« DEMOCRATS COULD WIN SEATS.... | Main | BORROW AND SPEND IS GOOD? I don't think so! »
March 20, 2006
Why the Left Can't Win -Security Issue
CoffeeSnob writes us...."This is why the Left will not get back in power like they were. No matter what comes out about Iraq and terrorism it wont be enough for them. They made their beds and they are screwed.
OBL Sought 'Joint Operations' with Saddam
An Iraqi intelligence document released last week indicates that Osama bin Laden sought to conduct "joint operations" with Saddam Hussein's regime six years before the 9/11 attacks - and was given the green light by the Iraqi dictator.
The document, detailed in the March 27 issue of the Weekly Standard, describes a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence that was personally approved by "the Honorable Presidency" - an apparent reference to Saddam.
"We discussed with [bin Laden] his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda [who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality] and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz [Saudi Arabia]."
The document goes on to note that "the Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995."
The document indicates that Saddam personally granted bin Laden's request for help with propaganda broadcasts and instructed his agents "to develop the relationship [with bin Laden] and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up."
The 1997 Iraqi intelligence document goes on to report: "Currently we are working to invigorate this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location [Afghanistan]."
The reference by Iraqi intelligence to "joint operations" with bin Laden apparently contradicts one of the 9/11 Commission's most important findings: that Saddam had no "operational relationship" with al Qaeda.
Posted by Post Scripts at March 20, 2006 11:12 AM
Comments
Why couldn't Hillary win? The Congressional Democrats may be wussies, on average, but Hillary is tough as nails.
She voted for the Iraq war authorization. She is battle-tested by standing tall through her husband's impeachment.
Husband Bill was Commander in Chief during fantasically successful wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Did ANY Americans die as result of the hostilites there? Those wars were to remove dictators, to prevent a breeding ground for terrorists, to prevent a widening conflict, and for democracy-building---all the same reasons Bush has come around to in Iraq.
I haven't decided between Hillary or John McCain. But it is ironic that the first legimate women candidate for US president could be considered as tough for national security by this moderate, as the heroic POW McCain.
Posted by: Michael Jones at March 20, 2006 12:43 PM
First of all I hope Hillary runs. That would be a true gift, nothing like giving the gift of laughter. I do not see McCain getting the nomination of my party. He is clearly a Republican in name only. While the left seem to like him and the media has already elected him, we on the right wish he would jump ship and become the Dem he has always wanted to be but to cowardly to run as.
I know the "polls" don't show this but they do not show a lot of things.
Posted by: Toby Stahler at March 20, 2006 03:18 PM
McCain will do well until he becomes the front runner or nominee. At that point the media will ressurect the "bad temper" issue again.
Posted by: Ron Acevedo at March 20, 2006 07:01 PM