Lets go

sorabji.com: Are you stupid?: Lets go

By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 04:56 pm:

    I am starting a seperate thread.
    This is in response to "Saddam had little to NO means of support to al Qaida"

    Amnesia, much?

    Two weeks before the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein reportedly put his military on its highest state of alert since the 1991 Gulf War. According to the London-based Sunday Telegraph, the Iraqi leader even took the unusual step of moving his two wives, Sajida and Samira, from Baghdad to an undisclosed location in the family's hometown of Tikrit, 100 miles to the north.

    Saddam's precautions were hardly unwarranted. A growing body of circumstantial evidence indicates that Iraq may have participated in plotting the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

    The most striking evidence linking Baghdad to the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is that the presumed ringleader of the suspected hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met twice with Iraqi intelligence operatives in the Czech Republic. According to senior Czech officials quoted in the Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny and the Wall Street Journal, Atta traveled from Hamburg, Germany, to Prague in June 2000 and met with Iraqi intelligence agents at Baghdad's embassy there, which has long been under constant surveillance by the Czech authorities. After the meeting, he flew on to the United States, where he began flight lessons the following month. Atta had made a previous attempt to enter the country on May 30, but wasn't allowed to leave the airport upon arriving in Prague because he lacked a visa.

    Atta made a third trip to Prague in April 2001 and met with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, the chief of consular affairs at the Iraqi embassy there. Later that month, Ani was expelled by the Czech authorities for "engaging in activities beyond his diplomatic duties" after he was observed photographing the Radio Free Europe building in Prague, which had begun broadcasting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq in 1998. Ani had been under surveillance at the time as a suspected intelligence operative because he "was never present at any diplomatic event," said the Czech Foreign Ministry official who expelled him, Hynek Kmonicek, in an interview with Newsweek. "It's suspicious," said Kmonicek. "Why would a diplomat with no diplomatic duties meet with a student of architecture? How is it possible they even know each other?" Czech intelligence officials suspect that Ani may have provided Atta with fake passports for the 19 hijackers that carried out the September 11 attacks.

    The rest of the story

By patrick on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:19 pm:

    wrap yourself in the what you choose to believe eh spunk?

    how come no major Iraqi leaders have found residence in Gitmo spunk?

    The meeting of Atta and high ranking Iraqi officials, last i heard on the matter was really of no consequence. Nothing could be drawn from it, not even by US intelligence.

    "A growing body of circumstantial evidence indicates that Iraq may have participated in plotting the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States."

    Really? like what? circumstantial?

    How come we are able to link, with concrete evidence the Taliban and al Qaida to 9/11, but with Iraq, everything seems to be a stretch, circumstantial and questionable.

    The Iraqi National Congress is a not so credible source because, at the time this was written, in 2001, they stood to gain the most from an American invasion of Iraq. Of course they wanted to link 9/11 to Iraq.

By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:54 pm:

    Biased much?

    Admit it.
    Nothing, not even hussien admitting it himself live on Al-Jazeera tv is going to convince you.

By patrick on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:58 pm:

    But did Hussein admit it on al Jazeera? no.

    so stop it with your fantasy world.

    Its not a matter of bias its matter of holding the same standards of guilt association they have held to al Qaida and bin Laden to Saddam.

    Like the weapons claim, the al Qaida connection as justification for war was weak. Im not saying its not possible. Its just weak.

    I dare you, to hold the same standards of guilt association. But you can't....because you've believed it all along. You felt the war was right and there's little that can change your mind.

    Hell, Bush & Co. could admit they used faulty intelligence to make the case for war and you'd still support it.

    Oh wait. THEY DID make use of faulty and erroneous intelligence and admit it.

By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:05 pm:

    Of course that piece was written AFTER 9/11....

    It was about linking Iraq to WTC.
    Jesus Patrick....

