Stephen Hayes Strikes Out (Again)
Stephen Hayes Strikes Out (Again)
Stephen Hayes has a new article in the Weekly Standard called “Saddam’s Philippines Terror Connection,†the latest installment in his effort to prove that Hussein and al Qaeda had a collaborative relationship. The piece is the current darling of the right-wing blogosphere. John Hinderaker of Powerline calls it “a can’t-miss piece by America’s most important journalist.”
In the article, Hayes claims that “Saddam Hussein’s regime provided financial support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s.†Perhaps that’s true and significant. But nothing in Hayes’ article proves it or is even particularly interesting. Here’s why:
1. Both of the Iraqi documents Hayes cites show that Iraq declined to support Abu Sayyaf, financially or otherwise, because of its terrorist activities.
2. Neither of the documents proves that Iraq ever supported Abu Sayyaf. According to Hayes, this is the key passage, from an Iraqi document describing their response to an Abu Sayyaf kidnapping: “We have all cooperated in the field of intelligence information with some of our friends to encourage the tourists and the investors in the Philippines…The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them.” Hayes says this passage “seems to confirm†to that Iraq provided Abu Sayyaf with financial support. But the language (as Hayes implicitly acknowledges) is vague and could refer to financial support from another country.
3. Sporadic contact between Iraq and Abu Sayyaf is old news. As Hayes acknowledges, the State Department’s Matthew Daley publicly testified about some suspected contacts between Iraq and Abu Sayyaf in March 2003.
In short, nothing in Hayes article changes our fundamental understanding Iraq’s “connections†to al-Qaeda established by the 9/11 Commission. Some sporadic contacts? Yes. A collaborative relationship? No.
The bigger mystery is why Hayes bothers with such esoteric topics to try and establish a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. After all, he’s the author of a book called “The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America†and an article called “Case Closed: The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.†Oh yeah, those didn’t hold up to scrutiny either.
UPDATE: The Hayes article focuses on a couple of documents from a much larger dump of raw intelligence. Even the Bush administration acknowledges there is nothing “surprising” in any of them. From the Boston Globe:
US intelligence officials say nearly all the documents released have been given at least a cursory reading by Arabic experts. Beth Marple, [Director of National Intelligence John] Negroponte’s deputy press secretary, said amateur translators won’t find any major surprises, such as proof Hussein hid stockpiles of chemical weapons.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If you tell people what they want to hear it doesn’t matter if you are right or not.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:04 pmwatch this
March 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pmObviously, the term intelligence failure not only carries throughout government agencies, but it echoes so eloquently throughout the hollowed out right wing blogladytes’ skulls as well.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:00 pmSaddam and al-Qaeda…
originally published at the American Thinker The proof has been right in front of you the entire time. Documents available on the internet, which pass the smell test and are probably genuine, show the link between Saddam and al Qaeda….
March 18th, 2006 at 8:17 pmStephen Hayes is right. Go to http://www.rayrobison.com and look in the Saddam and al-Qaeda catagory to see 2 essays using captured Iraqi documents that instruct the Iraq Intelligence service to provide technical support to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which is a large portion of al_qaeda. I also show from a captured al-Qaeda document that they sent fighters “to Saddam”.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:25 pmWhile you are there enjoy the many new articles that analyze just released Saddam tapes to show that Saddam was concealing nuclear activity as late as 2002, had lied in his declaration of WMD and could never account for it and that they paid off the Russians. When you folks have had enough of Think Progress’s crap analysis that is.
Ray,
I read your article and it has nothing to do with Hayes’ article. It’s more deception but on another topic. Typical right-wing tactic, when you are caught in a lie just change the subject.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:31 pm[...] Yes, it’s bogus. Judd at Think Progress explains why. [...]
March 18th, 2006 at 8:34 pmYou say tomato,I say tomato….what’s the next line? Ah,yes,but I’m afraid we can’t call the whole thing off even though it’s been a huge mistake. After 3 years, and with on average more than 100,000 Iraqis working either for the CPA or the US reconstruction effort,we can’t seem to find people to translate all of this material which could show factual support for the invasion. Could it be there isn’t any?
March 18th, 2006 at 8:35 pmYou’d think we would have gotten more for the $300++ billion spent so far. Maybe in Iran we’ll be showered with flowers and greeted as liberators.
they still keep trying to lie to us, we will get TOUGHER and work harder to expose thoe many lies. We all owe it to all of thoes that have died so far.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pmbigboy,
March 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pmthe articles both show one end of the Saddam-al-qaeda relationship from secret and private documents captured in Afghanistan and Iraq and both show support to the other. What does that not have to do with Hayes article that Iraq supported Jihad. Your reasoning skills demonstrate exactly why the dems have lost everything.
Just admit it, it is true, you were all lied to by the liberal leaders who didn’t mind when clinton made these claims. Its through, the proof is out now, you lose, admit it.
Judd says,
But the passage Judd quotes to “prove” that says,
The phrase “from now on” obviously implies they were receiving support up to that point. Why would Judd choose to post such obvious nonsense? He must have a pretty low opinion of his fellow-traveling readers.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:43 pmProDumbass,
But the point was ‘from where’ was the support coming. By ‘not letting them receive’, doesn’t mean that they were giving any support, but merely they weren’t interfering with support.
By using your typical republican ‘convenient speech’, the US is responsible for all terrorist funding that has gone on over the last 50 years because we didn’t ’stop it’.
You’re a moron, an idiot, and a fool – and you’re just as ‘vague’ and ‘dishonest’ as Hadley and the rest of the NeoNaziCons are.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:48 pmSee you gotta think like a B-Team Buffoon in order for what Hayes says to make sense. Secondly to be a Neo-Con “Toady” you need only be less accurate than a weatherman. Heres this from Wolfitz article;
—————————————-
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/intel_and_policy.htm
“Please don’t put me down as an intelligence basher. I could not have achieved what I did without the first-rate intelligence support I often received. Even the much-maligned “weekly reader” [National Intelligence Daily] is useful, because it covers events that don’t make it into the newspapers.”
In distinguishing helpful from unhelpful intelligence analysis, Ambassador Wolfowitz elaborates his views on the challenge of uncertainty in decisionmaking.
“Uncertainty about the meaning of events and especially about prospective threats and opportunities complicates every policy decision. On a good day, you deal with 60-40 odds. Most of the time it is much less clear-cut than that.”
In his view, moreover, the serious policymaker cannot ignore a 10-percent likelihood that could have a major impact on US security, much less a 40-percent likelihood.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:48 pm——————————————–
So you can be absolutely wrong, as Duhbya, and still, to a Neo-Con, look somehow competent.
RR,
There’s ‘no such proof’, but then again, you retards think the earth is flat, so what do you know. Republicans are such retarded morons – is it genetic, or do your parents just teach you to be retards?
March 18th, 2006 at 8:49 pmidiots, go to my website http://www.rayrobison.com and see for yourself that these are captured tapes and documents. Go to the links in the article and see for yourselves the Iraq and al-Qaeada documents. Or just admit that you don’t care what the truth is, you are perfectly willing to lie no matter how much proof you see
March 18th, 2006 at 8:51 pmRetardRepublican,
You’re an idiot and a fool, grow up loser, and stop promoting your Nazi Blog – it’s undignified.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:52 pmRyan, do you need me to post the link to the documents?
March 18th, 2006 at 8:54 pmSaddam admits to inaccurate WMD report, can’t admit to U.N. because of Iran WMD attack
ISGQ-2003-M0004666 page 13
After admitting to gassing the Iranians, Saddam says that Iraq can’t meet the UN requirement to account for all chemical weapons because they used some and lied about it, therefor, they couldn’t account for the missing weapons:
“So in all your programs (evidence-RR) that you present in Chemical (UN chemical inspection team-RR) there still will be a gap, and whenever he (Rolf Ekeus-UN inspector-RR) wants to raise it…..between the imported data (declaration of how much chemical precursors Iraq imported-RR) and the weapons produced and the destroyed, there is going to be a gap a number of weapons used in Iran you guys didn’t cover.”
