Patrick Fitzgerald:
By on Oct 11th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I hope the right-wing goes after this guy. It’ll be a big mistake. He’s a straight shooter.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:51 pmWhat I do not understand is the silence of the Democratic Leadership on this scandal. I can only surmise that it is a wait and see them bleed by themselves approach. They seem to not want to get involved for fear of “it really is a partisan attack on the administration” charge.
Well, all I can say is it looks like another lost opportunity for the Dems, just like Katrina. Had the leadership attacked after Katrina, the incompetence charge would have become a larger brain nugget (even larger than it is now) lodged within the American memory. It would have also kept the GOP on the defensive, not allowing them to use Katrina to advance Katrina tax cuts, free enterprise zones, suspension of minimum wage, and further cuts to progressive programs.
Now we have the same dilemma, indictments are looming and the only ones talking are the conservatives. We are seeing their new talking points of “bullies” & “out of control investigations” that is redefining this into something less than treason.
This is also happening with Delay/Abrahmoff, Coingate, Iraqi double-dealing, nonexistent Homeland Security, Tax cut larceny, corporate/congressional corruption, gas gouging, Frist profiteering, cronyism, Corporate Supreme Court, and many more than I care to list. Where is the Democratic Leadership’s unified outrage? What are the Democratic Leadership’s codified platforms for fixing the above problems? All we hear is the rightwing redefining everything as “it’s the liberals/Dems faultâ€, “softâ€, “not really a big dealâ€, “we are mainstreamâ€, “raising taxesâ€, “helps the economyâ€, “safer here†and all the other f**king lies they spew. NOTHING FROM OUR SO CALLED LEADERSHIP WARRIORS BUT SILENCE!
October 11th, 2005 at 2:00 pmI really hate to be nasty here, but I think Citizen is right. We Democrats should be balsting the Repubs at every opportunity for their screw ups on everything that has happened of late (not to mention the past 5 years). It appears we are content to be bystanders and watch the GOP implode – only hope that they do – and not keep the fire hot under their feet.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:15 pmWe should not let the public nor the MSM forget about any one of these scandals, we should counter every argument with the truth and the facts.
I know the Dems are not as ugly as the Repubs, but good guys finish last.
Citizen, I didn’t mean to imply any nastiness on your part — I am agreeing with you. The Dems must not be complacent wimps. It is long past time to fight back and fight back hard.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:17 pmYou didn’t hear Boxer’s complaints 15 minutes into that 5 minute vote the other day? She was gaveled down for railing against Republican corruption.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:20 pmCitizen80203 and Marie,
over at DailyKos, there is this:
“Seeing an opening to reach voters while Republicans are beset by turmoil, House Democrats are privately planning to accelerate the timing of the release of their platform and the major policies they will promote on the campaign trail next year…”
Our own Contract with America, by kos.
I collected all the best quotes about Fitz into one list: Many a good thing said of US Atty Fitzgerald
October 11th, 2005 at 2:20 pmThe Rove/PlameGate Scandal Center has a complete collection of the key articles, White House briefings, timelines, statutes and other key documents.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:32 pmSomething’s terribly wrong with this thread. F*uckBush hasn’t posted his/her useless, lame spam yet! This thread must be defective…
October 11th, 2005 at 2:38 pm#8 – That’s “buckfush” and I shot him with my tranquilizer gun.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:41 pmTruth is, I think the Dems are gun-shy — perhaps recalling “Rathergate” and “Gannongate” and a few other pile-ons that either proved embarrassing or got spun away from them. As much as I hate to see our pussified “leaders” hang fire, nothing would be more humiliating right now than a torrent of righteous, well-publicized vituperation…followed by a grand jury silence or an indictment of Judith Miller’s Mexican gardener. Plenty of opportunities to be shocked and appalled IF this investigation proves fruitful.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:45 pmCitizen80203,
This is an objective statement, not intended to be a slam, or attacking in anyway, please don’t take it as such:
My opinion of the fundamental’s about your argument/statement, that Democrats are lying low or not doing enough, is flawed and clouded by a belief that they (Democrats) are somehow more ethical or less controlled then their counterparts.
They are politicians. They are politicians in a high stakes game and are being controlled by the same entities that are controlling the opposite side of the house.