By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:10 pm:

    "Mohamed Atta, met twice with Iraqi intelligence operatives in the Czech Republic."
    "Atta traveled from Hamburg, Germany, to Prague in June 2000 and met with Iraqi intelligence agents at Baghdad's embassy there..."
    "Atta made a third trip to Prague in April 2001 and met with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, the chief of consular affairs at the Iraqi embassy there."
    "According to the London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC), Hijazi and Brigadier-General Habib Ma'amouri reportedly developed plans for hijacking civilian airliners and crashing them into civilian targets during the mid-1990s at the GID Special Operations Branch in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. Two Iraqi defectors have corroborated this claim. A former Iraqi military officer, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, said he was in charge of training an elite special forces team, "designed to plan and conduct operations against US and British interests around the world," at Salman Pak. Using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex, Alami's team practiced hijacking planes without weapons. He also said that another team of non-Iraqis underwent similar training at the same camp. A second defector gave a similar description of the camp, and recounted meeting some of the non-Iraqi trainees, whom he described as deeply religious, when a group of five Saudis and an Egyptian helped him move his car and jump-start the engine.5

    There have also been reports that at least three high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officials have visited Pakistan over the last four months to meet with representatives of al-Qa'ida.6"


    1 "Army alert by Saddam points to Iraqi role," The Sunday Telegraph (London), 23 September 2001.
    2 See "Hijack Suspect met Iraqi Agent in June 2000," The Wall Street Journal, 4 October 2000.
    3 "Hard Questions About an Iraqi Connection," Newsweek, 29 October 2001.
    4 Newsweek, 15 October 2001.
    5 The Wall Street Journal-Europe, 22 October 2001.
    6 The Sunday Telegraph (London), 23 September 2001.
    7 "Additive Made Spores Deadlier," The Washington Post, 25 October 2001.
    8 Knight-Ridder, 10 October 2001.

By patrick on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:11 pm:

    you've apparently misunderstood something.

    that reoccuring problem you have with language rearing its head.

By Antigone on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:16 pm:

    If the case were there to be made, it would have been made more forcefully.

    As it is, the Bush administration had to make the argument indirectly by insinuation.

    If they had evidence, they would have presented it. As Patrick says, they had no problem presenting evidence for other things that was shaky and even in doubt.

    Just because there are military reports about something does not make it true. Ever hear of Project Blue Book?

By patrick on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:21 pm:

    ALl the sources are dated late 2001.

    So what. Atta had meetings?

    Does anyone have transcripts?

    As far as Iraqi officials in Pakistan, so what.

    This is all weak, circumstantial evidence spunk.

    We've been ion Iraq for 4 months? Is anyone looking for evidence of the al Qaida connection?

    After 4 months in Afghanistan we had all kinds of evidence.

    Air ball!

By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:08 pm:

    What can I say?
    They have bungled A LOT.
    There was ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to apologize for the Niger comment in the State of the Union address.

    Forget it.

    It WAS justified.
    It IS justified.

    I am not loosing faith here.

    Iraq DID have connection with Al-Queda.
    Iraq DID have WMD
    Iraq DID have plans to continue Nuke work.
    Iraq COULD have given WMD to terrorist groups (and I don't care about your crappy definition of the word terrorist, HAMAS and Hezbola ARE terrorists groups).
    Iraq COULD reconstitute it's Nuke capability in short order.
    Iraq DID kill hundreds of thousands of it's own citizens.
    Iraq WAS a threat to other countries.

    The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.

    Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
    Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.

    THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ...

    Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.

    "We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."

    The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures ...

    - - - - -

    U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.

    Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.

    ... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism." ....

    - - - - -

    The Observer. December 19, 1999.

    Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam

    The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour of fundamentalists.

    By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad

    ... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo him to Iraq.

    Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...

    - - - - -

    United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.

    WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...

    - - - - -

    Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.

    By: From Beacon Journal wire services


    ... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.

    A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....

    - - - - -

    The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.

    International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries

    By Rich Hood

    ... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....

    - - - - -

    Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition.
    SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk.

    Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow....

    - - - - -

    National Public Radio (NPR)
    MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET)
    February 18, 1999.


    ... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

    Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

    SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony....

    - - - - -

    Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999.

    Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition

    Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday.
    "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."

    ... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....

    - - - - -

    Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle

    Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq

    DATELINE: Kuwait City

    An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.

    The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

    Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.

    Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.

    The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq ....

    - - - - -

    Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999.

    Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown

    ... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.

    Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history ....

    - - - - -

    San Jose Mercury News (California). February 14, 1999 Sunday MORNING FINAL EDITION


    U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ...

    In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden.

    "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ...

    Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

    ... (in) late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.

    Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...

    More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...

    "The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official....

    - - - - -

    Associated Press Worldstream. February 13, 1999; Saturday 14:32 Eastern Time

    Bin Laden said to have left Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown

    ... It is very unlikely bin Laden could remain in Afghanistan without Taliban officials knowing his whereabouts.

    Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

    U.S. officials believe bin Laden masterminded the Aug. 7 bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ...