Saddam was trapped in a web of his own deceit. Iraq could never account for the weapons to end the inspections and American belief that he had WMD because we knew they were missing some and Iraq couldn’t say why. Poetic justice anyone. I think I hear the ghosts of Halabja cheering as I type.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pmwhen are you gonna post the Pakistan Documents related to 9/11 RR?
Hell RR we know from FOIA that Bush/Reagan Sold Saddam WMD stuff. Thats all old stuff you have.
Wheres the Beef?
March 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pmSaddam admits to chemical attack on Iran!
ISGQ-2003-M0004666 bottom of page 12
While it has been strongly suspected that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran during the war, it has never been proven (to my knowledge). Here it is straight from Saddam:
“But at the same time I know that America is looking to prove our use of chemicals against Iran! And we in fact did use chemical on the Iranians. And we didn’t answer them that we used chemical on the Iranians.”
I really hope somebody on the Saddam prosecution has this tape.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:56 pmProof Russia was paid off to look the other way!!!
Russia paid off to look the other way on UN inspections.
ISGQ-2003-M0004667
“We have succeded in a few of the U.N. paragraphs (referring to the paragraphs of resolutions stating conditions Iraq must meet to remove the sanctions-Ray) we have won Russia, ahhh…we have convinced Russia by way of generous accounts (payoffs)”
March 18th, 2006 at 8:56 pmClear evidence of nuclear cover up!
ISGQ-2003-M0004932 page 6
This meeting with Saddam is probably in 2001 based on the conversation about U.N. inspections. The briefer tells Saddam that three scientists arrested in Germany are a problem. It comes up again here:
“We still have two issues Sir (Saddam-RR). Very simple. What the doctor said about the experts. There held in Germany. They have detailed knowledge of our weaponry. So we should go and give the information that they gave already.”
So three scientist are arrested in Germany and the briefer recomends that they come clean with what those men knew. In 2001 or close to it, Iraq was still keeping secrets about its nuclear program! After ten years of inspections, minus the 4 years the inspectors were kicked out that is, they were hiding WMD information.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:58 pmRedneckRepublicanAlabamaCracker,
Poetic Justice is a bunch of redneck republican greedy oil industry morons with their hands stuck in the Oil Cookie jar. What’s pathetic is moronic redneck crackers like you who are too retarded to know what exactly you’re defending or fighting.
You’re pathetic, and the ghosts you hear cheering are the ghosts of the Republican party as you wash yourselves away in corruption, failure, ineptitude and incompetent leadership. In otherwords, you and your leaders are more like Saddam than you are like america.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:58 pmThe Combating Terrorism Center at West Point just released a study on al-Qaeda. Part of the study included al-Qaeda documents captured in Afghanistan. The study focus is on al-Qaeda, and had nothing to say about any connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
But such evidence is there none the less, buried in the details.
One document talks about Saddam:
Doc ID: AFGP-2002-601693
Date: Unknown
Author: Abu Mus’ab
Now look at these passages:
Page 4
“I read your criticism of the doctor “[undoubtedly this is al-Zawahri – RR]
We can conclude from this that these men are at a high level for one of them to be openly writing letters critical of al-Zawahri. It continues skipping a few lines for brevity:
“…that’s what he and along with Abu Hammam and others have done. Some of them went to Saddam; others went to Iran and so on. May Allah make us steadfast to his religion and I praise Him for making me say everything had happen.”
I included the second sentence because it seems equivalent to swearing to God that this was true, which is probably significant for a Jihadist.
Consider carefully that these are captured al-Qaeda document from Afghanistan from what would seem to be a high level source. And this al-Qaeda operative is indicating that fighters, Mujahedeen were sent to Iraq before the Iraq war.
But wait, there’s more, as the TV commercials say.
On page 2:
“After my release I found that people came from the Sudan and everywhere, and began fighting along side the Taliban movement which for Pakistan was a substitute for Hikmatyar. Everyone, even the children in the streets knew that they were created and controlled by Pakistan. Their leader Fadhlurahman is a friend of Banazeer, Saddam and Qaddafi. They comprise of the veteran sheiks…”
So the author tells us here that in 2002, before the invasion of Iraq that people came to the aid of the Taliban (actually they were probably Mujahedeen outside of Afghanistan) and brags that the leader was a friend of the infidel Saddam and that they were most pious.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:00 pmSo what do the documents tell us?
I recommend that you review them, as they contain such interesting nuggets as a program by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to hunt down and kill Americans throughout the Middle East and Africa.
But how does this connect Saddam to al-Qaeda?
Look at document 14.
Here is the condensed version. The document is from the IIS and details plans to meet with an official from the “Egyptian Al-Jehad†via a Sudanese official named Ali Othman Taha.
That’s right, Ayman al-Zawahri, one of the talking heads of al-Qaeda who treated us to a new video not so long ago. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization combined with Osama Bin Ladin’s supporters to form al-Qaeda.
The EIJ is neck deep in al-Qaeda. And this documents shows an EIJ official to be escorted to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1993.
Now look at document 28.
This document is a continuation of document 27 and in general talks about overturning the Egyptian government and “providing technical support†presumably to the EIJ in efforts against the Egyptian government and American non-military interests.
So let ’s put this in context. Here’s what the documents tell us:
On February 26th, 1993 the first world trade center was attacked by al-Qaeda and the EIJ (really two organizations that cooperated in 1993 and eventually merged).
A month later an official from EIJ was meeting with Saddam in Baghdad.
We have a document showing Saddam authorizing the IIS to “provide technical support†to the EIJ, and by extension, al-Qaeda.
And then al-Qaeda and the EIJ attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001 led by an Egyptian Jihadist, Mohammed Atta.
Now you have proof Saddam provided support to the EIJ and by extension al-Qaeda, both of which attacked us on 9/11.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:03 pmRyan, you are pathetic
March 18th, 2006 at 9:05 pmHayes, in particular and Busheviks in general take the least likely, least credible evidence and make assumptions not supported by the full evidence to support a political agenda and are not using objective analysis, but the most specious subjectivity known to ideologues such as Hayes.
Hayes’ is not simply a minority position, but one that is in opposition to the preponderance of evidence
Another of Hayes’ mendacious scribbling from last year in the National Standard:
“ON OCTOBER 15, 2001, the CIA received a report from a foreign government service that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein had struck a deal with the government of Niger to purchase several tons of partially processed uranium, known as “yellowcake.” The first report was met with some skepticism. The CIA found the substance of the report plausible but expressed concern about its sourcing. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was more dubious. INR thought it unlikely that the government of Niger would take the substantial risks involved in doing illicit business with a rogue regime. INR analysts also expressed doubt that the transaction could have taken place because the uranium mines in Niger are controlled by a French consortium, which would be reluctant to work with Saddam Hussein–an objection that seems naive with the benefit of hindsight.â€
“On October 18, 2001, the CIA published a Senior Executive Intelligence Bulletin that discussed the finding. “According to a foreign government service, Niger as of early this year planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq under an agreement concluded late last year.” The report noted the sourcing: “There is no corroboration from other sources that such an agreement was reached or that uranium was transferred.”
The Devil is in the details: and Hayes uses the term “plausible†but the reference is “possible†in the reference text below. This is a clear attempt to shade the data to a specific perspective.
Sited here: Page 2 Niger section
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf
The intelligence report said the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999, and was approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. According to the cable, Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja gave his stamp of approval for the agreement and communicated his decision to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The report also indicated that in October 2000 Nigerien Minister of Foreign Affairs Nassirou Sabo informed one of his ambassadors in Europe that Niger had concluded an -accord to provide several tons of uranium to Iraq.
At the time, all IC analysts interviewed by Committee staff considered this initial report to be very limited and lacking needed detail. CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of Energy (DOE) analysts considered the reporting to be “possible†while the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) regarded the report as “highly suspect,†primarily because INR analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction and did not believe Niger would be able to transfer uranium to Iraq because a French consortium maintained control of the Nigerien uranium industry.
Only the CIA wrote a finished intelligence product on the report (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief [SEIB],Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Eforts, October 18, 200 1). Regarding the Niger reporting the SEIB said:
Page 3
-There is no corroboration from other sources that such an agreement was reached or that uranium was transferred.
-United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687 prohibits Iraq from purchasing uranium, although the transfer would not require the application of safeguards.
