OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran


Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report will
cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed
through Iran

By ADAM ZAGORIN AND JOE KLEIN




Friday, Jul. 16, 2004
Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the
origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between
al-Qaeda and Iran-just weeks after the Administration has come under fire
for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's
Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence
suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers-that is,
those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the
crew and passengers-passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to
February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found
that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran
across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with
Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards-in
some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel-and
otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the
frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware
of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian
officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS
Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the
U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to
alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

The Iran-al Qaeda contacts were discovered and presented to the
Commissioners near the end of the bipartisan panel's more than year-long
investigation into the sources and origins of the 9/11 attacks. Much of the
new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the
U.S. government, including captured Yemeni al-Qaeda operative Waleed
Mohammed bin Attash, who organized the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole,
and from as many as 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled
by analysts at the NSA. The findings were sent to the White House for review
only this week. But Commission members have been hinting for weeks that
their report would have some Iran surprises. As the 9/11 Commission's
chairman, Thomas Kean, said in June, "We believe....that there were a lot
more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were
with Iraq."

These findings follow a Commission staff report, released in June, which
suggested that al-Qaeda may have collaborated with Hezbollah and its Iranian
sponsors in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a key American military
barracks in Saudi Arabia. Previously, the attack had been attributed only to
Hezbollah, with Iranian support. A U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in
1998 for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said al-Qaeda "forged
alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived
common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." But the
Commission comes to no firm conclusion on al-Qaeda's involvement in the
Khobar disaster.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran-and through
intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia-concerning
the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country,
including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S.
official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the
Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is
widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as
well of other key al-Qaeda figures.

--------------------------------------------------------
So al-Qaeda approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...but Iran
approached al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their
supporters in Saudi Arabia?!?!?


Like I said almost three years ago...
Iraq is first on our list because it provides a geographically strategic
location to next invade Iran and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and
Iraq, Iran is surrounded. That's why Iran has been stirring up so much
trouble in Iraq. A US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station
troops there is bad news for the mullahs.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?


Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.

Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

*PLONK* *mumbles* troll




"NOYB" wrote in message
...
9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran


Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report
will
cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed
through Iran

By ADAM ZAGORIN AND JOE KLEIN

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

It was sarcasm. Despite all of the evidence showing al-Qaeda working in
cooperation with several Middle Eastern countries, the 9/11 Commission still
goes out of its way to make up stories that discredit the notion that 9/11
was state sponsored.



What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?

Precisely! The dichotomy makes no sense. If al-Qaeda was willing to
approach Saddam with disregard to how their supporters in Saudi Arabia would
feel, then why would they rebuff Iran?





Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.



Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that
country?

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that
country?


With your military pulling equipment and soldiers out of Korea, due to
shortages in Iraq, are you in any position to invade Iran, Syria etc.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:08:38 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack
against that country?

No, not with this Bozo in charge. I fully supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and the use of all resources, short of nukes, to bring bin
Laden and those responsible to justice. After the Iraq fiasco, that goal
has mutated. I have no trust in this administration. This January,
when a new administration takes over and bin Laden is once again our top
priority, I'll reconsider.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist
insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against
that
country?


With your military pulling equipment and soldiers out of Korea, due to
shortages in Iraq, are you in any position to invade Iran, Syria etc.


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:08:38 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack
against that country?

No, not with this Bozo in charge. I fully supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and the use of all resources, short of nukes, to bring bin
Laden and those responsible to justice. After the Iraq fiasco, that goal
has mutated. I have no trust in this administration. This January,
when a new administration takes over and bin Laden is once again our top
priority, I'll reconsider.

I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was state-sponsored,
then attacking that country is our right and our responsibility.

It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

NOYB wrote:


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.



Sorry, Bub, but no one is going to allow the lying, thieving thug Bush
start another war.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran


So how does this effect my engine speed?

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."


It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons. Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes. Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less
than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.