    Bin Laden urged devout Muslims to attack U.S. and British interests in retaliation for their joint assault on Iraq.

    U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, who has been indicted in a U.S. court on murder charges in connection with the bombings. But the Taliban had refused.

    - - - - -

    The Bulletin's Frontrunner. January 4, 1999, Monday.

    Defiant Saddam Looks To Provoke U.S.

    ... Time also reported, "For now, the White House will respond to each provocation by counterattacking the offending battery."

    Saddam Reaching Out To bin Laden.

    Newsweek (1/11, Contreras) reported, "U.S. sources say (Saddam) is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden." ...

    (Osama bin Laden was) calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective....

    - - - - -

    The White House Bulletin. Copyright 1999. Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.

    In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective, he....

    - - - - -

    United Press International. January 3, 1999, Sunday, BC cycle.

    UPI Focus: Bin Laden 'instigated' embassy bombings

    ... (The Taliban) government in Afghanistan says the Saudi does not have the money to finance projects in the country. Newsweek also reported that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been making new overtures to bin Laden in an attempt to rebuild his intelligence network and to create his own terror network....

By dave. on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:12 pm:

    maybe the president should just go and put all that shit in his next state of the union speech.

By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:23 pm:


    Facts mean nothing to you guys.
    Talk about selective hearing

By Antigone on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:24 pm:


    Former Intelligence Agents Demand Bush Fire Cheney
    Ray McGovern
    Posted 7/14/2003 10:32:56 AM

    July 14, 2003

    ... Summary: In a boldly worded statement, a group of retired intelligence officers are calling for President George Bush to fire Vice President Richard Cheney for his role in "cooking" evidence to support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq ...

    July 14, 2003

    MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

    FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    SUBJECT: Intelligence Unglued

    The glue that holds the Intelligence Community together is melting under the hot lights of an awakened press. If you do not act quickly, your intelligence capability will fall apart—with grave consequences for the nation.

    The Forgery Flap

    By now you are all too familiar with the play-by-play. The Iraq-seeking-uranium-in-Niger forgery is a microcosm of a mischievous nexus of overarching problems. Instead of addressing these problems, your senior staff are alternately covering up for one another and gently stabbing one another in the back. CIA Director George Tenet’s extracted, unapologetic apology on July 11 was classic—I confess; she did it.

    It is now dawning on our until-now somnolent press that your national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, shepherds the foreign affairs sections of your state-of-the-union address and that she, not Tenet, is responsible for the forged information getting into the speech. But the disingenuousness persists. Surely Dr. Rice cannot persist in her insistence that she learned only on June 8, 2003 about former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s mission to Niger in February 2002, when he determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job. Wilson’s findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002. And, if she somehow missed that report, the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff on May 6 recounted chapter and verse on Wilson’s mission, and the story remained the talk of the town in the weeks that followed.

    Rice’s denials are reminiscent of her claim in spring 2002 that there was no reporting suggesting that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. In September, the joint congressional committee on 9/11 came up with a dozen such reports.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell’s credibility, too, has taken serious hits as continued non-discoveries of weapons in Iraq heap doubt on his confident assertions to the UN. Although he was undoubtedly trying to be helpful in trying to contain the Iraq-Niger forgery affair, his recent description of your state-of-the-union words as “not totally outrageous” was faint praise indeed. And his explanations as to why he made a point to avoid using the forgery in the way you did was equally unhelpful.

    Whatever Rice’s or Powell’s credibility, it is yours that matters. And, in our view, the credibility of the intelligence community is an inseparably close second. Attempts to dismiss or cover up the cynical use to which the known forgery was put have been—well, incredible. The British have a word for it: “dodgy.” You need to put a quick end to the dodginess, if the country is to have a functioning intelligence community.

    The Vice President’s Role

    Attempts at cover up could easily be seen as comical, were the issue not so serious. Highly revealing were Ari Fleisher’s remarks early last week, which set the tone for what followed. When asked about the forgery, he noted tellingly—as if drawing on well memorized talking points—that the Vice President was not guilty of anything. The disingenuousness was capped on Friday, when George Tenet did his awkward best to absolve the Vice President from responsibility.

    To those of us who experienced Watergate these comments had an eerie ring. That affair and others since have proven that cover-up can assume proportions overshadowing the crime itself. All the more reason to take early action to get the truth up and out.

    There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney’s office, and that Wilson’s findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well.

    Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons—a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a “mushroom cloud” being the first “smoking gun” we might observe.

