Article

2003-09-18 Iraq

U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-09-18 00:11|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm not interested in the aq role, I want Iraq's role.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-18 12:42:34 AM|| 2003-9-18 12:42:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 rofl I didn't realise that they still had some credibility.

How about those 70% of americans that believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, pmsl

Was reading the National Review Online earlier and some dickhead was saying that the link was proven and now Georgie comes up with a denial...love it :)

Posted by Igs 2003-9-18 4:24:39 AM|| 2003-9-18 4:24:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think it's important to establish how comforatble the guy was made. Did he get to party at the Uday's rapem parties? Was he turned away at the door? Did his accomidations include a colonial, ranch or just a double-wide. We need to have all the details to judge how deeply Sadaam was in-bed with some of these terrorists.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-18 8:49:56 AM|| 2003-9-18 8:49:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 You have to wonder why the Bush administration just sits on this kind of info even after all the scrutiny they've been under since the end of the Iraq war. This is the kind of info that helps to justify the war from a security standpoint, but Bush just mentions is matter of factly as if it's common knowledge. Does he think the liberal media is talking about this all day? Bush's PR machine needs a major shakeup. Unless they're that confident about winning the next election then I guess they can continue not responding to their critics.

Posted by g wiz 2003-9-18 8:58:04 AM|| 2003-9-18 8:58:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The Bush PR machine needs a good swift hard kick in the ass. They need to push the word out and not just on 'meet the press' or Sunday morning TV (which I dont think most people watch ) but on the evening news. Don't they see that the liberal media and democratic party bootlickers are walking all over them with their half-truths?

Posted by CrazyFool 2003-9-18 9:45:29 AM|| 2003-9-18 9:45:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Igs, Bush was referencing 9/11 specifically, and he's correct: there is no firm evidence that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. However, NRO is also correct, in that Saddam has sponsored, aided and abetted terrorists for quite a long time. His sheltering Yasin is just one more example of that.

Thanks for allowing me to clear that up for you!

Posted by Steve White 2003-9-18 11:59:22 AM|| 2003-9-18 11:59:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Steve with regards to 9/11 and Saddam, the Bush administration has deliberately allowed the misconception of the two being related and in many cases has implied a direct link. Knowing full well that there was no link betweenSaddam and 9/11 they had the obligation to state this before the Iraq invasion. Failure to do so is simply misleading the public.

Posted by Igs 2003-9-18 9:10:46 PM|| 2003-9-18 9:10:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Igs: No worries. When the Democrats elect Wesley Clark there will never, ever been any misleading. Who, after all, could ever claim that such Democratic stalwarts as LBJ(Vietnam), Jimmy Carter (1979 authorizes covert CIA war in Afghanistan), or Bill Clinton (Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc., etc., etc.) ever misled the American people?

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-9-19 1:10:20 AM|| 2003-9-19 1:10:20 AM|| Front Page Top

06:08 ed
04:48 Alaska Bob
13:15 Hiryu
13:11 Hiryu
09:45 raptor
09:04 raptor
08:46 raptor
03:14 Anon1
01:25 Anonymous
01:10 R. McLeod
23:28 eLarson
23:13 Anonymous
23:10 Anonymous
23:02 Aris Katsaris
22:58 Aris Katsaris
22:47 True German Ally
22:45 Anonymous
22:42 True German Ally
22:40 Anonymous
22:30 Anonymous
22:12 Aris Katsaris
21:57 Anonymous
21:54 Dishman
21:43 True German Ally