Sorry, Bub, but no one is going to allow the lying, thieving thug Bush
start another war.

That wasn't the question that Don posed.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"JGS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran


So how does this effect my engine speed?


Actually, there's a pretty strong correlation. An increase in engine speed,
or an increase in the number of Islamic fundamentalists will cause a rapid
rise in your fuel costs.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."



Pre-emptive attacks are self-defense. And, yes, they're "our right".



It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons.

No. The administration gave you a sound reason based on some not-so-sound
intelligence provided to them by our and other country's intelligence
agencies. However, they didn't give you a "false" reason. Besides the WMD
issue, there are 4 or 5 other solid reasons why we should have gone into
Iraq.


Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes.

Whose mistakes?

Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

It's not that important in the whole scheme of things. Hell, we might
already have his head for all you and I know. When was the last time a
videotape of him surfaced? He was popping up left and right for about 4
months after 9/11...and then...nothing for the next 30 months. The war on
terror is a lot bigger picture than bin Laden. If we got him 4 months after
9/11, the liberals would be screaming that we accomplished our objective and
that we should bring our troops home.

Our primary objective was to knock the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan,
disrupt the terrorist training camps there, and install a US-friendly gov't
which would allow us to station troops on the Iranian and Pakistani borders.
Mission number one accomplished.

Our second objective was to drive Saddam from power in Iraq, reestablish the
oil flows to the West (so we're not held hostage by only Saudi oil), and
install a US-friendly government which would allow us to establish US bases
on the Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi Arabian borders. Mission number two is
90% accomplished.

Our third objective is to diplomatically pressure Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
to crack down on the Islamic fundamentalists in their respective countries,
and then drive the terrorist-sponsoring leaders from power in Iran and
Syria. Mission number three has just begun. Should Bush get re-elected, I
predict that mission number three will be accomplished within 2-3 years.

By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there. It will take
at least a generation to get rid of the hatred that is being taught in the
madrassas, but it'll be a lot easier with US-friendly governments in place.


The fact that he has the vision (and the balls) to pursue such a plan is
exactly why I'm voting for Bush.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly. There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran. If Bush unilaterally invades another country and that country has
not attacked us, he should be arrested. If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in
the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc.
At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly.

Which is exactly why we need to (and will) invade Iran. Either that, or the
Israeli's will do it for us.


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a war
with Iran is virtually assured.

If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

and that country has
not attacked us,

9/11 was an attack on America...and was carried out by a state-sponsored
terrorist organization. In light of the evidence that Iran has been working
with al -Qaeda, any attack by al-Qaeda is an attack by Iran...and casus
belli for war with Iran.


he should be arrested.

By whom?

If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

Thousands upon thousands were killed on 9/11. Millions upon millions will
be killed if we must confront Iran *after* they've become a nuclear power.


I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

And you fit in well with the French.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

If Israeli does it, Harry will sing their praises.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in
the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise
support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc.
At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly.

Which is exactly why we need to (and will) invade Iran. Either that, or
the
Israeli's will do it for us.


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran
has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a
war
with Iran is virtually assured.

If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that
matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

and that country has
not attacked us,

9/11 was an attack on America...and was carried out by a state-sponsored
terrorist organization. In light of the evidence that Iran has been
working
with al -Qaeda, any attack by al-Qaeda is an attack by Iran...and casus
belli for war with Iran.


he should be arrested.

By whom?

If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

Thousands upon thousands were killed on 9/11. Millions upon millions will
be killed if we must confront Iran *after* they've become a nuclear power.


I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

And you fit in well with the French.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

Of course.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:3aBKc.108793$JR4.85255@attbi_s54...
If Israeli does it, Harry will sing their praises.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left
in
the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise
support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda,
etc.
At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly.

Which is exactly why we need to (and will) invade Iran. Either that, or
the
Israeli's will do it for us.


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran
has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with
the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a
war
with Iran is virtually assured.