The Secret Team, or “High Cabal” as Churchill referred to them as, are truly in control. Read L. Fletcher Prouty’s book “The Secret Team” (hard to find, and expensive, but worth the read) and The Pentagon Papers. They are excellent starters for a view point of how our government truly works.
Follow them up with Howard Zinn’s A Peoples History of the United States, and/or most any book by Chomsky.
“States are not moral agents” – Chomsky (notice he doesn’t say “Republican led governments are not moral agents?”)
October 11th, 2005 at 2:52 pm“He has no agenda,” says David Kelley, former U.S. attorney in New York and a longtime friend. “He looks at the facts, uncovers the facts and goes where the facts lead him.”
So I hope the left will recall Fitz’s investigation and indictment of OBL.
“al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”
The left usual response to Fitz’s OBL investigation is to smear him, call him a liar and claim anyone can “indict a ham sandwich”. Now they praise him. Which is it?
October 11th, 2005 at 2:52 pmThe left usual response to Fitz’s OBL investigation is to smear him, call him a liar and claim anyone can “indict a ham sandwichâ€. Now they praise him. Which is it?
October 11th, 2005 at 3:06 pmNot all on the left. Some of us ask,where is Osama?
Phinga Butt Plug,
The ‘assessment’ by Fitzpatrick was initial and he WITHDREW it after more information came forward. Too bad you didn’t bother actually reading the transcript – but you’ve shown your lack of command of facts or basic concepts, so why should this be any different. Go play with yourself, you’re clearly out of your league here..
FIELDING: This is before the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the administration indicted Osama bin Laden. And the indictment, which was unsealed a few months later, reads, “al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”
So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that’s referenced in it?
FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don’t have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don’t have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.
We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.
We did understand from people, including al-Fadl — and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can’t tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago — that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn’t work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn’t work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there — which al Qaeda left in the summer of ‘96 or spring ‘96 — there were efforts to work on joint — you know, acquiring weapons.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:11 pm“The left usual response to Fitz’s OBL investigation is to smear him, call him a liar and claim anyone can “indict a ham sandwichâ€. Now they praise him. Which is it? ”
Comment by Phinga Bheng — October 11, 2005 @ 2:52 pm
Please show some examples which proves (or at least suggests) your assertion is accurate. Two would suffice.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:13 pmRyan’s ommission from the testimony continues:
“We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together.
That’s my piece of what I know. I don’t represent to know everything else, so I can’t tell you, well, what we’ve learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.”
Maybe you should read the transcript again, loser.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:27 pmCitizen, great post in #2. I have wondered this same issue as well passionately. I also think the dems should be more engaged, but Rotwang (#10) has some valid points. The wheels are falling off der uber bus almost daily without any help. In fact, Chimpus gave us a freebie with the Mier nomination, now the reichwing vultures are picking over their own carcasses with comments and appear fractionated. To Rotwang’s point, the worst we could do right now is have unorchastrated comments about situations that get worked into a defeating spin by the reich. I can only hope that the DNC is working on something pretty special that no one gets a clue.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:40 pmPhinga Butt Plug’s original posted text:
“al Qaeda reached an understanding …”
Fitzpatrick’s response on this text:
“I don’t have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don’t have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.”
In otherwords the actual text that was attributed to fitzpatrick by butt plug, was in fact non-existent text in the actual indictment. It was in fact REMOVED.
Now lets go onto the next claim made by the every idiotic butt plug who keeps claiming to ‘win’, but clearly is a stupid loser.
“And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together.”
Yes, the ‘we understood’. Interestingly enough the basis for this understanding was false intelligence supplied to Mr. Fitzpatrick by the NeoCon creeps and their allies. While it was their understanding at the time – Mr. Fitzpatrick did not conclude or FINISH an investigation, he merely reported on the information and evidence that had been supplied to him by the government. Unfortunately much of the government is like you – stupid propagandists that misrepresent and lie at a whim.
Now I’m no fan of Fitzpatrick, but at the same time, he’s about as good as you’re probably gonna get out of this incompetent administration!
October 11th, 2005 at 3:46 pmAnd Butt plug, is your reading comprehension so poor that you ‘missed this’? Of course it is…
“But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.”