In view of the origin, the uranium probably is in the form of yellowcake and will need further processing to be used in an uranium enrichment plant. Iraq has no known facilities for processing or enriching the material.
-The quantity of yellowcake to be transferred could support the enrichment of enough uranium for at least one nuclear weapon.
@) On November 20,2001, U.S. Embassy Niamey disseminated a cable on a recent meeting between the ambassador and the Director General of Niger’s French-led consortium. The Director General said “there was no possibility†that the government of Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines.
Note as well that Hayes leaves out the details from the French consortium and the CIA’s written assessment that “Iraq has no known facilities for processing or enriching the material.â€
One would need a gun to consider buying bullets, too.
So, using the rhetorical devices of Stephen Hayes, one could say that it is “possible” that Hayes molests little boys, but is that the same as saying it is “plausible?”
Guys like Hayes are the dishonest for ideological purposes.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:06 pmUPDATE!!! Now we are talking….
ISCG-2003-M0007379
bottom page 6.
MALE 2: It got cold in here.
MALE 6: Plasma systems in general are made of several things. They’re usually simple if it’s for research purposes. A simple and inexpensive system and can be made in any simple factory. We can do a simple research, and the system can change from a research system, if the research was good, and the requirements are available, turn into… [audio blank 31:28 to 31:45]
Male 2: they can let us know if they disagree, and if they do agree, which is better, they can also come to us so we can reach a clear plan. Thank you my brothers from the Military Industry for the valuable information that you provided, and at the same time we got to see you and get to know you.
BINGO!!!
These are military scientists talking about the transfer of technology to who? Well since it is the military, clearly the conversation went into a military application of plasma.
There are no other annotated blank spots on this translation. The blank spot occurs right when the military scientist speaker says where the application will be transferred to. Oddly enough, the “It got cold in here” comment is very out of place if you read the rest of this transcript. There is no other single out of place comment. When you are in a military briefing and the information about to come out is classified, you say, “this is classified” so that anyone who doesn’t have the right clearance can leave.
“It got cold in here” sounds like a warning that a classified subject was approaching so shut off the mike. I know this sounds crazy, but it is too much of a coincidence.
An out of place comment, followed by a mention of transfer of plasma technology, that is cut off in mid statement because the microphone was shut off (if the tape had stopped there wouldn’t be a time gap) , followed by a thank you to the military scientists. This is 99.9% proof that Tierney was right and they were performing plasma experiments to go into weapons testing, most likely nuclear. The rest of the conversation is kept “in the clear” but applies to that program.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:10 pm#5 It don’t matter because the King Bush told the American people that Iraq had WMD and that was wrong so why we should believe an right-wing nut who is trying write an article to bring ratings up
March 18th, 2006 at 9:15 pmAnthrax stolen that was Sold to Saddam Back when.
17 tons of ‘growth media’ isn’t anthrax.
It could as well be 17 tons of Live Sheep.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:16 pmDD- yes as I said in the article you talk about “Now it is not clear here when this happened. And it is not clear if this media was cultured with anthrax, another bacteria, or uncultured. But it raises a very interesting question when you think about the anthrax attack of 9/11. Did somebody in Iraqi labs steal anthrax and give or sell it to Jihadists? Just a thought…” reading is but one part of comprehension!
March 18th, 2006 at 9:19 pm17 tons of live sheep?
globalsecurity.org
“UNSCOM strongly suspected that admitted Iraqi figures for production of BW agent are still too low. Over Nor are 17 tons of growth media for BW agents are not accounted for – enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits it had.”
Do you think UNSCOM was talking about sheep?
March 18th, 2006 at 9:28 pm“Ryan, you are pathetic Comment by RR”
You prove the axiom that the unenlightened and unconsious can only see themselves.
Oh, and your ‘anthrax’ comment is idiotic – it just shows you never pay attention to anything.
And RedneckMoron, did it ever occur to you that these ‘missing segments’ might just be our own kind military folks jazzing up the translations?
They’ve been caught lying so many times they have zero credibility among anyone reasonable. Only the ‘faithful 400′ fools like yourself still believe anything they say.
That’s why you’re an idiot.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:29 pmRedneck Moron,
Global security is a REICHWING military think tank. By quoting them you’ve put yourself in the realm of either an idiot, a propagandist, or more likely an idiot propagandist.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:31 pmAll:
Let’s try to keep the debate focused on the issues and not each other. Thanks.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:33 pmRyan
dude, are you high? you just got all high and mighty at me for calling you exactly what you just called me
“You’re pathetic, and the ghosts you hear cheering are the ghosts of the Republican party as you wash yourselves away in corruption, failure, ineptitude and incompetent leadership. In otherwords, you and your leaders are more like Saddam than you are like america.
Comment by Ryan Neat — March 18, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE AND BACK AWAY
And I notice you can not address the subject but only call me names
March 18th, 2006 at 9:35 pmRyan, you say they have been caught lying because of the things I just proved they were right about. That is a pretty weak argument.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:38 pm“Ryan
dude, are you high? RedneckCracker”
No but you apparently are.
Put away the meth, and join the real world cracker.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:38 pmOh, so you’re a “everybody who disagrees with me is a rascist” guy. I will ignore you now as you have shown yourself to be unworthy of my time. Being wrong for you is not so much a habit as it is an addiction.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:42 pmRedneckCracker,
You sound like those retarded jesus freaks who always try to read everything into vague statements from bible passages.
It’s a sign of idiocy and desperation you know – what you do.
To those of intellect you look like a buffoon.
There is nothing new in the translations that is a smoking gun, but MUCH confirms what we already know. Saddam was no threat, and you and your fellow RepubliCrakers lied for oil, ego and idiocy.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:42 pm“Oh, so you’re a “everybody who disagrees with me is a rascist†guy. I will ignore you now as you have shown yourself to be unworthy of my time. Being wrong for you is not so much a habit as it is an addiction. Comment by RR”
Hey moron, your time has to be worht something before someone can be unworthy of it.
So far you’re just posting nonsense, crap, idiocy and foolish divining of speculative assumptions.
As for being ‘wrong’, I think you and your political party have a near monopoly on the subject. You guys are like lightning rods for the wrong answers. It seems to strike you no matter what the topic.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:44 pmI’m not sure where your ‘racist’ comment came from but while we’re on the topic, since you are a republican from alabama the chances are that you’re both stupid and racist. You’ve already proven the first assumption, so the second one is an easy guess. By calling you cracker I’m assuming you thought I was calling you a racist. I wasn’t, but based on your reaction – clearly you are.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:49 pmSite policy is to encourage debate but not to allow personal attacks on other users (Ryan you are well aware of this). So you both are going to have to get back to the substance or you won’t be able to post to this site any more.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:52 pmJudd,
Sorry. I should have emailed you with his ’spamming’ the site instead of just brow beating him for his stupidity. I apologize.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:54 pmThe real mystery is why ThinkProgress would try so hard to defend Saddam Hussein from charges that he was a supporter of terrorist organizations, despite the fact the Clinton administration listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism for eight years.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:55 pm“Ryan, you say they have been caught lying because of the things I just proved they were right about. That is a pretty weak argument. Comment by RR”
You proved nothing, other than you and Hadley parse and misrepresent everything based on strained points of irrational ‘illogic’.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:56 pmAuntieDemocracy,
March 18th, 2006 at 9:59 pmThe real mystery is why Republicans would try to lie in order to protect a president who violated the constitution and went to war on LIES.
We already have Saddam’s secret correspondence to prove he was hiding WMDs and working with the Muslim headchoppers. WTF?
News flash people. Saddam was a bad guy that killed people with chemical weapons and aligned himself with Islamofreaks who are seeking nuclear weapons. You couldn’t make this shit up any better than this. Hopefully we’ll be around long enough to see it in a James Bond movie. That is if the Progressives don’t tie our hands and invite the Muslim cultists into our country….Oh, crap. Too late, they already have.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:36 pmI_RIGHT_I:
Gee, I wonder where Saddam got those WMD’s and the satellite photos of the Iranian military’s encampment back in ‘83? Here’s a clue, assclown: Think Reagan and Rummy.
