*Unpatriotic*????

[Gimpy]

I think not!

######


When Americans opposed to Bush are called unpatriotic wimps, a disabled veteran in a wheelchair goes on the attack.

By Jack Dalton

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, right or wrong, is not only un-patriotic, but it is morally treasonable to the American people." --President Theodore Roosevelt


In the small Texas town of Canyon Lake, a sea of Bush ideologues, there is a stong voice of reason: Doug Kirk, the much attacked publisher of the Canyon Lake Weekly. Recently, a letter to the editor from Frances Shannon went too far. Way too far.

?It is people like you who cry anti-war slogans, criticize our commander-in-chief for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan from barbarian rule that I was referring to as wimps,? she wrote. Besides Doug, she also included in the ?wimps with no backbone that do not deserve to be called Americans? category, ?wives, mothers, and others that complain.?

This rated more than a simple letter to the editor response.

For your information, Frances Shannon, when you were at home baking cookies, I and thousands of other ?wimps with no backbone? were crawling around in Vietnam. While some at home were being ?patriotic? and proudly waving the American flag with self-righteousness and vociferously supporting that un-mitigated disaster, as is being done today with Iraq, I and thousands of other Americans were getting shot to hell and back, as is happening in Iraq today.

Thirty-five years later, after all the pontificating about ?never again? has faded from memory, that same flag of false and misguided patriotism once again ?proudly? waves over America. It seems that never again is here again (if it ever went away).

The ease at which those of you who so blindly follow Bush can label fellow citizens as ?wimps without backbone that do not deserve to be called Americans,? including those of us who are combat veterans, concerns me in some ways more than my serious concerns for George Bush. Having been decorated for counter-insurgency operations in 1966, having been three times wounded and living a life fighting the effects of Agent Orange, I am not a wimp.

By your statements, one can only conclude that you believe the only patriotic Americans are those that toot the horn for George Bush. I guess it makes no difference to you that the man you support has cut and is cutting funding for the Veterans Administration which to date has forced over 250,000 veterans out of the system due to a lack of funding. At the same time, this same man is creating more veterans and more disabled veterans.

If continuing my open opposition to the Bush cabal makes me a ?wimp without backbone,? I guess I?ll be a wimp without backbone for whatever life I have remaining. For I will go to my grave in opposition to any and all who preach perpetual war for profit.

The thing that really stands out is that the vast majority of those who feel free to label their fellow citizens as un-patriotic, un-American, traitors, wimps, etc., especially those of us who actually wore the uniform and went to war, is that they themselves, for whatever reason, never wore this country?s uniform and never went to war. The arrogance of people to call anyone, let alone combat veterans, wimps and un-American is astounding!

My right to criticize was born in the thick of war. Your right to criticize was born in your front rooms from watching 30-second sound bites on Fox ?news.? My right is carried by sacrifice, yours by privilege.

A Free Iraq?

As for the statement Iraq is liberated and the Iraqi people are now free, it would be laughable if it were not so very sad. Sure the Iraqi people are now free, free to be a part of the 60% unemployed and free to watch Halliburton import thousands of foreign laborers to ?rebuild? Iraq. Free to watch the wholesale privatization of their nation?s resources, infrastructure, economy and everything in between by the same U.S. multinationals importing labor. But the Iraqi people have been liberated.

They are now free to see their fellow citizens subject to arrest, detention, torture, and murder in the same prisons that Saddam used for the very same purposes. But they have been liberated and they are now free. They are now free to watch their country turned into what it never was until the politically driven and ideology based invasion: ground zero for fools and fanatics. But Iraq has been liberated and the Iraqi people are now free.

They are free to wonder, with all the money Halliburton has been paid, when they will have potable water and electricity more than 8 hours a day; they are free to wonder about this and much more. They are free to wonder why Americans pay no attention to their own General Accounting Office reports that clearly state Iraq is worse off than before the invasion. (GAO report, 6/2004: ?Iraq is Worse off Than Before the War Began?)

I could go on for a long time enumerating the theft of Iraq, but time and space prevent that. Be that as it may, one last thought on the ?liberation? of Iraq: For those willing to use the brain?s memory cells, you will recall that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, not one time was ?liberating Iraq? part of the discussion. From the beginning, it was weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds over Manhattan, and the link between Saddam, bin Laden, and al Qaeda, all of which has proven to be false and deliberately so! It was when those ?reasons? began to unravel that Bush?s adventure morphed in to a war of ?liberation.? This was deliberate deception, just like with Vietnam.

I for one am really tired of Bush and company pissin? on my boots while trying to convince me it?s raining. The crazy part is how many of you are reaching for umbrellas.

Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. He lives in Portland, Oregon. You can email Jack at jack_dalton@ommp.org

Posted Monday, July 12, 2004

#####

[Gimpy]

firemedic on THIS thread???