In otherwords it was only suspicion, and not a claim of an actual relationship. After YEARS of investigation, the link was never proven, and this ‘possiblity’ never panned out. But then if it had been a clear relationship, Fitzpatrick would have said
“to having a working relationship with each other”, which HE DID NOT SAY, and yet it is what you originally misrepresented and lied as something he’d officially claimed in his indictment. You lied, you failed, you’re a stupid moron just like the rest of those freaks and morons on the free republic! You really should take a grammar class, it’s clear you suffer from basic command of the english language and its syntax.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:50 pmRyan, c’mon now guy. This isn’t the Bill O’Liely Super Spin Zone….
Did Osama pay off people in Sudan so he could use it as a base? You bet he did, although I have no evidence to back that up. But your Iraq & Iran stuff sucks.
Al Queda did ask Saddam if they could come to a mutual agreement. Saddam wanted a thorn in America’s ass, Osama wanted a training base & arms. Saddam decided he didn’t trust Osama & said no. Iran is almost all Shite. Al Queda is Sunni & views Shites as apostate, ie – they aren’t much better than us grigos over here.
You are obviously educated. Use that noggin of yours.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:53 pmKindness,
” Osama wanted a training base & arms. Saddam decided he didn’t trust Osama & said no.”
Exactly. There was NO working relationship between AlQueda and Iraq – that’s what I said. Mr. Butt Plug quoted text that implied Fitzpatrick had concluded the opposite – I proved him wrong. I’m not sure what your beef is, but it doesn’t seem to be related to my posting.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:01 pmok, so they can indict a ham sandwich, but can they indict corned beef and cabbage?
with an Irish-American on the case, Bush and his cronies are really deep in the shite now… as my grandmother used to say, they’re all “fooked”
October 11th, 2005 at 4:03 pmTrolls are scared and grasping at straws. Funny.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:06 pmOh oh, can they indict tuna in a can? I just hate tuna in a can.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:07 pm#26, Well, they might be able to indict tuna in brine in a can, but not tuna in oil in a can…
Or did I mean WTF!…
I don’t care what lunchfoods they can indict, I want them to indict Politicians.
Z.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:17 pmBut tuna is a can and, hell, for that matter, a ham sandwich is much more likely to give honest answers to the grand jury.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:28 pmAs long as they put them all in the can…
October 11th, 2005 at 4:51 pmGood one Sara! LOL!
October 11th, 2005 at 7:03 pmRyan,
“Interestingly enough the basis for this understanding was false intelligence supplied to Mr. Fitzpatrick by the NeoCon creeps and their allies.” Hey dipshit, that was the Clinton Justice Dept in 1998. And the 9-11 Commission testimony you’re quoting went on to ask if the panel agreed with the Staff statement that there were ties and communication between AQ and Iraq and the panel, including Fitz, said yes.
FIELDING: …Now, I would appreciate brief comments — and we’re really very short on time — of the panel as to is there validity to that report? [1999 Congressional Research Service report stating "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decides to use terrorists to attack the continental United States,he would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda."] And secondarily, in your view, in addition to what you’ve helped us with, Mr. Fitzgerald, is there any evidence or any indicia of cooperation and support on the side issue of whether it’s Iraq?
FITZGERALD: Sir, I think we are in full agreement with the staff statement in terms of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship at this time. It is an issue that we aggressively pursue in tracking down all new leads to try and deepen our understanding of what that relationship might have been.
The links between AQ and Iraq are all over the 9-11 Report, liar. Try reading it sometime, instead of refering to your liberal clif note websites.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:54 pmPhenga Butt plug,
You posted a lie, I corrected that lie. Your pea brain can’t handle being the stupid moron that you are, so you make a disproven claim and pretend it’s the truth. You have zero reading comprehension and you merely make ’statements’ that have in fact been fully discredited.
The text you include don’t even say what you claim they say. What a retarded moron you are, you clearly picked the correct political affiliation.
“The links between AQ and Iraq are all over the 9-11 Report, liar.”
Actually this an utter lie and misrepresentation. The ‘claims’ are all over the report, but for EVERY claim, it is either discredited or unsubstantiated from the Mossad or Chalabi – both who seem to lie with even greater ease than you do.
You’re wrong. You can’t produce ONE verified claim from the 9/11 report that there was a working relationship – and you SHOULD know it, although based on the ignorance and stupidity of your claims, clearly you don’t!
October 11th, 2005 at 10:06 pmFrom the New York Times:
“The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States, contradicting President Bush’s assertion that such a connection was among the reasons it was necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.”