No matter how hard you wingnuts try, neither you, the intelligence community nor the administration will ever be able to come up with that magical smoking gun proving any complicity between Saddam and al Qaeda. You’re continually defending an administration that, literally, can’t shoot straight (just ask Cheney). The Bush administration had wanted to invade Iraq and divvy up Saddam’s oil wealth since the Clinton administration (remember PNAC’s January 26, 1998 letter to him?).
And there will be a very place in Hell for you idiots when Judgment Day comes.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:58 pmIf and when they find a more substantial connection it will have been manufactured by empire! Put this story to bed where it belongs deep in the empirical trenches of death.
Petri Dish Failure
March 18th, 2006 at 11:25 pmRR-
We spent $300BB, incurred 30,000 US causulties, and killed 100,000 Iraqis. Where was all the physical evidence of nuclear, biological, and chemical WMD? Zippo. Sorry, documents that refer ambiguously to programs don’t count. This lying administration told us we were 45 minutes away from getting hit with nukes, that there’d be mushroom clouds in our future if we didn’t invade immediately. But the reality is the UN had complete access to every square foot of Iraq and wasn’t finding anything worth invading over. Fact is, AWOL Boy and 5 Derferments Guy would never have risked invasion if there was any chance they could have been used on our troops.
Explain why Saddam, a secular thug, would want to align himself with radical Islamic fundies who could undermine his power? Rather counter-intuitive isn’t it?
You know the real reason why we invaded…it was to control the oil. You can kid yourself that a bunch of questionable documents with ambiguous referrals are the smoking gun….but the fact is – no weapons were found.
Why not get ahead of the next invasion curve and start convincing us that Iranian mushroom clouds are 45 minutes from happening over NYC? Or, better yet, why don’t you enlist up, go to Iraq, and start gathering all that evidence firsthand?
March 18th, 2006 at 11:43 pmI hope the information in these documents is factual, since Dubbya is going to need all the help he can get when he goes on trial at the Hague.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:59 pmJudd,
March 19th, 2006 at 1:54 amYou’re a blogger- safe in some antiseptic limbo of the USA- far from where I’ve been and seen- so let me educate you a little.
As a journalist, and, having been here on the ground in the Philippines in the time frame covered by the article and before it all I can say is one simple thing to paraphrase Jack Nicolas’s line – “You can’t handle the truth!”
It is so sad how some in the world of left wing blogspace seem to want to make everything put out on this subject seem ‘invented”. Perhaps the WMD issue is a core arguement – but – lets stick to the topic of October 2, 2002 and the bombing at the gate of camp malagutay.
I have been to camp enrile malagutay- I have interviewed the owners of the small resto where the attack took place- four filipino’s were killed – the daughter of the owner- SSGT. santos is blind and deaf from that attack- 20 other people were severely injured.
I worked the story for philippine TV and foreign networks. it happened- it was funded by Iraqi diplomats- ostensibly to divert US attention from Iraq itself in the build up to war.
it was and other operations clearly show the link between saddam’s government and in this particular case the ASG or the abu sayyaf group.
Perhaps you want to leave your little home office and PC and fly down there for yourself and then ask around about in the days after that attacks how other bombs blasted away at a small community – and surrounding towns.
Perhaps you might be to “scared” to leave the comfort of the USA- most people like yourself critics of politcal ignorance- and fakes which you are showing yourself to be in post- then maybe you should go to Glenie, Mich. thats where MArk Jackson is burried- you owe his family an apology – he was killed in that attack. Whch for several days in multiple interviews Hamsiraji Sali, Abu Soliman, and other ASG leaders thanked – iraqi officials for the aid they recieved as they pledged support to Saddam and the Iraqi Baathist cause at that point.
Maybe you should head to Kansas , the town of Rose Hill, and visit the grave of Martin Burnham, talk to his family and ask them about the extent of admiration that his and his wife’s kidnappers had for the Iraqi leader.
The bottom line is- Saddam openly supported terrorits organizations around the world.
Anyone who was an enemy of the USA was his friend.
The artcle was well writen and well put together. I live on the front lines of these groups with my famly as reporter for two major US based news organizations… in here- you’re not- so please – get the facts correct before you critize with blinded bigotry and hatrred of things you know nothing about.
The inevitable truth Civil War!
March 19th, 2006 at 2:38 amSaddam LOVES Terrorists !!! He gives them LOTS OF MONEY !!! He gives them WEAPONS !!! He is BEST FRIENDS with Osama bin Laden !!! He FORMALLY RECOGNIZED the Taliban !!! So then, why weren’t there “terrorist training camps” ALL OVER IRAQ ??? If Saddam really supported them, and wanted to get GW’s goat, he would have bragged about it BIG TIME !!! But the fact is, HE WAS THE BOSS !!! He did not want any possible challenges to his authority, or his iron grip on Iraq. There were no terrorists, (as we know them), until WE invaded. Now they are “breeding” like rabbits. Good job, GWB. Lame, so very lame. And this guy is “America’s most important journalist” ?!? I am thinking not. I think he “blows”, myself. No accounting for taste.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:49 amIt isn’t logical that Saddam would have collaborated with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was exactly the type of fanaticist Islamic element that would prove a serious threat to Saddam’s secular state and his own power. The idea that he would jump into bed with them—or they with him—-is frankly, ludicrous.
As a matter of fact, one could say that by invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam and turning the country over to religious fanatics, we actually did Osama a huge favor.
March 19th, 2006 at 5:22 amI think we should calm down a bit here. The “Saddam=al Qaeda=nukes” crowd looks awfully damned desperate to make the essential (for the Busheviks) linking of Daddy’s villain with son’s villain. The most qualified, and the most complete judgment, that we have in this matter is from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and the Duelfer report. Those two efforts have an awful lot of reality on their side, Including common sense. There is no earthly reason why Saddam would link up with Zarqawi, for instance, where all the evidence would be that he did his best to hunt him down, but Zarqawi evaded him by hiding between the Iranians and the Kurds. Saddam was a secularist and nationalist dictator. Might there have been some toying around with “the enemy of his enemy”? Sure. Same way that we allied ourselves with Stalin in the Second World War. (Righties take this as proof of FDR’s ‘communism,’ but the truth is, he felt about it just the way Churchill, the conservative, did: “I would ally myself with the devil to beat Hitler.”)
Missing chemical weapons? Maybe. They degrade over time, you know.
The most logical explanation for Saddam’s game with WMDs is simple: he didn’t want them after the Gulf War. They made him the target of the Americans. He could never have enough to be safe with them. But he needed people to think he had them. Imagine if we had let the UN inspectors do their jobs, and write a report by June proving that the casus belli we had named was bogus. Would Bush still have wanted to go in? Sure.
All this meticulous scriptural interpretation of the new documents is kind of laughable. One tiny turn of phrase is taken to mean, “Valerie Plame? We all know about her.” Another one “proves” that Katrina was an Iraqi plot to undermine the God King. The language is so elliptical and vague, presented without context, that interpretation is all, and we can all tell how you want things interpreted. Are some of these docs from the big pile that Chalabi was given dibs on early on in the occupation?
In fact, Negroponte and the intelligence community didn’t want these documents released. Who did? Well one of them was Rick Santorum. Methinks It’s Time To Change The Subject.
March 19th, 2006 at 7:50 amThis is the parallel universe to the previous thread. here is my 2 cents, On Sept. 24 2001, The office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) blocked terrorist assests and sympathetic organizations were added to the list. This was to trace and destabilize what we knew was at the time UBL connected affiliates. If this was such a prominent document, which additionaly added another 2500 names, not al Al-Qualude related, why has no one ever mentioned a connection to them? 2527 names and not one tiny little link? Here is the list in PDF if anybody has the time.http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/t11sdn.pdf
March 19th, 2006 at 8:45 amOff topic but maybe not:
Saturday night, Audi made auto racing history by winning the 12 hour endurance race at Sebring, Florida, using a turbocharged DIESEL engine that outperformed and ran cleaner than the state-of-the-art normaly aspirated cars like Porche, Ferrari, Corvette, Panos, etc.
Why is this important? This new technology demonstrates that high-performance cars capable of using ALTERNATIVE FUELS for consumers are just around the corner. This may be the shot in the arm the auto industry needs to finally move away from gasoline powered cars and lessen our dependance on Arabian oil.