    That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections—a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process.

    The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq.

    It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that “we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that “most analysts” agreed with Cheney’s assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney’s unprecedented “multiple visits” to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC’s Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: “we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

    Mr. Russert: …the International Atomic Energy Agency said he dose not have a nuclear program; we disagree?

    Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree ... we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong.

    Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts—those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons—judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right.

    Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.

    It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president’s state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy.

    Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney’s request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud “what else they are lying about.” Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit.

    This was no case of petty corruption of the kind that forced Vice President Spiro Agnew’s resignation. This was a matter of war and peace. Thousands have died. There is no end in sight.

    Recommendation #1

    We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney “not guilty.” His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney’s immediate resignation.

    The Games Congress Plays

    The unedifying dance by the various oversight committees of the Congress over recent weeks offers proof, if further proof were needed, that reliance on Congress to investigate in a non-partisan way is pie in the sky. One need only to recall that Sen. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has refused to agree to ask the FBI to investigate the known forgery. Despite repeated attempts by others on his committee to get him to bring in the FBI, Roberts has branded such a move “inappropriate,” without spelling out why.

    Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee, is a CIA alumnus and a passionate Republican and agency partisan. Goss was largely responsible for the failure of the joint congressional committee on 9/11, which he co-chaired last year. An unusually clear indication of where Goss’ loyalties lie can be seen in his admission that after a leak to the press last spring he bowed to Cheney’s insistence that the FBI be sent to the Hill to investigate members and staff of the joint committee—an unprecedented move reflecting blithe disregard for the separation of powers and a blatant attempt at intimidation. (Congress has its own capability to investigate such leaks.)

    Henry Waxman’s recent proposal to create yet another congressional investigatory committee, patterned on the latest commission looking into 9/11, likewise holds little promise. To state the obvious about Congress, politics is the nature of the beast. We have seen enough congressional inquiries into the performance of intelligence to conclude that they are usually as feckless as they are prolonged. And time cannot wait.

    As you are aware, Gen. Brent Scowcroft performed yeoman’s service as National Security Adviser to your father and enjoys very wide respect. There are few, if any, with his breadth of experience with the issues and the institutions involved. In addition, he has avoided blind parroting of the positions of your administration and thus would be seen as relatively nonpartisan, even though serving at your pleasure. It seems a stroke of good luck that he now chairs your President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

    Recommendation #2

    We repeat, with an additional sense of urgency, the recommendation in our last memorandum to you (May 1) that you appoint Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to head up an independent investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence on Iraq.

    UN Inspectors

    Your refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq has left the international community befuddled. Worse, it has fed suspicions that the US does not want UN inspectors in country lest they impede efforts to “plant” some “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, should efforts to find them continue to fall short. The conventional wisdom is less conspiratorial but equally unsatisfying. The cognoscenti in Washington think tanks, for example, attribute your attitude to “pique.”

    We find neither the conspiracy nor the “pique” rationale persuasive. As we have admitted before, we are at a loss to explain the barring of UN inspectors. Barring the very people with the international mandate, the unique experience, and the credibility to undertake a serious search for such weapons defies logic. UN inspectors know Iraq, know the weaponry in question, know the Iraqi scientists/engineers who have been involved, know how the necessary materials are procured and processed; in short, have precisely the expertise required. The challenge is as daunting as it is immediate; and, clearly, the US needs all the help it can get.

    The lead Wall Street Journal article of April 8 had it right: “If the US doesn’t make any undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already-widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war.” As the events of last week show, that skepticism has now mushroomed here at home as well.

    Recommendation #3

    We recommend that you immediately invite the UN inspectors back into Iraq. This would go a long way toward refurbishing your credibility. Equally important, it would help sort out the lessons learned for the intelligence community and be an invaluable help to an investigation of the kind we have suggested you direct Gen. Scowcroft to lead.

    If Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity can be of any further help to you in the days ahead, you need only ask.

    /s/ Ray Close, Princeton, NJ

    David MacMichael, Linden, VA

    Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA

    Steering Committee, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

By Antigone on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:30 pm:

    "Facts mean nothing to you guys."

    So, you've posted lots of chatter from newspapers, newswires, and websites.

    Are these facts?

    Um, no. Just because something is printed does not make it a fact.

    Do you have proof? Do you have actual intel on the Iraq-Osama connection? Can you cite any?