Considering how you guys ignore all facts and science you disagree with, you will clearly continue to believe your delusion non-reality – but just because you repeat a lie doesn’t make it true!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
Most of the key claims like the Atta meeting were FULLY DISCREDITED in the 9/11 report. Considering that the republicans founded, trained and funded al queda to fight russia – there’s MORE evidence of a working relationship with you and your terrorist traitor christian taliban than there is with saddam!
October 11th, 2005 at 10:12 pmWorking relationship? Don’t see where I said that. Don’t see that in the Authorization to Use Force. Ties and connections? Fitz found it. 9-11 Commission found it. Hillary found it. Richard Clarke found it. Troops in Afghanistan found it. Read the report, Ryan. Or do I have to lay it all out for you like I always do, since you’re to lazy to look it up.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:07 pmOriginal posting by Phenga Benga:
“al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.â€
When it was pointed out that this was in fact FALSE, and was even removed from the report as it was deemed FALSE in the final indictment – what does Phenga ButtPlug do? The same thing OLiely, LimpButt and every other Freeper liar does – he says he never said what in fact he CLEARLY said.
Your own words show you’re a liar!
“Working relationship? Don’t see where I said that.”
Sure you did – the quote you originally posted says EXACTLY that you retarded dope!
“Don’t see that in the Authorization to Use Force. Ties and connections? Fitz found it. ”
Not true – Fitz EXAMINED, and in fact says he DIDN’T find any active ties. In fact what WAS found was that OBL tried to overthrow Saddam using the Kurds, and therefore Saddam hated him. See unlike you I HAVE read the report – what’s your excuse you moron!
From the report:
“There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.”
“9-11 Commission found it. Hillary found it. Richard Clarke found it. ”
Not true.
“Troops in Afghanistan found it. ”
Not true.
“Read the report, Ryan. Or do I have to lay it all out for you like I always do, since you’re to lazy to look it up.”
Please, you’ve NEVER laid anything out. Everything you’ve posted I’ve proven you’re wrong on. You’re an idiot, and you’re too stupid to even know – the saddest part of all!
Number of references in the 9/11 report to Saudi: 419
Number of references to Saddam: 22
The REAL connections were to the Saudi’s not Saddam – that’s why virtually everyone involved in 9/11 was from Saudi Arabia. Your claims are nonsense. You obviously never read anything about the Golden Chain and the Saudi financing of Osama.
“Bin Ladin eventually enjoyed a strong financial position in Afghanistan, thanks to Saudi and other financiers associated with the Golden Chain.”
“Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi.”
Most of the ‘Iraqi connections’ cited by the 9/11 commissions were Chalabi and other Iraqis who have been discredited. You trust Chalabi to much, and you’re obviously part of the brainwashed NeoCon stupid dupes who bought off on fabricated nonsense. The ’sources’ who told of these meetings never produced ANY evidence to confirm it – and NONE was found in Iraq which did. You’ve drunk the coolaid you poor pathetic dope!
October 11th, 2005 at 11:39 pmFor those that haven’t read it yet – the 9/11 report is available in PDF here.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
It’s searchable as well, and it’s easy to find fun bits for throwing back in the faces of these morons who make false claims about it.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:46 pmLooks like Phunky ButtPlug’s association with 9/11 was more relevant than he realized. Looks like Fitz may be getting payback for being duped with fake evidence.
“Lawyers say investigation into CIA leak widens to probe ‘broader conspiracy’ around Iraq?”
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Lawyers_say_investigation_into_CIA_1011.html
How delicious is that! Go get’em fitz! Bring the whole blasted free republic NeoCon freakshow to its knees! GO FITZ GO!
October 12th, 2005 at 12:19 amAs usual Ryan employs insults, name calling and lies because he can’t advance his argument with facts. So the here are the links and connections between AQ and Iraq from the 9-11 Commission Report, which Fitz agreed with – as quoted in his testimony which I provided. Oh, and “working relationship” is a quote that can’t be attributed to me.
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin
apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi
regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded
to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to
establish connections.
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to
build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage.
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that
Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National
Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s
having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.†Other
intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar,
had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote
Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually
impossible†to find him.
Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in
October 12th, 2005 at 2:42 pmBaghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.