March 19th, 2006 at 8:52 amJust like the seach for WMD, the proof is still “out there” somewhere; and certainly not producable as the evidence actually used to justify the war. The fact that the search for evedence is still on only serves to back up the notion that the Administration claims of an Iraqi-Al Quaida were not based on real evidence or credible intelligence.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:02 amBUSH U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Mar 2006 at 07:01:44 AM MST is:
The estimated population of the United States is 298,814,498
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $27,701.71.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.03 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
Concerned? Then
National Debt — In the News
16 Mar 06 – Congress sets new Federal Debt Limit: $9 trillion (National Public Radio)
16 Mar 06 – Senate votes Debt Limit hike to $8.965 trillion (Reuters)
16 Mar 06 – US Debt: At least it’s not $1 zillion (Reuters)
16 Feb 06 – U.S. moves to miss hitting Debt Ceiling (MarketWatch)
8 Feb 06 – Big Deficit looms behind revival of 30-year bond (Reuters)
7 Feb 06 – Bush’s Budget sparks bipartisan protest (CBS News)
30 Jan 06 – Federal borrowing raised to record level (CNN)
10 Jan 06 – Bush seeking to limit spending growth in ‘07 Budget (Bloomberg)
8 Jan 06 – U.S. hovers close to its Debt Ceiling — Treasury boss says government business could be affected (San Francisco Chronicle)
27 Nov 05 – Deficit cracking GOP’s solidarity — party-line vote no longer assured (San Francisco Chronicle)
26 Nov 05 – Opinion: Get down to business on U.S. Deficit (The Indianapolis Star)
20 Oct 05 – Budget debate a defining moment for GOP, groups say (CNSNews)
5 Oct 05 – Editorial: Bush mismanagement worsens Deficit (The Capital Times (WI))
17 Sep 05 – Analysis: Katrina’s costs will swell National Debt (Associated Press)
7 Sep 05 – Budget Deficit yet another storm victim (Los Angeles Daily News)
10 Apr 05 – Editorial: $7,782,816,546,352 in Debt (CBS News)
7 Apr 05 – Editorial: Bureau of Public Debt: Surrounded by IOUs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
4 Apr 05 – Bush’s agenda faces opposition from election-wary Republicans (Bloomberg.com)
25 Jan 05 – $1.3 Trillion in Deficits forecast over decade (Los Angeles Times)
21 Jan 05 – Does Social Security really face an $11 trillion Deficit? (FactCheck.org)
13 Jan 05 – Critics call Bush’s Deficit efforts feeble (Boston Herald)
10 Jan 05 – Editorial: Deficit deception (St. Petersburg Times)
19 Nov 04 – Bush signs [$800 Billion] Debt-limit hike (CBS News)
18 Nov 04 – Senate votes to let US borrow up to $8.18 trillion (Boston Globe)
4 Nov 04 – Why Democrats should be thankful — at least they won’t have to clean up the Bush fiscal catastrophe (Slate — MSNBC)
3 Nov 04 – Administration pressures Congress to raise Debt Ceiling (Boston Globe)
23 Oct 04 – Where [Bush and Kerry] stand on taxes and the Budget (Detroit Free Press)
9 Jun 04 – Editorial: Reagan policies gave green light to red ink (Washinton Post)
2 Feb 04 – Bush sends $2.4 trillion budget (including record $521 billion Deficit) to Hill (CBS News)
4 Jan 04 – Bush’s budget for 2005 seeks to rein in domestic costs (New York Times)
17 Dec 03 – Bush Deficit plan draws derision (CBS News)
9 Jul 03 – Home is where the National Debt is (The Providence Journal)
28 Jun 03 – Treasury official criticizes Debt ceiling (Washington Post)
19 Jun 03 – Editorial: Delusional on the Deficit, by Sen. Ernest Hollings (Dem-SC) (Washington Post)
15 Jun 03 – Aging population makes this Deficit scarier (USA Today)
10 Jun 03 – Congressional analyst now sees this year’s Deficit exceeding $400 billion (San Francisco Chronicle)
31 May 03 – Democrats expect record Debts — Federal Deficit is forecast to approach $500 billion next year (Washington Post)
20 May 03 – White House urges Senate to raise Debt ceiling soon (Washington Post)
14 Mar 03 – GOP senators oppose size of Bush tax cut (NY Times)
20 Feb 03 – U.S. Government hits national debt ceiling — Treasury begins taking evasive actions (CNN)
29 Aug 01 – Congressional Budge Office: “Social Security funds needed to balance books” (CNN)
22 Feb 01 – Bush unveils ‘fiscally responsible’ budget–reduces Deficit, but not Debt (CNN)
27 Sep 00 – President Clinton Announces Another Record Budget Surplus (CNN)
7 Sep 00 – National Debt Clock Stops, Despite Trillions of Dollars of Red Ink (CNN)
26 Jun 00 – Concord Coalition Warns that the new “Surplus” is not new money, it’s simply a new projection (Concord Coalition)
1 May 00 – Clinton Announces Record Payment on National Debt (CNN)
4 Aug 99 – US to buy back National Debt, first time in 25 years (BBC)
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
March 19th, 2006 at 9:12 amA remote connection or even a remote possibilty of a connection bewtween Iraq and Islamoterrorists is enough for Hayes and Fox and so on. I really don’t know why Think Progress tries to make issues out of the obvious Neocon articles.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:23 amThe real issue is how to best rememdy these relationships. America has been creating terrorists and killing terrorists for a long time. American foreign policy is fundamentally flawed.
Heard a fascinating story on NPR a week or so ago. The skinny is that Saddam let his military know before the invasion their were no WMD. His commanders were less than happy, knowing full well they were about to get slaughtered without landing a punch.
Hmmmm. No WMD, no operational connection with 9/11 and the spreading democracy thing has neo-cons strapping on life preservers and jumping ship.
Connections with al-Qaida? If we mapped every country’s intelligence connections with every questionable agency around the world we’d find we all rate invasion according to BushCo’s definition.
These documents prove nothing. Beware desperate FDA’s, though.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:32 am(first time here)
March 19th, 2006 at 9:59 amI don’t think it is wise to dismiss Stephen Hayes’ leads into a possible Iraqi connection with the Abu Sayyaf. Though the comment that the documents he presents do not represent solid proof as such, they could be part of a bigger trove of Philippines related communications. One thing for sure, in the time period referred to, the ASG underwent a surprising and disturbing transformation into an audacious, well-equipt, well-armed bandit group that conducted early morning raids, kidnapped dozens of people, raped and “married” some their hostages, beheaded others in savage mass murders, exacted ransoms and led a merrie trail of mayhem and destruction throughout the southern philippines. The tragic part of the story is the corruption, ineptness, and if missionary Marcia Burnham is to be believed, collaboration of some elements in the Philippine Military with the terrorists. But personally, i find it very plausible that Iraq was helping these bad guys. Ramzi Youssef and his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed used the Philippines as a traininga nd testing ground for years. These are facts and if Stephen Hayes can prove THAT connection with Iraq, one may find even more traces of 911 in this Archipelago, this first Iraq, than in Baghdad.
Innocent Bystander said “This lying administration told us we were 45 minutes away from getting hit with nukes, that there’d be mushroom clouds in our future if we didn’t invade immediately.”
When I read something so blatently false I stop reading it after that. Or else source this claim. Wait, you can’t because it’s a liberal lie and smear with no source but your own dishonesty.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:22 amCyra has fallen for the liberal propaganda. Saddam di not want Mujahedeen running around baghdad but he used them outside of Iraq and let them in Iraq in controlled venues. Many had “field offices” in Baghdad”. Again, this is well known to the intel community but the lib leadership trist this into Saddam didn’t work with terrorists.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:27 amRR
Right. That 45 minute comment was a Brit gaff, not an American. The notable comment by Bush was when he claimed Saddam was 6 months from developing a nuke. Said that on Sept. 7th 2002. Four days before the first anniversay of you know what. Said it was according to an IAEA report. Joseph Curl of the Washington Times called the agency to find no such report existed. That story was buried deep in the Sept 27th issue of that paper.