By patrick on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:42 pm:

    jesus christ spunk.

    have you lost your mind.

    so which is it?

    you talk about how intelligence agencies had their hands tied behind their backs under the Clinton administration and thus had weak intelligence, which is in part a catalyst to the 9/11 tragedy. But NOW, BUT NOW you are selectively choosing to rely on this collection reports from the Clinton era as solid fact and basis to support your claim.


By spunky on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:19 pm:

    If you read most of the articles, they cite INTERNATIONAL Intel, for the most part

By patrick on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:36 pm:

    Maybe you need to reread what you posted hoss.

    "This time last year the U.S. claimed..."

    "The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ..."

    "The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.

    A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial...."

    "If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces..."

    "... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations."

    "an Iraqi opposition figure charged"

    "An Iraqi opposition group claimed"

    "Newsweek (1/11, Contreras) reported, "U.S. sources say (Saddam) is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden."

    "U.S. intelligence officials are worried ..."

    "More worrisome, the American officials said..."

    US Sources, Clinton Administration officials, rumors, former US Chiefs of Counterterrorism with the CIA and Iraqi opposition figures as well....aww what the fuck, why not cite the Taliban as well.

    AIR fucking BALL spunk.

By Antigone on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:54 pm:

    "If you read most of the articles, they cite INTERNATIONAL Intel, for the most part"

    Mmmm, so our own intel organizations aren't up to the task?

    You mean, when the Brits say Iraq was buying yelloowcake from Niger, we just believe them without verifying?

    Oh, wait. We did check into that. And found nothing.

By Rowlf on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:39 pm:

    do you still believe in the terror ships spunk...

    spunk, you seem to be basing everything on faith rather than logic or any actual proven data. We cant prove they were destroyed, but over and over again I think most everything Bush's admin has thrown at us has been legitimately descredited by one person or another - not by touting cynicism the same way Bush asks for the publics faith, but instead by using logic, science, credible testimony, historical fact...

    the burden of proof is on Bush, and he simply has never delivered.

    so you dont believe anything? like how the mobile labs turned out to be artillery balloon stations? tell me which you think. do you believe powell and Bush, or do you believe the British who admitted they sold them, the scientists who say they would not work with canvas sides, the intelligence officials who side with the previous two?

    if you chose the former, you're going by faith. if you choose the latter, you admit flat out completely bush lied in poland. and ignore the side with actual proof in favor of a premature claim before thorough investigation.

    "air ball" - har, is that going to become a catchphrase round here?

By dave. on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:57 pm:

By spunky on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:47 am:

    i thought the phrase was rather junior highish myself....

    We've got the data.
    We are not showing "just to save our ass".
    This is NOT a political game on our part.
    It might be on Kerry's side, in fact it is.
    He has been part of the classified briefings before congress.
    They all have.
    When they are acusing bush of deceiving the public, they are lying. Bush knows it.
    Any president in this situation knows it.

    Don't you understand what a game this is?

    All of us, tearing eachother apart.
    Radio and TV Talk shows spin themselves into a frenzy. It's all a game.
    The weapons have been found.
    We knew where they were, what was there, and how much. YOU will never know.
    Presidents will be sacrificed, and so will CIA directors. But that's not what matters.
    YOU will not be sacrificed.
    Get it yet? Understand yet?
    THAT'S WHY I GET SO PISSED when you go after Bush.
    All you know is what you see in the media.

    They will present it when they choose to.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 01:29 am:

    "We knew where they were, what was there, and how much. YOU will never know."

    And can you tell us why that is, oh sage?

    "YOU will not be sacrificed."

    That's right. The soldiers doing Bush's bidding will be. Yeah, he cares enough about them to tell the terrorists to "bring it on" while he comfortably sits in the White House.


    Oh, and you do? Let me clue you in, here: NEITHER DOES BUSH.

    "All you know is what you see in the media."

    Right. Like you know any more.

    Oh, yeah, that's right. You can't tell us what you know. We've heard that line before from you, back before the war. Remember, when you were saying how they'd find the weapons "any time, now"?

    Are you still too pussy to bet $50?

By Rowlf on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:26 am:

    bush doesnt know how to run a country. he cant even speak to his own reporters like a real leader. he does not make himself available or accountable for anything.

