Comments on: The Ties The Lib’s Deny http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/09/08/the-ties-the-libs-deny/ Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:09:24 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Mark Eichenlaub http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/09/08/the-ties-the-libs-deny/#comment-1620 Mark Eichenlaub Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:22:45 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/09/08/the-ties-the-libs-deny/#comment-1620 Reasic, Can you please tell me why a Senate report is above criticism? Also, do I think I know more about this topic than those on this committe, Yes, actually I do. I've spent 3 years working on a book/website on this topic and talked to hundreds of soldiers,intelligence officers, journalists, elected officials from both sides of the aisle and concerned Americans. I don't read much else in the news and I've literally spent thousands of hours on this topic. There are so many issues (Zawahiri trip to Baghdad in 98 confirmed by Clinton admin and 9-11 commission, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Zarqawi's postwar cooperation with the Baathists, etc) that weren't even addressed in this report. I am fully open to admitting my inclinations are wrong but this report doesn't do that. I'll be posting questions and counterevidence to the report in the coming two weeks at www.regimeofterror.com. Like I said, I may be wrong about a lot of things in what I assumed but we know that Zarqawi worked with the Baathists postwar, why isn't this even addressed? Because once that question is answered you have to seek the origin of that cooperation. None of it is addressed. Zawahiri's trip, the story about al Qaeda initiating all of the contacts with Iraq and Iraq shooting them down is totally at odds with the 9-11 report, Richard Clarke and others who said that Iraq, not al Qaeda, was the one reaching out to make contacts and even offering safehaven and bin Laden, not Iraq, being opposed to the relationship. Which is it? This report relies way too heavily on Saddam and his cronies testimony. These people have denied many things that they've obviously done, including gassing the Kurds. What motivation do they have to tell the truth? Telling the truth about what they've done gets them killed in their trial. Reasic,
Can you please tell me why a Senate report is above criticism?

Also, do I think I know more about this topic than those on this committe, Yes, actually I do. I’ve spent 3 years working on a book/website on this topic and talked to hundreds of soldiers,intelligence officers, journalists, elected officials from both sides of the aisle and concerned Americans.

I don’t read much else in the news and I’ve literally spent thousands of hours on this topic. There are so many issues (Zawahiri trip to Baghdad in 98 confirmed by Clinton admin and 9-11 commission, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Zarqawi’s postwar cooperation with the Baathists, etc) that weren’t even addressed in this report. I am fully open to admitting my inclinations are wrong but this report doesn’t do that. I’ll be posting questions and counterevidence to the report in the coming two weeks at http://www.regimeofterror.com.

Like I said, I may be wrong about a lot of things in what I assumed but we know that Zarqawi worked with the Baathists postwar, why isn’t this even addressed? Because once that question is answered you have to seek the origin of that cooperation. None of it is addressed.

Zawahiri’s trip, the story about al Qaeda initiating all of the contacts with Iraq and Iraq shooting them down is totally at odds with the 9-11 report, Richard Clarke and others who said that Iraq, not al Qaeda, was the one reaching out to make contacts and even offering safehaven and bin Laden, not Iraq, being opposed to the relationship. Which is it?

This report relies way too heavily on Saddam and his cronies testimony. These people have denied many things that they’ve obviously done, including gassing the Kurds. What motivation do they have to tell the truth? Telling the truth about what they’ve done gets them killed in their trial.

]]> By: Reasic http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/09/08/the-ties-the-libs-deny/#comment-1621 Reasic Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:22:45 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/09/08/the-ties-the-libs-deny/#comment-1621 How naive can you guys be to assume that you have more information than the Senators in the Senate Intelligence Committee? These guys have access to more sensitive information than you will ever see, and now that they have come to conclusion that you disagree with, all you can do is demonize them and accuse Republicans of defecting to the Democrats' side. Listen, this shouldn't be about one side or the other. That would make it a political game. This should be about getting the facts out. If anything, this Committee is biased in favor of the war effort and President Bush. It has one of the most conservative members in the Senate as its Chairman, in Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas. How naive can you guys be to assume that you have more information than the Senators in the Senate Intelligence Committee? These guys have access to more sensitive information than you will ever see, and now that they have come to conclusion that you disagree with, all you can do is demonize them and accuse Republicans of defecting to the Democrats’ side. Listen, this shouldn’t be about one side or the other. That would make it a political game. This should be about getting the facts out. If anything, this Committee is biased in favor of the war effort and President Bush. It has one of the most conservative members in the Senate as its Chairman, in Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas.

]]>