Spin me that one, dude.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:38 am“The most qualified, and the most complete judgment, that we have in this matter is from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and the Duelfer report.”
No the 9/11 commission did not have the new documents. The Difer report had access but did not use the new documents because we were still processing them in Qatar.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:41 am“The idea that he would jump into bed with them—or they with him—-is frankly, ludicrous.”
Yes and Churchill and Roosevelt working with Stalin is ludicrous.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amClemsy, can your source your claim? I haven’t seen that anywhere?
March 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am“No the 9/11 commission did not have the new documents.”
Neither did this administration, prior to the invasion. However, any information that retoractively justifies wrecking another nation on the basis of a hunch wrapped in a personal grudge will certainly be helpful.
As Ahmed Chalabi admitted: “We are heroes in error.” That could be a useful line of defense during the sentencing phase of the inevitable World Court trial of George Bush.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:49 amhttp://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
“[Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”
This quote is from Condoleezza Rice on September 8, 2002, months before the war began, in an interview with CNN. Rice was then Bush’s National Security Adviser and later became Secretary of State.
Q: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein’s government — how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?
Rice, September 8, 2002: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance — into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
What Rice said then is an accurate summation of what the US Intelligence community was saying at the time. Here’s what the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction said last March, after a year-long study:
Commission on Intelligence Capabilities, March 31, 2005: On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:52 am“Neither did this administration, prior to the invasion. However, any information that retoractively justifies wrecking another nation on the basis of a hunch wrapped in a personal grudge will certainly be helpful.”
So then President Clinton didn’t suspect the same things? The State Department didn’t say the same things in the 90’s? Your claim is disingenuous.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:55 amMy question from last night remains unanswered. If Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist organizations, then why was Iraq listed as a state sponsor of terrorism throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration? And why are you on the left so interested in defending Saddam from that distinction now?
March 19th, 2006 at 10:59 am#58 sez…..”Imagine if we had let the UN inspectors do their jobs, and write a report by June proving that the casus belli we had named was bogus. Would Bush still have wanted to go in? Sure.”
doesn’t this sentiment pretty much make RR’s and others defense of who said what when not relevent?
March 19th, 2006 at 11:14 amwalter, the problem with the inspections is we could not depend on them because saddam was lying. see commnts 18 and 22 to prove saddam was lying to the inspectors. proof from his own recordings. go to http://www.rayrobison.com for more
March 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amRight here RR: LINK
If you’d rather not trust a copy of the story from a progressive website, do your own footwork. That’s the Washington Times issue of Friday, September 27th 2002, written by Joseph Curl. The paper has long since pulled its on line link. (Here’s the dead link: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm ) A transcript used to be available at the State Dept. website, it’s also been yanked.
Bush was standing shoulder to shoulder with Blair when he said it. I have never come across any satisfying explanation for this event. Considering the timing of the comment, I believe this to be one of the most reprehensible moments in this administration’s long litany of reprehensible moments.
It’s all about perception management and fear. If Bush decides to invade or bomb Iran in October because of some imminent threat, will you believe it? They’ve already begun the rhetoric.
Speaking of this little red herring (Iran being more than a decade from developing a nuke), there is one unstable country brimming over with Islamo-fascists that already has nuclear weapons. (Hint: Osama bin Forgotten apparently lives on the border.)
Iran’s nuke program an issue? Sure. But any rational person should be much, much more concerned about Pakistan in this regard.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:27 amclemsey
thanks for the attempt. You are right, I do not believe a thing in truthout. The fact that the washtimes pulled it and is one of the most unreliable sources (according to every lib I have talked to) makes me think it was a bad source for the story. But I will research.
as for Iran, evrything we said about Iraq is ten times so for Iran and again the intel was the same in the 90s under clinton except now the Iranians are killing US soldiers in Iraq.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:40 am#74 & #75: I don’t recall Bill Clinton invading Iraq. I do, however, remember him bombing Iraq every day for 8 years and supporting the economic sanctions. I assume that the “state sponsor of terrorism” label was useful in defending our policy of containment against this very bad man. But I rather doubt that Clinton had any more hard evidence of this than did George Bush, otherwise it would have been presented — either by one of them, or by one of the subsequent investigations and commissions.
If the point is that Bill Clinton used the “state sponsor” designation as a matter of political expediency, you’re probably right. How that relates to George Bush’s decision to invade, rather than continue to “contain” Hussein, is unclear to me. If we’re still waiting in 2006 for proof to appear, then I assume they were both gaming us, although Bush obviously used this bluff hand to raise the stakes dramatically.
What’s been released so far, both in terms of documents and translated excerpts from the “Saddam tapes” seems to be more Rorschach test than proof. I see nothing definitive, much that is patently ambiguous, and a number of things that ring weird, if not false. For example, if Saddam had any interest in Plasma Separation of uranium after 1986 or therabouts, he was engaged in some serious woolgathering — given the state of the technology and its abandonment by most researchers. Of course, it’s not even clear on the tapes that this was the context in which “plasma” was being discussed.
Regardless, it is still 3 years too late for “Gotchas!” and “A-has!” You can’t claim self-defense against a threat you did not or could not know to exist. The disingenuous thought-process here is that proof now will somehow justify an earlier action based on claims of proof that did not then, in fact, exist.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:42 amResearch to your hearts content. The Times pulled the story because that’s what newspapers do after a certain amount of time. The State Dept.? Of them I’m more suspisious.
Damn straight I don’t trust the Washington Times. You think Curl was looking to discredit the story? Of course not. He was looking to support it and wound up with an ISSUE which was buried deep in the paper.
At least he was good enought to publish it at all.
Don’t believe a thing in Truthout? Of course you don’t. You can’t. Your world would crumble otherwise.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:53 am“If the point is that Bill Clinton used the “state sponsor†designation as a matter of political expediency, you’re probably right.”
The point is that Saddam WAS a state sponser o terrorism. The FACT that Clinton chose not to invade does not mean Saddam didn’t support terrorism.
From the Council on Foreign Relations:
“Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam’s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking.
Was Iraq the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists.
What types of terrorist groups did Iraq support?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase.
What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
* Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
* Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
* Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
* Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists” list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.”
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7702#1
March 19th, 2006 at 11:59 am#77,,,,,,huh? That’s why the UN inspectors were there……..
do you really believe that ANYONE, UN inspector or anyone else would believe Saddam? Let’s not be stupid here
March 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pm“I see nothing definitive, much that is patently ambiguous, and a number of things that ring weird, if not false. ”
The documents I quoted are from tapes made by Saddam and his cabinet, WOULD YOU CALL THAT AMBIGUOUS?
March 19th, 2006 at 12:01 pm83 yes after being caught over years repeatedly lying, nobody would believe Saddam
March 19th, 2006 at 12:06 pmand yet you seem to making the argument that UN inspections were doomed to failure because UN inspectors would not realize saddam was lying to them
March 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pm86 I am making the arguement that the inspectins were doomed to failure because Saddam would never come clean, and the new evidence proves that. He says they can not account for the chemicals they used on Iran because they denied it so they can never account for those weapons. SADDAM said that!
March 19th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#87 sez……”because Saddam would never come clean,”……..and again, that’s exactly why the UN inspectors were there……
March 19th, 2006 at 12:45 pm“RR” really needs a f*cking hobby.
Years after the fact, and now that GeeWhizDubya’s popularity and poll numbers are in the toilet, mysterious documents just start to miraciously appear.
There’s a word for that. BULLSHIT!
March 19th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#84 I’ll stipulate that these tapes are whey they are represented to be, and that jveritas knows Arabic.
The ambiguity comes in the disjointed and often opaque nature of the dialogues, and the lack of clarity to an outsider, owing to the fact that the speakers are talking about subjects and issues that are well understood among the participants. Hence, some references are oblique or partial or refer to events or prior discussions to which the non-expert reader is not privy. Which explains, perhaps, why they were tossed like chum into a sea of non-expert readers.
With the right parsing and selectivity, you can find just about anything you want. For example, in document #ISGQ-2003-M0004667, Tariq Aziz states:
“We paid in 1991 when our weapons were destroyed. They and we have destroyed the entire nuclear program and the missiles. The main plants were destroyed also.” To my mind, this puts paid to the claims of an active nuclear program. But I notice no one on the Right is quoting that particular excerpt.
Elsewhere, I see evidence of a roomful of people concerned that any lapses or discrepancies in record-keeping will provide an exploitable opportunity for criticism — not an unnatural concern. I also see some fear that certain disclosures could embarrass the Russians and the French, which suggests an interesting degree of intrique. I see a lot of things — some of which might suggest intentional deception, and some of which appear to be the normal anxiety of people who realize that the process is stacked against them, and that any misstep could cost them allies, erode credibility and get them invaded.
I realize that RR is very much invested in this material, and was instrumental in its release. I have no reason to doubt that at least some of this material will support the belief that Saddam was a calculating “bad man.”
But, so far, I don’t see anything that indicates he was $300 billion worth of bad-man, or 2300 American lives’ worth of bad-man, or 37,000+ dead Iraqis’ worth of bad-man…or so insuperably evil that it justifies the destabilzation of an entire region and the loss of both America’s credibility and its moral compass.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:12 pmRunningDog:
Because you automatically and uncritically accept the statements of Tariq Aziz. Thank you for showing which side you’re really on.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:30 pmRR-
With a little research, I bet you could implicate every country in the world as having ties to terrorism. Whaddayasay we invade the entire world?
What’s your research tell you about the Bush and bin Laden families? Anything relevant to GWOT?
March 19th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#91……seems like Tariq Aziz’s comment turned out to be “basically accurate”
March 19th, 2006 at 2:04 pmRR posted:
While it has been strongly suspected that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran during the war, it has never been proven (to my knowledge). Here it is straight from Saddam:
“But at the same time I know that America is looking to prove our use of chemicals against Iran! And we in fact did use chemical on the Iranians. And we didn’t answer them that we used chemical on the Iranians.â€
I really hope somebody on the Saddam prosecution has this tape.
For what it’s worth, Saddam’s prosecutors can do whatever the hell they want with this alleged tape but it will do them ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD to present it in the current trial. Saddam is being tried for his alleged (benefit of the doubt, and all that) crimes against IRAQI citizens, specifically Kurds and Southern Shi’ites, and NOT against Iranians during a time of declared war between hostile nations. (I believe the Iranian government would have to petition the World Court to try Saddam for war crimes in order for such evidence to have any admissible function.)
March 19th, 2006 at 2:06 pmAlso, it doesn’t look good for members of previous administrations (much less the current White House resident) to push for Saddam to be tried for any war crimes against the Iranians since the whole matter of the Reagan-Bush administration’s complicity in providing Saddam with those very chemicals that were used against the Iranians would prove incredibly dangerous for not only George H W Bush but also for Donald Rumsfeld (who, let’s not forget, spent enough time in Baghdad to be photographed for posterity shaking Saddam’s hand).
I would like to note the preposterousness of any claims that Saddam had any viable chemical weapons (or any sort of short-term nuclear capability) at the time of Dubya’s unjustifiable invasion. Simply put, for a man who’d shown ZERO regard for the people living within his nation’s borders vis-a-vis chemical weapons to not order their use against an invading army (either during “Desert Storm” or this current fiasco) shows an incredibly bizarre lack of forethought. Saddam had been warned that he should expect to be invaded for months on end, and when Washington announced that final deadline, we’re expected to believe that Saddam (who’d been invaded by an American army just a dozen years earlier) wouldn’t have this massive supply of chemical weapons readied to use on the Americans? Come on, now. That just doesn’t make any kind of sense (of course, given the fact that after THREE YEARS, none of these weapons have turned up in any quantity, much less the levels attested to by Dubya and Cheney and Rice and Powell in the weeks and months leading to the invasion, it’s pretty evident they weren’t there at all).
89 this wasn’t a hobby but a product of my work with the Iraq Survey Group. This evidence has been there for years buried in millions of documents, videos and tapes. it takes time to go through.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:19 pm94 said “Saddam is being tried for his alleged (benefit of the doubt, and all that) crimes against IRAQI citizens, specifically Kurds and Southern Shi’ites, and NOT against Iranians during a time of declared war between hostile nations. ”
Do I really have to explain to you that the Iraqi government can charge him with additional crimes and the trial now is just a portion of the crimes? ppplllleeeeeaaaasssseeeee
March 19th, 2006 at 3:22 pm90 If a guy says he has nothing and then you hear him say “they found out we have something, we better admit to it” then is your judgement that he had nothing or that he was hiding something?
March 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pm92, go to http://www.rayrobison.com and look in the saddam and al-Qaeda file on the side. these captured documents from 1993 show the Iraq Intelligence Service providing “technical support” to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which then was (and still is) run by Ayman al-Zawahri, the number 2 guy in al-Qaeda. Case closed.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:28 pmA. Proof available before the war of no alliance of Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bin Laden, interviewed in 1997 by Peter Bergen for CNN, called Saddam Hussein a “bad Moslem†who “took Kuwait for his own self-aggrandizementâ€. Among other language bin Laden has used to describe Saddam: “infidelâ€, “socialistâ€, “apostateâ€, “traitor to Islam” — exactly the kind of language bin Laden uses to tag someone as a target for terrorist operations. Bin Laden never retracted any of these characterizations and let them stand as public record. Certainly, that is not something allies do.
Bin Laden, just prior to Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, warned that Saddam intended to conquer Saudi Arabia. After Saddam’s invasion, the terrorist leader called upon Qaeda fighters to repel the infidel, further demonstrating his disdain for Saddam. In the run-up to war, the Cato Institute ran an article by Gene Healy, which succinctly debunked concerns that Saddam would ever hand over WMD to al Qaeda (which, of course, as it turned out, he didn’t even possess).
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-05-03.html
In the run to war, in a tape marked Feb. 12, 2003, bin Laden called on like-minded Moslems to fight against the looming invasion and defend the Iraqi people from the American “crusadeâ€. Bin Laden made it a point to stress the following to those who he was calling to arms:
“Firstly, we stress the loyal intentions that the fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq.â€
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,893984,00.html
In other words, the terrorist leader makes it crystal clear that his followers are to repel the American invaders, not defend the “ignorant†government of Iraq.
Further excerpts from the tape released by bin Laden show that he felt Saddam was a “socialist†and that all socialists are “infidelsâ€.
“Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons…
Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.
The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.
Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or
Aden.â€
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
Bin Laden does say that if Qaeda fighters align with “socialist†elements in Iraq to ward off the “crusaders†that is okay given the extraordinary circumstances and that the “socialitst’s” hold on power (and therefore their threat to the movement) would soon be coming to an end. Still, bin Laden does see fit to express his disdain for those “socialist†elements, by emphasizing that he does find them to be “infidelsâ€. Colin Powell, in a breathless display of dishonesty, attempted to spin these tapes as an indication of a Saddam/al Qaeda connection.
B. Proof available to the public countering the Saddam Al-Qaeda connection after the war’s start:
Non-anonymous Testimonies:
1. Abu Zubaydah, a high-level al Qaeda leader, was captured in Pakistan in the month of March 2002. He informed his captors that bin Laden had personally rejected any kind of alliance with Saddam. John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman “The First Casualtyâ€, The New Republic, June 30, 2003.
2. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, also a one time high-level al Qaeda operative, also denied any alliance with Iraq. Bill Keller “The Boys who cried Wolfowitzâ€, New York Times, June 14, 2003.
3. Farouk Hijazi, the former Iraqi intelligence officer who the U.S says met with al Qaeda operatives in the early 1990s, also has denied ever attempting to forge an alliance with bin Laden. Matt Kelly “Bush Overstated Iraq links to Al Qaeda, Former Intelligence Officials Say†Associated Press, July 12, 2003.