By Rowlf on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:30 am:

    "The weapons have been found.
    We knew where they were, what was there, and how much. YOU will never know. "

    blah blah blah horseshit... we'll never know? why, because they'll never found what they said was there? how are we supposed to trust them? so people saw pictures, that doesn't mean SHIT. when the REAL things they physically find themselves aren't even what they say they are (the labs), who in their right mind should trust them? I dont care what they saw beforehand, its proven more and more each day that they werent what they said they were, and they have not been able to find anything to prove anything. there might be stuff there, but will it ever be anything they actually said was in that specific location?

    when they make presentations to the UN, to Congress what3ever about how thsi one location has this and it turns out to be a TV station, when theres always someone there to clearly contradict the evidence, you have to raise questions. for you to accept all their evidence as right without even listening to the contrary opinions (COMING FROM EXPERTS long before the media even touches it) is absolutely irresponsible thinking.

By patrick on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:25 pm:

    yeah rowlf. AIR BALL seems to be appropriate.

    its the disapointing silence from release till the ball hits the ground that most relates to what spunky is saying.

    spunk. i dont think anyone here gives a rats ass who was in "classified briefings" in Congress with the Administration. Oh you mean meetings headed up by Rummy and Cheney? Oh thats credible.

    "We've got the data"

    You know, you keep saying this and offer NOTHING to back it up. Are you saying you KNOW something that the entire fucking public world DOESN'T?

    I find that hard to believe. You don't know any more or less than we do. Your place of employement and the countless times you've fumbled so called inside info pretty much discredits you as a credible "source".

    So. You know. If you don't mind. We'd like to stick to facts, relatively sound logic, rather than blind faith.

    And when you talk about knowing how to defend a country, you mean like this?

By patrick on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 01:46 pm:

    and you know.....while we're spending billions every week in Iraq on a god damn fools errand, why don't we go after the motherfucker that is practically WAVING his weapons at us?

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:09 pm:

    Hey, spunk. Is the coming of WMD like the second coming of christ? Are we going to have to wait 2000 years with the higher ups saying, "The time of WMD discovery is nigh! Soon! Soon they will be found!"

    I'm not completely kidding, here. Christian religion has pounded the "wait for the second coming" meme into it's follower's heads for thousands of years. They're used to having faith in waiting. So it makes perfect sense that they swallow the "wait for WMD" line, especially from a fellow believer. (i.e. Bush)

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:29 pm:

    Oh, boy. Read this.

    The most amazing part:

    Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

    Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

    The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:30 pm:

    Bush has just revised history. Not only that, but it's history that the whole world witnessed, only a few months ago.

    Is this man sane?

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:34 pm:

    Here is the White House transcript

    "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

    Also, note that this quote is at the end very of the transcript. It seems the event ended as soon as Bush made those comments...

By patrick on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:38 pm:

    thats fucking hilarious in a sick and scary kind of way.

By heather on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:39 pm:

    not really

    someone explain north korea to me. i really
    don't get it. it's like they want to start a fight that
    no one can win, or get an ass-whooping.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:48 pm:

    Also from the Washington Post article above:

    "A four-star general, who was asked to go to Niger last year to inquire about the security of Niger's uranium, told The Washington Post yesterday that he came away convinced the country's stocks were secure. The findings of Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. were passed up to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- though it was unclear whether they reached officials in the White House."

    So, a four star Marine general was asked by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to check out the Niger yellowcake issue, and he's convinced it was secured, month before the State of the Union address.

    spunky? Care to contradict a four star Marine general?

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:57 pm:

    Them North Koreans are just fucked up.

    But, being starving authoritarian communists will do that to you.

By patrick on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:09 pm:

    that, plus you have Bush...

    former Defense Secretary William Perry said it nicely...

    From his discussions, Perry has concluded that Bush simply won't enter into genuine talks with Pyongyang's Stalinist government.

    "My theory is the reason we don't have a policy on this, and we aren't negotiating, is the president himself," Perry said. "I think he has come to the conclusion that (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and it is immoral to negotiate with him."

    Otherwise....i dunno heather.

    From an insane tyrrant who manages a cult of personality, its probably appealing to him, like it was Saddam to take on the big and mighty US.

    If he has the nuclear capabilities they are saying they have and will have very god damn soon, he instantly brings the giant US down a notch.

    Most of the time I think, there is no way to negotiate with this guy. He's that far out of his mind and that we should go ahead, and cease his nuclear capabilities. A shit load of S.Koreans & Americans might be in imminent danger subsequently from a retaliatory strike but if we catch him off guard and use "extreme prejudice" we might be able to keep that at a minimum.

    To me a nuclear N.Korea is just way to fucking scary.