Mr. Butt Plug,
That proves nothing other than they had ‘one reliable source’, and that source didn’t know for sure. Did you even read the post? “may have offered him asylum”.
The source didn’t even know the specifics of what supposedly happened – clearly not a ‘reliable’ source when all they have is speculation. But speculation and no facts is all a reichwinger like Phenga Benga needs to believe in order to make wild claims. Once again – a ’supposed’ and ‘unproven’ offer that never happend, was never accepted, and NEVER TURNED INTO A RELATIONSHIP – only proves my point you witless dope!
October 12th, 2005 at 3:41 pmProves that links and communication did exist. It was all in the report that you said didn’t exist, including Clarke recognizing and discussing the links and communication that you said was untrue.
October 12th, 2005 at 4:20 pm“Proves that links and communication did exist. It was all in the report that you said didn’t exist, including Clarke recognizing and discussing the links and communication that you said was untrue.
Comment by Phinga Bheng”
Once again that wasn’t what you original proposed – and I discredited you on. We sold WMDs to Iraq – we have more links thank AlQueda did – so your premise is nonsense. To communicate a couple of times is NOT having a link, hell we’ve done more than that with North Korea lately.
Your ‘premise’ is flawed – and your evidence doesn’t prove what you say it proves. Unverified testimony that’s squishy at best only proves there MIGHT have been some tentative communication – it doesn’t prove any LINKS, or WORKING RELATIONSHIPS.
Since you seem incapable of holding a conversation, argument or even single train of thought (a common problem with the irrational freerepublic oxycotin morons), let me remind you of what you posted:
“that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.—
NONE of the evidence you wrote establishes or even implies this. In fact it DISPROVES it. So once again, you’re a lying propagandist that is making conclusions that the facts do not support. But then again, you’re a republican, the truth is your enemy!
October 12th, 2005 at 4:34 pmYes, that quote from the first grand jury indictment was posted by me and Fitz’s said nothing in his testimony to the 911 Commission that disproved it, didn’t say it was false, didn’t say that al-Fadl’s testimony was false, didn’t retract that allegation in the first indictment (superseded does not mean it was false or never exsited), in fact confirmed it. Now go research the Sudan-Iraq-Al Qaida Al-Shifa connection (that Fitz and Mary Jo included in the first indictment) because you don’t understand it as the previous administration, Mary Jo White, Fitz, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, Maddy Albright, Hillary Clinton, this Bush administration and numerous mid-east intel experts do. I’m settin you up buddy, trappin ya like a rat. This is going to be GREAT! Bwhahahahahaha!
October 12th, 2005 at 7:58 pm“Yes, that quote from the first grand jury indictment was posted by me and Fitz’s said nothing in his testimony to the 911 Commission that disproved it, didn’t say it was false,didn’t say that al-Fadl’s testimony was false, didn’t retract that allegation in the first indictment (superseded does not mean it was false or never exsited), in fact confirmed it.”
Actually you’re wrong. What Fitz said was:
“the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn’t work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Not working against each other (eg. fighting) is not the same as working WITH. So you’re wrong. He doesn’t supply ANY testimony that confirms your statement.
Once again, your conclusion is wrong, and your statement is a propaganda lie!
“Now go research the Sudan-Iraq-Al Qaida Al-Shifa connection (that Fitz and Mary Jo included in the first indictment) because you don’t understand it as the previous administration, Mary Jo White, Fitz, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, Maddy Albright, Hillary Clinton, this Bush administration and numerous mid-east intel experts do. I’m settin you up buddy, trappin ya like a rat. This is going to be GREAT! Bwhahahahahaha!”
Really, so now you change the subject and make more claims and lies that are unsubstantiated. Because both sides had a mutual relationship with Sudan does not mean they have ties, any more than our ties to China mean we have ties with North Korea or Iran (both of which China has ties to). Just because you make a ‘leap of faith’ doesn’t mean it exists. If there had been conclusive proof – those words would appear in the 9/11 commission – they don’t. You’re grasping for straws to justify a stupid and illegal invasion – just that grasping for straws. You’re truly a nitwit.
And while you’re criticizing the previous administration, would that be the same previous administration that SUCCESSFULLY thwarted the millenium bombing, whereas this administration couldn’t pull their head out of their ass and read presidential memos that said EXACTLY what 9/11 was going to be? Oh if anyone doesn’t get it – it’s you!