If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that
matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

and that country has
not attacked us,

9/11 was an attack on America...and was carried out by a state-sponsored
terrorist organization. In light of the evidence that Iran has been
working
with al -Qaeda, any attack by al-Qaeda is an attack by Iran...and casus
belli for war with Iran.


he should be arrested.

By whom?

If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

Thousands upon thousands were killed on 9/11. Millions upon millions
will
be killed if we must confront Iran *after* they've become a nuclear
power.


I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

And you fit in well with the French.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:43:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


No. The administration gave you a sound reason based on some not-so-sound
intelligence provided to them by our and other country's intelligence
agencies. However, they didn't give you a "false" reason. Besides the
WMD issue, there are 4 or 5 other solid reasons why we should have gone
into Iraq.

Please, so now it's all the intelligence agencies fault. Flawed or not,
Bush was the one that took us to war. It wasn't that long ago, that our
intelligence agencies learned that the Soviet Union was falling apart ...
from television. Intelligence is often faulty. This CIC should have
understood that, *before* taking us to war.


Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes.

Whose mistakes?

Where did Truman say the buck stopped?

By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there. It will take
at least a generation to get rid of the hatred that is being taught in the
madrassas, but it'll be a lot easier with US-friendly governments in
place.

"US-friendly governments?" At least you are smart enough not to buy the
BS about democracy breaking out all over. It would be refreshing if this
administration was honest enough to state their real reasons for the Iraq
fiasco. I don't seem to have the same tea leaves you have.


The fact that he has the vision (and the balls) to pursue such a plan is
exactly why I'm voting for Bush.

Yup, it's all about Iraq and that's why I'm voting for anybody but Bush.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

NOYB wrote:


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a war
with Iran is virtually assured.

Sorry, Bub, but the neocon wet dream turned into a nightmare, and absent
an invasion sponsored by the actual government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.



If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

Yeah, right. I figured you would fall for that one.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister Ali Allawi says his country is ready to
strike back against nations it believes are supporting terrorists in Iraq.
He did not name any countries, in his interview with a London Arabic
newspaper.

But he did accuse Iraq's longtime enemy Iran of "blatant interference" in
his country. And he blames Syria for sending fighters into Iraq.

Reuters reports that the Iraqi Defense Minister also says Iraq has
confronted other countries with "facts and evidence."

He says those countries have done nothing to stop supporting terrorism in
Iraq.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister


CBN News? Now you are citing the krazed kristian broadcasting network?
Puke.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister


CBN News? Now you are citing the krazed kristian broadcasting network?
Puke.

Right. Typical partisan response...attack the messenger, not the message.
Perhaps you'd prefer this report from Reuter's:

Iraq Says Will Hit at Countries Backing Rebels
Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:30 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq is ready to retaliate against countries it accuses of
supporting violence wracking the country, the country's defense minister
warned Tuesday.
Hazim al-Shaalan mentioned no countries by name but accused old foe Iran of
"blatant interference." Iraq has also complained in the past about guerrilla
fighters entering the country from Syria.

"We are prepared to move the arena of the attacks on Iraq's honor and its
rights to those countries," he was quoted as saying by the London-based
Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.

"We've spoken to them and confronted them with facts and evidence, but none
of them have taken any action to stop supporting terrorism in Iraq," he
said.

Iraq blames a wave of bombings and assassinations, which has claimed
hundreds of lives including senior Iraqi politicians, on remnants of Saddam
Hussein's regime as well as foreign Islamic militants who have entered from
neighboring countries.

"They (Iranians) confess to the presence of their spies in Iraq who have a
mission to shake up the social and political situation," the defense
minister said.

"Iranian intrusion has been vast and unprecedented since the establishment
of the Iraqi state.

Washington, too, has accused Tehran of seeking to destabilize and gain
influence in Iraq, which like Iran, is predominantly Shi'ite Muslim. Tehran
denies interfering in Iraqi affairs.

Ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein waged a protracted war against Iran
between 1980 and 1988 in which hundreds of thousands died on both sides.

Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi -- on a tour of Arab states bordering
Iraq -- won Jordanian support for his drive to crush insurgents.

Syria agreed earlier this month to help seal its long desert border with
Iraq and stop foreign insurgents infiltrating into Iraq to fight U.S. forces
and the U.S.-backed authorities.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister


CBN News? Now you are citing the krazed kristian broadcasting network?
Puke.

Right. Typical partisan response...attack the messenger, not the message.
Perhaps you'd prefer this report from Reuter's:

Frankly, if you even look at CBN, you are mentally defective.



Iraq Says Will Hit at Countries Backing Rebels
Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:30 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq is ready to retaliate against countries it accuses of
supporting violence wracking the country, the country's defense minister
warned Tuesday.


Yes, he's beginning to sound more like Saddam every day.

If US troops invade Iran on the unilateral command of Bush, he will be
thrown out of office before the election by millions of Americans
marching on the White House.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister


CBN News? Now you are citing the krazed kristian broadcasting network?
Puke.

Right. Typical partisan response...attack the messenger, not the
message.
Perhaps you'd prefer this report from Reuter's:

Frankly, if you even look at CBN, you are mentally defective.



Iraq Says Will Hit at Countries Backing Rebels
Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:30 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq is ready to retaliate against countries it
accuses of
supporting violence wracking the country, the country's defense minister
warned Tuesday.


Yes, he's beginning to sound more like Saddam every day.

If US troops invade Iran on the unilateral command of Bush, he will be
thrown out of office before the election by millions of Americans
marching on the White House.

If you decide to be among those who march on the White House, please
consider the fact that the Secret Service, in a time of war, would probably
authorize its agents to shoot to kill.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister


CBN News? Now you are citing the krazed kristian broadcasting network?
Puke.

Right. Typical partisan response...attack the messenger, not the
message.
Perhaps you'd prefer this report from Reuter's:

Frankly, if you even look at CBN, you are mentally defective.



Iraq Says Will Hit at Countries Backing Rebels
Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:30 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq is ready to retaliate against countries it
accuses of
supporting violence wracking the country, the country's defense minister
warned Tuesday.


Yes, he's beginning to sound more like Saddam every day.

If US troops invade Iran on the unilateral command of Bush, he will be
thrown out of office before the election by millions of Americans
marching on the White House.

If you decide to be among those who march on the White House, please
consider the fact that the Secret Service, in a time of war, would probably
authorize its agents to shoot to kill.


Bush would step down with several million people set to storm the White
house.

OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...absent an invasion sponsored by the actual
government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.

What if the government of Iraq sponsored the invasion?

Allawi Vows Reprisals against Nations Supporting Iraq Terrorists

July 20, 2004

(CBN News) - Iraq's Defense Minister


CBN News? Now you are citing the krazed kristian broadcasting
network?
Puke.

Right. Typical partisan response...attack the messenger, not the
message.
Perhaps you'd prefer this report from Reuter's:

Frankly, if you even look at CBN, you are mentally defective.



Iraq Says Will Hit at Countries Backing Rebels
Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:30 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq is ready to retaliate against countries it
accuses of
supporting violence wracking the country, the country's defense
minister
warned Tuesday.


Yes, he's beginning to sound more like Saddam every day.

If US troops invade Iran on the unilateral command of Bush, he will be
thrown out of office before the election by millions of Americans
marching on the White House.

If you decide to be among those who march on the White House, please
consider the fact that the Secret Service, in a time of war, would
probably
authorize its agents to shoot to kill.


Bush would step down with several million people set to storm the White
house.

Naw. He'd set up the ranch in Crawford as the new White House.

Personally, I wish he'd just give up the White House, reestablish the
Mason-Dixon line, set up the new White House in Crawford, and let the South
secede from the liberal North. You guys can keep welfare and all of the
social programs...and we'll keep the military. I'm tired of the snowbirds
anyhow. If you're nice, we might share with you the oil that we seize.