By spunky on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:10 pm:

    "someone explain north korea to me. i really
    don't get it. it's like they want to start a fight that
    no one can win, or get an ass-whooping."

    NK is out of money.
    This is about extortion.

    As for the rest of you hecklers.

    Give it up. You are going to loose in the end.

    I am not going to bother to argue this anymore.
    You all could not give a shit no matter what shows up.

By spunky on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:15 pm:

    PS. If you all WERE NOT media sheep, and only know what you read on the net or see on tv, you would have picked up on the non issue of the uranium piece months ago. The ONLY reason it is such "hot news" right now is the dems think they might have found something to hound bush on in preperations for the 04 elections

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:16 pm:


    Is a four star Marine general who reports to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs a heckler?

    Be a man.

    Admit when you're wrong.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:18 pm:

    We did pick up on it months ago.

    You, as usual, weren't listening.

By Spider on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:20 pm:

    So why do you bother talking to him?

By patrick on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:28 pm:

    dont act like the democrat hounding is exclusive.

    the republicans do the same shit spunk.

    i love it...

    i love how everyone in the Bush camp is saying its a "non issue"

    case closed.


    moving on.

    those motherfuckers think if they just keep saying this shit, eventually it will stick.

    Just like saying "terrorist" and "Saddam" in the same sentence made most of Americans believe there was a verifiable and deadly Iraq/al Qaida connection when none has been proven.

    its NOT a non-issue spunk. Its a non-issue for you because the mere idea that Bush misled you discredits so much of what you believe in and have taken for granted.

    The motherfucker lied to America, whether he realized it or not, to make his case for war.

    Its cause for impeachment trials, or at the very least a special prosecutor and Congressional investigation.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

    "So why do you bother talking to him?"

    We must remain ever vigilant.

By Spider on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:46 pm:

    Fuck it, I say.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:01 pm:

    I love it when you say fuck.

By Rowlf on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:12 pm:

    "you would have picked up on the non issue of the uranium piece months ago"

    if you look around, I'm pretty sure this WAS raised months ago... I think I linked it from whatreallyhappened.com

    so are you going to defend this new lie spunk?
    that Iraq never let inspectors in? who's rewriting history now?

By Rowlf on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:36 pm:

    so spunk, did you go against Clintons lie just to affect the 2000 election?

By dave. on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:29 pm:

    "Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the furor as a flap over ''one scrap of intelligence'' among many pointing to Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. But by putting the charge in his State of the Union address, Bush highlighted the specific allegation about Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

    it's amazing how easily critical, damning evidence can become merely "one scrap of intelligence" when proven illegitimate.

    revisionism, indeed.

    i notice the stories are petering out. they better not fuck up this opportunity to get a special investigator, a la kenneth starr, to go fuck shit up. attention spans are getting fatigued already.

By Antigone on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:46 pm:

    The law that begat Ken Starr (and all other special prosecutors since Watergate) does not exist anymore. It wasn't renewed after the whole Lewisnky debacle.

    Interesting, isn't it?

By dave. on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:17 pm:

    damn them! my conspiracy klaxon is all "whoot! whoot! whoot!"

By dave. on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:23 pm:

    except that real klaxons don't go "whoot!"

By spunky on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 02:03 am:

    I think the CIA still has some MAJOR problems.

    You know what they said about Al-Queda and a terrorist strike on US Soil just before 9/11?
    they could not confirm that there was an impending attack.

By dave. on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 02:29 am:

    what are you saying?

    are you arguing that the cia couldn't find its asshole if it were taped to its hand or are you trying to poopoo any cia criticism of this administration's decisions?

By Rowlf on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:34 am:

    it doesnt stop him from posting that declassified report... just like everyone else, what he believes from people depends on them saying what he wants to hear...

By patrick on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 12:29 pm:


    N.Korea comes out with firecrackers up its ass proclaiming to have all kinds of nuclear goodies made, and in the works, says it will defy international treaty and git bizzy up in de house of Kim making nukies....and we blow it off or we delay a response, let China push it off the UN agenda and otherwise stand around and pick our nose.

    Yet Iraq, not only denies having active weapon stockpiles and/or programs, invites UN inspectors for months of inspections with no success and we bomb them to fuck.

    "what he believes from people depends on them saying what he wants to hear"


By semillama on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:22 pm:

    Arnold Nawrocki, cheese innovator
    By Gayle Ronan Sims
    Inquirer Staff Writer

    The creator of the next-best thing since sliced bread, a hero to anyone who ever wanted a quick grilled-cheese sandwich, has died.