Declassified document:
Bush said “Iraq has trained Al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” They were based on the assertion of an al Qaeda operative, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who said the terrorist network had received assistance from Iraq. Military intelligence had told the administration that his claims were unsubstantiated and “intentionally misleading” in a PDB circulated to the president in January of 2003. In 2004, al-Libi formally backed off his testimony and corroborated the testimony of other al Qaeda operatives. However, his testimony should have been suspect to the administration, given that the document concluded “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”
http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html
Findings of the 9-11 Commission:
Of course, the Commission found absolutely no convincing proof of such ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, as was being purported in the run-up to war by the administration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm
The body of evidence showing that bin Laden held nothing but antipathy towards Saddam and that the feeling was mutual is overwhelming. It consists of verifiable, reliable, and rock-sold PROOF. Arguments that Saddam and bin Laden were cooperatve completely disregards the body of evidence and in its stead offers nothing but innuendo and hearsay — in other words, absolutely no proof. Robison,, the “evidence†you have posited is no exception. You have all the credibility of a Holocaust denier.
What I have outlined above does more than just “suggest†that there is no alliance between the two entities; it outright says there were none. What you have entered, anonymous and unverifiable sources that do not even strongly indicate any such alliance, is completely overridden by the amount of rock-solid proof and reason countering it. It is finally dawning upon the American people that the Iraq war is illegal and immoral and that it is rooted in lies. A lot of warmongers have realized the criminal incompetence from which the Iraq war was prosecuted. Hopefully, the corruption from which the war was based will someday dawn upon them as well. Given the warmonger’s penchant for childishly clinging to pre-war fallacies, I fear that will never be forthcoming.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:45 pmRobison:
You’re full of shit. According to your own precious Weekly Standard, Zawahiri left EIJ in 1995. So even if you are correct that Saddam did provide some aid to EIJ in the early 90s (which I highly doubt), it is one of the most flimsy premises imaginable to conclude an alliance was forged with Al Qaeda by Saddam, especially given the overwhelming body of evidence countering such a loony claim.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:51 pmso, let me get this straight………we can’t believe Tariq Aziz (or we will be considered traitors) and we certainly can’t believe anything from saddam but hey, look at this from saddam’s government…..this has got to be true
March 19th, 2006 at 4:07 pm100 I can not believe that you are seriously saying alZawahri is no longer with EIJ. Are you retarded? al-zawahri and the blind sheek formed two different factions of the EIJ. The blind sheik hit the WTC in 93, al-zawahri in 2001. Just a coincidence I guess, moron.
his from globalsecurity.org:
March 19th, 2006 at 6:17 pmal-Jihad
Jihad Group
Islamic Jihad
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
New Jihad Group
Vanguards of Conquest
Talaa’ al-Fateh
Description:
Egyptian Islamic extremist group active since the late 1970s. Merged with Bin Ladin’s al-Qaida organization in June 2001, but may retain some capability to conduct independent operations. Continues to suffer setbacks worldwide, especially after 11 September attacks. Primary goals are to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic state and attack US and Israeli interests in Egypt and abroad.
walter, if you have something that is stupid, please say it
March 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pmThere is a proven connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, it’s called the CIA.
March 19th, 2006 at 6:35 pmjust wondering……..who can you trust ….iranian spy chalabi maybe?
March 19th, 2006 at 6:51 pmRR:
You’re own Weekly Standard says Zarqawi claimed Zawahiri left EIJ in 1995. Nonetheless, regardless of what ties Zawahiri remained with the EIJ after joining Al Qaeda and whatever aid Saddam may have provided the EIJ in the mid-90s (two very suspect claims, especially the latter), it does nothing to refute the overwhelming body of evidence that no such alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda existed or was ever going to exist. It all points to you as a shrill, delusional liar. Luckily for us, you are a very sloppy liar. RR, a blithering idiot, through and through.
March 19th, 2006 at 6:56 pmThe Weekly Standard is Bill Kristol’s publication. Bill Kristol is the founder of the Project for a New American Century.
PNAC orchestrated and planned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan LONG before 9/11. Please learn the connection.
Here’s Bill Kristol as we exposed him recently. He is NEVER identified as having any thing to do with PNAC, nor is the Weekly Standard. The media are criminally complicit in everything that is going on.
KRISTOL CLEAR
March 19th, 2006 at 7:13 pmAdamo,
RR is an idiot. He’s too retarded to read all of the evidence that Zarqawi was operating in Kurdish controlled Iraq, and not under saddam controlled areas.
He’s like the same fools that think the christian bible is literally accurate, despite the fact that not a single one of the 1000+ manuscripts say the same thing.
Reichwing Nazis are desperate to believe and propagandize, and RR is one of the sadest, and most pathetic of their useful idiots who spread their misinformation. He’s a cracker moron.
March 19th, 2006 at 7:56 pmdear ray, i-r-i, and all the rest of you goose-steppers,
once again, just to remind those here who can’t quite remember,
(this picture taken after it was already known that hussein was gassing the kurds in iraq)
SO, IF HUSSEIN HAD TERRORIST CONNECTIONS…
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?
we could’ve just as easily invaded the white house in 2003 and taken out a repressive dictator (and his cronies) that supports terrorism.
SEND IN THE MARINES IT’S TIME FOR REGIME CHANGE.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:33 pmProgressarus Rex,
Lets not forget that it was Cheney who’d been responsible for giving these chemical weapons to saddam in the first place.
Republicans must have that temporal amnesia syndrome that permits them to readily forget their barrage of failures.
Then when you consider the role Cheney had in the creation of Al Queda, this administration’s officialls look more like a terrorist organization than saddam did!
March 19th, 2006 at 11:17 pmyes i think that’s the most frustrating point:
either something is the truth or it’s not.
why is it so hard to know the truth in america today?
because you’ve got these selective moralists out there instantly muddying the waters when the truth comes out. they’re not interested in the truth, they’re interested in the partisan truth that furthers their agenda, or protects their candidate from having to answer for incompetence, corruption or prevarications.
this current round of “proof” that saddam had terrorist ties is such a specious argument specifically because it ignores that we now call certain other countries “allies” — as we once did iraq — which are just as guilty of terrorist collaboration. saudi arabia and pakistan come immediately to mind.
so you’ve got these people defending what is already widely acknowledged as a failure from all sides of the political spectrum, yet they can somehow absolve the administration for inaction on the countries that REALLY had, and have, terrorist ties.
follow the euros, i say. every time an oil-producing nation decides to switch to selling their oil in euros, they’re suddenly a “threat”. Venezuela, Iraq, Iran…
March 20th, 2006 at 12:27 amYou’ve proven the case for WMD, RR. Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Any research on Cheney’s connection to Saddam? He was masking profits with his European unit of Dresser, trading around the embargo in 1998 with Saddam. And how about those dual use components he was selling to Pakistan in the early 90s?
March 20th, 2006 at 3:10 am108 “Adamo,
RR is an idiot. He’s too retarded to read all of the evidence that Zarqawi was operating in Kurdish controlled Iraq, and not under saddam controlled areas.”
you don’t know the difference between zarqawi and zawahri and you call me an idiot? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
March 21st, 2006 at 10:36 pm[...] Stephen Hayes Strikes Out (Again) Think Progress, DC – Mar 18, 2006 In the article, Hayes claims that Saddam Hussein s regime provided financial support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama [...]
March 25th, 2006 at 10:43 amWhy did the secular Saddam and the pious devout Osama have ANY contacts?
April 2nd, 2006 at 4:46 am[...] Stephen Hayes Strikes Out (Again)Think Progress, DC - Mar 18, 2006In the article, Hayes claims that Saddam Hussein s regime provided financial support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama … [...]
April 19th, 2006 at 1:57 am[...] Each and every one of Hayes’ attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 have been thoroughly discredited, but he continues to push the argument. It’s quite fitting that Cheney chose him to be his official biographer. [...]
August 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pm[...] Articles written by people in the administration that said Saddam was involved with Al Quaida. [...]
August 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pmcpa requirement
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
March 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pmSell House Fast Indianapolis
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pmJoan Brown
your ideas make me want to start rigth now
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pmNo Faxing Payday Loan
No fax payday loans is fantastic to benefit people near Hawaii with enormous premiums, as Americans are in a} spell of bad situations.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pmTraining Videos Uk
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:50 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pmDaddy Incest Stories
came across our site doing some research coming from this other domain but as I can see it has nothing to do with “incest”, guess its a mistake
April 4th, 2008 at 12:35 amFaxing Payday Loans
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:15 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 10:55 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 1:06 amNo Faxing Payday Loan
April 6th, 2008 at 2:20 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pmget out of debt
As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:17 pm