I notice how the 9/11 left out the fact that osama was trained and recruited by the same NeoCons to fight in afghanistan. Too bad republicans who claim to ‘get it’, never seem to have long enough memories to realize they create these monsters. And while we’re at it, how about Rumsfeld selling WMDs to Saddam? Or Cheney/Rumsfeld selling Plutonium reactors to Iran? Or trading weapons for hostages?
Your claims are nonsense – and they don’t pan out. You only proved you’re an idiot. Your ‘assumptions’ are reading between the lines looking for things that aren’t in the report. You like OLiely and LimpButt made up crap – in the same way you claim religion means things it doesn’t mean. It’s what idiots do (that would be you).
October 12th, 2005 at 11:31 pmAnd FYI to Phreaky ButtPlug and every other stupid freeper.
Testimony from a single witness that only heard of an event is NOT evidence – it’s heresay at most – something that is not even admissible in court as evidence. That’s WHY it wasn’t used in the indictment you retarded morons!
October 12th, 2005 at 11:36 pmOh, and while we’re making outrageous claims about clinton on alqueda, lets bring in a dose of reality.
1) Clinton’s staff told Bush that ALQUEDA and terrorism should be their top priority – they ignored this advice and 9/11 happened. It wasn’t that clinton didn’t get it. It’s that you and your sex obsessed moronic buddies didn’t get it – and you still don’t!
2) Clinton bombed sudan – or did you forget that? While we’re talking about the sudanese, don’t forget that Clinton actually went after one of their facilities – and what has bush done? Allowed the islamic government to MASSACRE its population that isn’t muslim.
3) Clinton bombed Afghanistan and ALMOST took out Osama. He wanted to invade and take osama – but he was told that he would receive support from the military (who resented him) or republicans in congress (who were as stupid and shortsighted as you are).
You make all of these outrageous and unfounded claims – but the TRUTH says you and your side are irresponsible and inept at ALL things, especially foreign policy. If an idiot like you can’t tell the difference between heresay and evidence – it just goes to show how stupid the average republican truly is!
October 12th, 2005 at 11:45 pmOnce again you’re employ insults and lies because you can’t advance your argument with facts. And your rant proves my initial point in this post that liberals are praising Fitz now, but attack his first indictment of OBL as lies and nonsense. Claims I’m changing the subject, when al-Shifa was relevant to the first indictment. Contrary to what Ryan claims, the first indictment is indeed and actual indictment after a two year investigation based on evidence that Fitz provided to the grand jury. It must have been compelling because the grand jury agreed with Fitz. Is Fritz a neocon liar? Which is it – brilliant and apolitical or neocon liar? My first question that Ryan gladly confirmed my point. Of course, Ryan changes the subject himself with liberal talking points about Clinton’s successes and Bush’s failures that aren’t even relevant to the thread. Regardless, Al-Fadl was the governments star witness used by the Clinton Administration (Fitz), but Ryan now marginalizes him and claim al-Fadl is a neocon creep.
RYAN: “Interestingly enough the basis for this understanding was false intelligence supplied to Mr. Fitzpatrick by the NeoCon creeps and their allies.”
Fitz’s first indictment was base on lies provided by neocons. What? Does this expose Ryan’s lack of knowledge in this matter or what? Paranoid? Irrational? Yes.
Ryan also claims I’m criticizing the Clinton when I did no such thing. Sounds like HE’S reading between the lines. The fact is he has no understanding of the Sudan-Irag-Al Qaida al-Shifa connection. The Clinton administration did. Richard Clarke did, but Ryan claims that’s a lie. He also claims this is not in the 9-11 report, but it is (see the excerpt I posted earlier from the report that Ryan claims he read). Not that it should be since the 9-11 Commission wasn’t there to thoroughly investigate that matter. I can link Ryan to some very technical research on this matter, but since he looks for simple explanations (paranoid mentality) maybe he should look up al-shifa on wikipedia.
Who needs cartoons when we have Ryan to make fun of. But I’m tired of this idiot. This used to be place where I could respectively debate liberals until Ryan hijacked the threads.
October 13th, 2005 at 3:34 pmVENI, VEDI, VICI
“Once again you’re employ insults and lies because you can’t advance your argument with facts. And your rant proves my initial point in this post that liberals are praising Fitz now, but attack his first indictment of OBL as lies and nonsense. Claims I’m changing the subject, when al-Shifa was relevant to the first indictment. Contrary to what Ryan claims, the first indictment is indeed and actual indictment after a two year investigation based on evidence that Fitz provided to the grand jury.”
But it’s so easy to insult you. Well first of all Richard Clarke categorically states that there was no 9/11 connection. Second of all, the OFFICIAL report reads as follows:
“But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
No operational relationship – you lose! Any ‘ties’ are non-operational, therefore non-functional, therefore irrelevant.
“Contrary to what Ryan claims, the first indictment is indeed and actual indictment after a two year investigation based on evidence that Fitz provided to the grand jury. It must have been compelling because the grand jury agreed with Fitz.”
Actually it was based on evidence that the administration provided to fitz and he passed on. Much of that evidence was subsequently discredited – but then again you don’t seem to listen to anything but limbaugh, so I doubt you know that.
And to correct yet another incorrect notion you have, indictment doesn’t have to be ‘compelling’, only a court conviction requires that. An indictment just needs to provide enough evidence to warrant a trial.
If you want a jury to CONVICT on a particular indictment, you have to have convincing proof – had it ever dawned on your pea brain that the reason they change this indictment is because they couldn’t prove the other one? I work with attornies all the time – the don’t REMOVE indictments or even rephrase them unless they can’t prove it. They would have added another charge, not revised the old one.
“Which is it – brilliant and apolitical or neocon liar? My first question that Ryan gladly confirmed my point.”
Actually that remains to be seen. I was reacting to the thing you posted that only told part of the story – a typical propagandist action. I think most people are complex – and I believe there’s a tossup as to whether Fitz is either or BOTH of those things.
“Of course, Ryan changes the subject himself with liberal talking points about Clinton’s successes and Bush’s failures that aren’t even relevant to the thread. ”
Actually I was responded to your statement that everyone agreed. People didn’t agree with ALL of the assessments – which is what your bullshit post implied. Most of the people you mentioned have subsequently said that the intelligence they were spoon fed from the PNAC PJERKS was false, and that they were betrayed, and that there was NOT enough evidence to go to war. But recognizing this would require recognizing ambiguity and reality – clearly your ability to distinguish both is diminished.
“Regardless, Al-Fadl was the governments star witness used by the Clinton Administration (Fitz), but Ryan now marginalizes him and claim al-Fadl is a neocon creep.”
Is the same Fadl who was skimming money from Bin Laden and had to flee for his life? Yeah, a man who steals from his boss is a REALLY reliable kinda guy…
God you PNAC morons are such stupid dopes!
“Fitz’s first indictment was base on lies provided by neocons. What? Does this expose Ryan’s lack of knowledge in this matter or what? Paranoid? Irrational? Yes.”
Absolutely. There’s a reason that Fitz is now rumored to be investigating the ‘Iraq Gang’ for their fabrication and ‘coercion’ of evidence. You’ve been watching faux news too much – this stuff has been bubbling in washington for months. The Niger memos, the ‘fake’ intelligence on nerve gas truks. Good old Curve ball was helping Chalabi and the NeoCon freaks come up with every lie and excuse in the book.
Paranoid? Really? Is that why there are no WMDs, and NO evidence of a relationship between AlQueda and Iraq has been found in Iraq? You call someone else paranoid? Bahaha, you’re an idiot!
“Ryan also claims I’m criticizing the Clinton when I did no such thing. Sounds like HE’S reading between the lines. ”
You dragged in the clinton administration into the mix with Clarke, I responded.
“The fact is he has no understanding of the Sudan-Irag-Al Qaida al-Shifa connection. The Clinton administration did. Richard Clarke did, but Ryan claims that’s a lie. ”
You mean like the American, Chinese, North Korean connection? This means nothing. Unless there was a working relationship between AlQueda and Iraq, there wasn’t one. And according to the 9/11 formal information I posted above – there wasn’t one.
“He also claims this is not in the 9-11 report, but it is (see the excerpt I posted earlier from the report that Ryan claims he read). ”
Actually the report talks about MUCH earlier cooperation between sudan and iraq on chemical weapons. Since the Iraq War PROVED that there was no active weapons program occurring in Iraq – all of these ‘claims’ are largely historical and not relevant to the recent conflict.
“Not that it should be since the 9-11 Commission wasn’t there to thoroughly investigate that matter. I can link Ryan to some very technical research on this matter, but since he looks for simple explanations (paranoid mentality) maybe he should look up al-shifa on wikipedia.”
Doubtful. You’d probably send me to the free republic or some other propaganda site. This sort of ‘higher knowledge’ is typical of the reichwing approach. If the 9/11 commission wasn’t there to THOROUGHLY investigate the matter – what were those millions of dollars of taxpayer money and reams of research for? Don’t treat everyone like an idiot, while you’re being one. It just looks like you’re desperate to win an argument you already lost – which clearly you feel the need to do.
“Who needs cartoons when we have Ryan to make fun of. But I’m tired of this idiot. This used to be place where I could respectively debate liberals until Ryan hijacked the threads.
VENI, VEDI, VICI”
Funny, I would say the same about you. Your first interaction with me was one where you were an idiot – you haven’t changed. Respectfully to you means where you can post lies and they won’t call you an idiot for doing it. I give no such courtesy to morons.
Besides we both know morons like you don’t come to ‘debate’ you come to convince yourself that you haven’t fvcked up. Well you have – so get a life! You voted for a moron, and went into an unjustified war. There were NO 9/11 or AlQueda ties to Iraq and any ‘meetings’ they had are less than the meetings WE had with AlQueda related to Afghanistan.
And I love how you completely dodged EVERY mention I gave of the Reagan/GHBush ties to AlQueda. It must be painful for an indignant and self righteous twit like you to realize that the same morons who trained AlQueda are therefore responsible for 9/11. After all, without CIA training, you and I both know his crew would never have been sophisticated enough to pull it off. You and the pseudo intellectual morons of the PNAC who play adult games with the intellects of children screwed up. You’re all guilty of those murders – they’re on YOUR hands. Especially when you count in that Bush was asleep at the wheel DESPITE warnings from Berger and Clarke over the risks.
You guys are all irresponsible lying and unaccountable morons. The only thing you should be debating is why you even feel you have a right to show your faces after the disasters you’ve inflicted on this nation! You’re all shameful idiots!
October 14th, 2005 at 3:32 amOh, and this is one of my favorite harper’s index items:
Estimated number of U.S. intelligence reports on Iraq that were based on a single defector: 100
You asked for more facts – I supplied them. You lose – loser!
October 14th, 2005 at 3:42 amOh, and I just can’t resist applying this final smackdown to Mr. Know nothing know it all that I bet he doesn’t even know…
Number of times the defector had ever been interviewed by U.S. intelligence agents: 0
Yeah – reliable intelligence alright. You know it’s easier when Rove/Libby are your targets, and you actually have the witnesses and emails that prove concrete events. I don’t know if Fitz is a PNAC flunky on foreign policy or not – but my guess is that he didn’t like being made a fall guy in the 9/11 affair. If he has half a brain, he’ll relish the payback he can give the entire ‘Iraq gang’ now. Hopefully he’ll have the balls to do it, and not be a wuss like buttplug is.
October 14th, 2005 at 3:47 amXBOX 360
XBOX 360 games
December 17th, 2005 at 11:33 pmCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 17th, 2005 at 11:35 pmVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 3:52 pmBrad Pitt
Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 3:55 pmFree Horoscope
Horoscope
December 19th, 2005 at 5:58 pmWedding Bands
Wedding Bands
December 20th, 2005 at 11:42 pm50Cent
50Cent
December 21st, 2005 at 2:45 amjennifer lopez
jennifer lopez
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:44 pmDragonball
Dragonball
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:29 amcell phones
cell phones
December 25th, 2005 at 6:10 amcheap web hosting
cheap web hosting
December 25th, 2005 at 6:20 amcheap webhosting
cheap webhosting
December 25th, 2005 at 7:14 amjohn spencer
john spencer
December 27th, 2005 at 12:48 pmelton john
elton john
December 27th, 2005 at 12:49 pmpuddle of mud
puddle of mud
December 28th, 2005 at 9:07 amsports tickets
sports tickets
December 30th, 2005 at 8:42 pmjewelry
Jewelry
January 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pmjewellery
jewellery
January 1st, 2006 at 8:53 pmFree Texas Hold Um…
Free Texas Hold Um – on fire……
January 8th, 2006 at 2:54 pm