    Arnold N. Nawrocki, 78, who made eating processed cheese more convenient for billions of consumers by developing individually wrapped slices, died June 30 in Sun City, Ariz.

    Back when Harry S. Truman was president, Mr. Nawrocki put his chemical engineering degree from Purdue University to work and began his quest.

    As quality-assurance manager for Swift & Co. in Chicago in 1950, he developed his first U.S. patent for shrink-wrap packaging of large hunks of cheese. This led to the casting of thin, hot cheese between two sheets of wax-coated cellophane, which he cut and formed into stacks of individually wrapped slices.

    They were beautiful and expensive. The slices were next to impossible to open and were covered with wax. The project was killed.

    Had Mr. Nawrocki not met William D. Tate, who owned Clearfield Cheese Co. in Curwensville, Pa., it could have been years before consumers got individually wrapped slices.

    As technical director for Clearfield, Mr. Nawrocki developed a method to produce 600 perfect slices per minute.

    In 1956, Clearfield's first successful run of individually wrapped slices was sold.

    "From the time I was 3, Dad would bring cheese slices home to see if I could unwrap them. I guess he figured if a toddler could unwrap the cheese, Mrs. Homemaker could also," said his son David, a professor of finance at Villanova University.

    By 1962, the Pennsylvania plant was producing 10 million pounds of cheese a year. Mr. Nawrocki's invention dominated the market for almost 10 years until a major competitor came out with a product.

    He left Clearfield Cheese in 1972 and went to work as quality-control manager at Pauly Cheese Co. in Green Bay, Wis., until he retired in 1985.

    "Dad was fairly shy about his accomplishments. He did tell me once that he retired with 12 patents," his son said.

    Mr. Nawrocki was not a wealthy man from the patents, which were assigned to the corporations that provided research resources. They paid Mr. Nawrocki $1 for each patent.

    "Dad had a number of $1 checks from Swift and Clearfield Cheese. I have the one for the separately wrapped cheese slices," David Nawrocki said.

    Mr. Nawrocki was born and raised in Michigan City, Ind., and died of of polycystic kidney disease at his home in Sun City. He is survived by his wife of 55 years, Jean Kettring Nawrocki; sons David, Bill and Philip; daughters Janice Nawrocki-Storms and Carolyn Oberfeld; and seven grandchildren.

    A memorial service will be held at 10 a.m. Aug. 2 at St. Odilia Roman Catholic Church in Shoreview, Minn., to celebrate Mr. Nawrocki's life with family and friends. Mr. Nawrocki donated his body to science.

    Memorial donations may be made to the Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation, 4901 Main St., Suite 200, Kansas City, Mo. 64112-2634.


By wisper on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 07:03 pm:

    that man is a hero

By Rowlf on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:59 pm:

    North, South Korea Soldiers Exchange Fire
    15 minutes ago Add World - AP to My Yahoo!

    SEOUL, South Korea - South and North Korean soldiers briefly exchanged fire along their border on Thursday, but the South said it suffered no casualties in the shootout.

    It was not immediately known whether any North Korean troops were injured or killed in the firefight in the Demilitarized Zone.

    North Korean soldiers fired four rounds at 6:10 a.m., and South Korean soldiers fired 17 rounds in response one minute later, said Maj. Lee of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    The incident happened near the South Korean town of Yonchon, said Lee, who did not give his first name.

    "Over the decades, violence has periodically broken out at the DMZ, though such incidents have tapered off in recent years. The shooting Thursday comes amid heightened tension over North Korea's suspected development of nuclear weapons. "

    thats from yahoo... NK and SK exchanging fire... is this just something that happens and happens again, or is this the tip of something bigger this time? If it continues, isnt it time for Bush to start talking? Isnt it time to stop saying they're bluffing?

By Antigone on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:17 pm:

    It happen now and again.

By semillama on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 10:18 am:

    Rowlf, check out the latest issue of National Geographic for more. Pretty good article on the whole Korea thing plus a nifty map.

By Sven on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 08:32 pm:

    semillama,what do YOU think?Is korea the next war?

By semillama on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 10:27 am:

    Nah, too obvious. Maybe somewhere in South America or Africa. Southeast Asia outside of Korea, i could see, maybe as part of a governmental collapse.

    Of course, if your last name is "Olsen" than it's Korea for sure.


The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact