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.
1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.
1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.
1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
Human Rights Watch: Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.
Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis."
Iraq's 13 million Shiite Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice.
The Iraqi regime repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.
From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the U.N. Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 04:33 AM — (Reply)
First of all this is an opinion piece written by a left wing peacenik. What are the primary documents he used to forge this opinion?
The Bush administration’s confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force.
At least he's honest about his bias right away.
Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein’s penchant for lies against the administration’s own record.
Claims? Saddams penchant for aggression isn't disputed, he attacked Iran and Kuwait and slaughtered his own people.
Based on recent history, that’s not an easy choice.
The first Bush administration, which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq’s conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era.
I'm sure he'll tell us the reasons.
When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. “If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms,” he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world's major oil fields. The globe’s industrial economies would be held hostage if Iraq succeeded.
This is why Iraq NEEDED to invade Kuwait:
By the time the ceasefire with Iran was signed in August 1988, Iraq was virtually bankrupt and heavily indebted to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Its vulnerability was made worse because the following year, in open defiance of OPEC quotas, Kuwait had increased its oil production by 40 percent. The collapse in oil prices had a catastrophic impact on the Iraqi economy. The Iraqi Government described it as a form of economic warfare, which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila oil field.
The reality was different. Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable.
Both of whom proved to be wrong, because he did invade.
The administration’s estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday’s Susan Sachs called Iraq the “phantom enemy”: “The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn’t be found.”
How did Susan Sach's verify the number of Iraqi troops?
Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler-style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf. Iraq also chafed at Kuwait’s demand that Iraq repay loans made to it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
and for this reason felt he had to invade Kuwait...so what
Administration officials seemed to understand all this.
You mean the author might give the administration some credit? NOOOOO
In July 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie told Hussein that Washington had “no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,” a statement she later regretted.
and still others feel or know that Saddam knew better.
Some have interpreted portions of these statements, particularly the language "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", as signaling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it handled everything “by the book” (in accordance with the U.S.’s official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League’s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam may have been influenced by the perception that the U.S. was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example, and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response.
The National Security Council’s first meeting after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, “Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it’s just a gas station—and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?”
an anonymous source...how convenient
But administration hawks, led by Cheney, saw a huge opportunity to capitalize on Iraq’s move against Kuwait. The elder Bush publicly pronounced, “a line has been drawn in the sand,” and he called for a “new world order ... free from the threat of terror.” His unstated premise, as noted by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was that the United States “henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree” as it attempted “to pursue our national interests.”
what's unprecedented about it? Ever heard of Korea?
The administration realized that a peaceful solution to the crisis would undercut its grand ambitions.
and just what were those grand ambitions?
The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw. To justify war with Hussein, the Bush administration condoned a propaganda campaign on Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait.
and how did it do this? If you're going to make such an accusation at least tell us how they did it.
The decision by the West to fight the Iraqi invasion had as much to do with preventing an attack on Saudi Arabia, a nation of far more economic importance to the world than Kuwait, as it did with liberating Kuwait itself. The rapid success of the Iraqi army had brought it within easy striking distance of the Hama oil fields, Saudi Arabia’s most valuable resource. Iraqi control of these fields as well as Kuwait and Iraqi reserves would have given it a way into the Saudi capital of Riyadh. The Iraqi armored divisions would have encountered the same difficulties that Saudi forces faced defending the oil fields, namely traversing large distances across inhospitable desert. This would have been exacerbated by intense bombing by the Saudi Air Force, by far the most modern arm of the Saudi military.
Iraq had a number of grievances with Saudi Arabia. The concern over debts stemming from the Iran-Iraq war was far greater when applied to Saudi Arabia, which Iraq owed some 26 billion dollars. The long desert border was also ill-defined. Soon after his victory over Kuwait, Saddam began verbally attacking the Saudi kingdom. He argued that the American-supported country was an illegitimate guardian of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Saddam combined the language of the Islamist groups that had recently fought in Afghanistan with the rhetoric Iran had long used to attack the Saudis.
Americans were riveted by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti so-called refugee’s eyewitness accounts of Iraqi soldiers yanking newborn babies out of hospital incubators in Kuwait, leaving them on a cold floor to die.
The public didn’t know that the eyewitness was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States, and that her congressional testimony was reportedly arranged by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and paid for by Kuwait as part of its campaign to bring the United States into war.
This doesn't prove the accusations of atrocities wrong nor does it prove the administration was responsible for this witness. It says the Kuwaiti government brought her to testify and doesn't attack any of her testimony, merely the fact that she was the daughter of the ambassador.
To this day, most people regard Operation Desert Storm as remarkably clean, marked by the expert use of precision weapons to minimize “collateral damage.” While American TV repeatedly broadcast pictures of cruise missiles homing in on their targets, the Pentagon quietly went about a campaign of carpet bombing. Of the 142,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait in 43 days, only about 8% were of the “smart” variety.
the technology was still new and I know from my time in Iraq that we did not indiscriminately kill civilians...
The indiscriminate targeting of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure left the country in ruins.
This is what war is for...to defeat the enemy. In the second Gulf War we deliberitely avoided destroying the infrastructure.
A United Nations mission in March 1991 described the allied bombing of Iraq as “near apocalyptic” and said it threatened to reduce “a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society ... to a preindustrial age.” Officially, the U.S. military listed only 79 American soldiers killed in action, plus 59 members of allied forces.
Isn't the defeat of your enemy the result that you want?
A subsequent demographic study by the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead—40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other international bodies.
If Saddam hand't invaded this wouldn't have happened. Blame him, it was his fault
The Gulf War amply demonstrated the merit of two adages: “War is hell” and “Truth is the first casualty.” To date, nothing suggests that a second Gulf War would prove any less costly to truth or humans
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:06 AM — (Reply)
They're laughing at the pawns, Elmer. Bush is an evil bastard. If he really believes we should be there and the safety of the world depends upon it - I would think his daughters would be the very first to enlist. If it doesn't matter to them how can he expect me to believe it?
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:14 AM — (Reply)
hence the reason it's VOLUNTARY Dugg
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:20 AM — (Reply)
Ron Paul or bust.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:37 AM — (Reply)
So if I type in a search inquiry and post it as a link, I can say,"Here's my proof," and it becomes irrefutable?
Ok, I'll try that 'logic':
You should send me money. Here's this link that supports why;
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkm7VLbNHPzwB8NZXNyoA?p=send+me+money&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8
Thank you all in advance. I appreciate your generosity as you will obviously finance my future after going to the above link.
Kermit
Comment by Kermit— 2008/02/13 @ 07:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
Do you have a link to the LA Times story you are referring to?
Comment by Elmo— 2008/02/13 @ 07:58 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 08:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/13 @ 08:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/13 @ 09:02 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 09:12 AM — (Reply)
the I got the link from Dugg's site and copied the article wholesale
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 11:23 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 11:26 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 11:27 AM — (Reply)
Thanks EB. I should have posted that years ago. Maybe never thought it would work, or never thought posting links to search queries was was verifying proof of ...anything.
Kermit
Comment by Kermit— 2008/02/13 @ 05:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
so there is quite a difference
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:30 PM — (Reply)
and after actually reading what they said instead of your spin
your mishcharacterization and in the case of the FBI your slander was quite obvious
hey Duggster - show me one time that I've used Billy boy as a source? The only time I've ever posted about him I was critical of the numb nuts so stop with the straw man and go back to hunting up your conspiracies
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Is Alex Jones your poster boy or Mr. Gunderson?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:35 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
remember you forgot the timeline? how convenient for you
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
I'm not making this shit up, Elmer. You don't like what I'm saying - I don't like it either - but I won't burry my head.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:40 PM — (Reply)
geesh dugg will you never learn
So to summarize, a group that was being funded, and only just at that, from various Iranian and Egyptian sources started to build a bomb. One of their group became an FBI informant and was paid to supervise the progress and report what was happening. A plan was hatched to raid the apartment and substitute the explosives the group had with fake stuff, but after it leaked to the group it was cancelled, and the informant was deemed unreliable, so was cut off and since he wasn't being paid any longer stopped informing. Subsequently the bomb was finished in a unknown location, and set off at the WTC. 6 months after having cut him off, and being proven horribly wrong (through hindsight) the FBI rehired the informant, but three weeks in they were still paying silly buggers with his funding which started to place the new investigation he was informing for into jeopardy. As a result he taped the conversations and made it clear that he was worried that this operation was going the same way as the last, resulting in the FBI finally paying up and giving him money that when all totalled up with what he'd already been paid came to 1.5 million dollars.
Did I miss anything?
What we have here is a total cock-up by the FBI because they didn't trust an informant and decided that he was just ripping them off and passing on bogus info, then being proven wrong in the worst possible way. Apart from their being a bunch of incompetent ignoramuses that should have been fired, how exactly did the FBI actually help the bombers other then not believing Salem that they were a real threat?
Did you attempt to refute that?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 05:32 AM — (Reply)
Mr. Salem has painted himself as a reluctant witness. But he is due to receive $1,056,200 for his work as an informer, paid in monthly installments of $7,000. The witness protection program, which has moved him 14 times since he entered it in June 1993, also pays him $2,600 per month for living expenses.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 05:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 06:04 AM — (Reply)
Reminds me of that 1 in 100000000000000000 coincedence when Dick Cheney was just happening to run wargame drills of a terrorist attack of hijacked planes hitting the WTC - at the exact same time it was really happening on 911.
Something is obviously up. Wake up!
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 05:53 PM — (Reply)
they shut down the whole operation 6 months before the actual bombing
from the NYT
One of the five candidates to head the troubled New Jersey State Police is a Federal agent who was widely criticized for his role in shutting down the surveillance of a group of terrorists several months before they succeeded in bombing the World Trade Center.
In early 1992, the F.B.I. had a paid informer, Emad Salem, reporting from the group of suspected terrorists. Mr. Salem monitored the suspects' actions as they collected firearms, purchased ingredients for explosives and discussed plans to kidnap elected officials and bomb unspecified public buildings.
But F.B.I. supervisors did not believe Mr. Salem, according to testimony Mr. Dunbar gave during a 1995 trial, so in July 1992, Mr. Dunbar met with the informer and pressured him to wear a hidden tape recorder and take a polygraph test. Mr. Salem refused to wear the tape recorder, according to Federal documents, so Mr. Dunbar refused to authorize any more payments to him, effectively ending the surveillance.
Seven months later, the same group of terrorists exploded a bomb in the basement parking ramp of the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring hundreds, in what was at the time the most destructive terrorist attack ever carried out on United States soil. The F.B.I. then rehired Mr. Salem and paid him more than $1 million to infiltrate the suspects' group again. F.B.I. agents arrested the suspects in July 1993 before they were able to carry out another plot to bomb city landmarks, including the Lincoln Tunnel and the United Nations.
The F.B.I. has never offered a complete explanation for the decision to end the surveillance. Mr. Dunbar's secretary said today that he refused to discuss either the superintendent's job or the World Trade Center investigation with reporters.
But during the terrorists' trial in 1995, Mr. Dunbar testified that F.B.I. supervisors wanted Mr. Salem to wear a tape recorder and take a polygraph test because they did not believe what he was reporting to them, and they were concerned that he might also be working as an intelligence agent for the Egyptian secret service. At the meeting, Mr. Salem showed the agents a small explosive device, which Mr. Dunbar said he thought was an M80, a powerful but easily obtainable firecracker.
''The only discussion was that I told him that we needed to have corroboration of what he told us,'' Mr. Dunbar testified.
Since the bombing, many law enforcement officials, including current and former F.B.I. agents, have criticized the decision to end the surveillance without having any other reliable way to monitor a group that was planning terrorist acts and assembling bomb materials.
''That case is something we all try to learn from,'' said an F.B.I. official in Washington. ''You don't blow off that kind of information coming from an informant unless you've got some other way to keep an eye on the suspects involved.''
uh no Dugg he wasn't the ring leader
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who preached in mosques in both Brooklyn and Jersey City that were attended by many of the defendants in the conspiracy case
.....and whether the decision to pull him off the case six months before the explosion was a fatal blunder. Mr. Salem tells the F.B.I. that he himself was recruited into the bombing conspiracy in 1992 by El Sayyid A. Nosair, the man accused of killing Rabbi Meir Kahane in 1990. In Mr. Salem's account, Mr. Nosair emerges for the first time as a central figure in the trade center plot. Mr. Salem also says he knows that Mr. Nosair, who was acquitted of the Kahane killing but sentenced to 7 1/2 to 22 1/2 years in prison on related charges, actually killed Rabbi Kahane.
NYT article describing his testimony
this is just a sampling Dugg, I'm really tired of kicking your *ss concerning this subject dugg
I'll be glad to provide more info in case you're not convinced
I won't apologize because I'm not wrong
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 05:48 AM — (Reply)
unless of course you count conspiracy kooks
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 06:19 AM — (Reply)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n76g57X4hM&eurl=http://revolutioncallingyou.bloghi.com/2008/01/27/fbi-caught-red-handed-facilitating-1993-wtc-bombing.html
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/14 @ 06:29 AM — (Reply)
I thought we were done with this ridiculousness
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 06:55 AM — (Reply)
so which is it - is the NYT right or is it wrong?
if you say it's wrong you'll have to find some more sources...if it's right then your argument is flushed down the tubes dude
I know you'll want to bring up CBS et al....please provide all the transcripts, timelines etc
thank you in advance
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 07:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 07:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 05:42 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 06:21 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/13 @ 06:47 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
What goes around came around and kicked Saddam in his @$$. although he may have really been a good man. Look at all the photos they had hanging around Iraq. They must have really loved him to let him worship himself like that. Even that came around and left him hanging.
Comment by Kermit— 2008/02/13 @ 07:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/13 @ 07:57 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 11:24 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/13 @ 11:30 AM — (Reply)