[firemedic]

Firemedic, present and accounted for Gimpy. In response, I don't understand Mr. Dalton's motive at all. Just because he is a veteran of the VN war doesn't make him an expert in foreign policy, or the war on terroism. And just because he was diabled in the VN war doesn't give him the right to be hateful and bitter. He has the right to disagree with President Bush, as do you, without being called unpatriotic, but his broad brush statements are a little over the top. Hallibutrton's initial contracts were awarded under the Clinton administration, and I didn't hear any liberals complaining then. If you really want to know what is going on in Iraq, why not listen to the Iraqi people. The vast majority are glad that we are there, even though we are not perfect. They apreciate the 20,000+ reconstruction projects; they enjoy the benefits of education spending up from approximately 16 million before the war to aroound 100 million this year; They are glad that this year their Olympic team won't be punished and killed just because they didn't win every gold medal for Saddam. They look forward to voting in open elections for the first time ever. I just heard a young Iraqi man tell how he watched his father, mother, brother, and sisters killed by Saddam's thugs. He was machine gunned also, but survived the massacre. He is not bitter at his loses, but thankful to be alive in his now free country. I suggest that Mr. Dalton take a lesson from this young man.

[SuperScout]

In addition to seconding what firemedic has said, kindly allow me to add a few passing thoughts and words. This automatic assignment of expertise to anyone that has been awarded any medal is lunacy personified. For example, Charles Rangel, D-NY, is touted for his expertise on a variety of subjects, frequently citing his being awarded a Purple Heart for wounds received in Korea. For the clueless and the inhabitants of Rio Linda, medals and smarts are not mutally inclusive. Another case in point: a classmate of mine, at one point in my sullied military life, had been awarded the Medal of Honor. He was later caught cheating on an exam, and was quietly escorted of the Army the very same day.

If Halliburton imported labors from outside, do you think that there might have been a sound business reason perhaps? Don't you think that it would have been infinitely cheaper to employ local folks instead of having to pay for the transportation, food and housing of the importees? Don't you think that for the same amount of work to be done, with less paid in wages, that nasty ol' group of Halliburton executives could have reaped so much more in profit?

And oh, the horrors of it all: the resources, infrastructure and economy of Iraq if being privatized? What is this whiner, Jack Dalton, advocating, a socialist government, where everybody is a loser except the buureaucrats? Can he cite valid examples of where socialism or its evil twin, communism, has been a roaring success?

And one last thing: what time warp is this bellyacher living in, where he still hasn't read of the link, indisputable and verified, between SH and Al Qaeda? I wouldn't call him a wimp with no backbone, but just a whiner with no brain.

[Seascamp]

A basic rule of international business is to hire locally where possible and bring in expertise where needed. If this were not true there would be no trans-Siberia to Western Europe gas pipeline. That humongous project was built all most exclusively by western contractors hired by the Soviet Union. First off, the Soviets didn?t have the equipment to push a gas pipeline, didn?t have the expertise to put in a pipeline over tundra and didn?t have the logistics skills or infrastructure to keep such an expansive project moving ahead let alone get going in the first place.
Central planning may work to move a huge Army but on the industrial side ya end up with an idle workforce, the wrong material at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Where the Soviet Union went in on international projects they came totally self contained, including the ever present political commissar and were the neighborhood pain in the ass and totally non-competitive.
Way back when, the Soviets had an oil exploration crew on the Algerian side of the border and I was on a crew on the Tunisian side. They got so far behind on logging that they finally resorted to slant drilling under the border on a line where we were bringing in wells and more or less Easter egg hunting for the oil field tributaries. Ha, a drill rig at about a 30-degree angle to the horizon was a sure sign that the Ivans were up to no good.

They got behind because all their supplies and mother may I decision making came from Moscow plus their logging equipment was total stone axe and horribly obsolete.

On a good day with no interruptions I could log a 12 Km line, about 20 or so shots and the Soviets answer to that was to run a stupid track tractor right across the border so as to screw up my seismic readings. But that cat and mouse game was easy to win by just changing the seismo channel cut filters and feigning frustration, arguments and Ivan bitch-outs over the radio, no problem.

At that time about 85% of the crew was local Arabs, the rest were European or a Yank here and there. These days 85% would be an unacceptably low number if local talent can be found. The core of the industrial issue in Iraq is that Saddam let everything go to seed and that includes industrial vocational training so I?m not surprised outside expertise is being brought in. Thus far, the organization I?m associated with has lost three people to hostilities and we consider anyone who is involved with municipal facilities refurbishing or new construction to be a prime terrorist target and get security going accordingly. So then, the issue as I see it is who doesn?t want the industrial infrastructure on line and the resultant local jobs that happen. Who dat?

And by the by, the French and Russians had the lions share of the oil field concessions in Iraq and if that isn?t privatization then I?ll be a monkeys uncle. And of course the French and Russians are noted for their giving-back generosity and human infrastructure building, huh. The French are just holding on to all that stolen UN oil for food Iraqi money for safekeeping, right?

Scamp

[Gimpy]

The only thing "warped" around here is that propaganda being put out about an "indisputable & verified connection" between SD and Osama-Bin-Forgotten????????

To this day...........all "verifiable" evidence investigated by the 9/11 commission, the Senate intelligence committee, the CIA, the FBI, etc. has found NO.....ABSOLUTELY NONE......NADA.....ZERO connection between SD & Al Qaeda????

It just ain't so! No matter how much the right-wing fanatics and neo-cons attempt to have the general public believe this happy horse-$hit!

BUSH LIED & OUR TROOPS DIED!

Tha's the TRUTH................no matter how they try and cover up the facts and deny the TRUTH!

[Gimpy]

'Operational Relationship' With Al Qaeda Discounted


By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 23, 2004; Page A01


One week after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no "compelling case" existed for Iraq's involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government were weak.

Not only did Osama bin Laden resent the Iraqi government's secularism, Kurtz's classified memo stated, but there was no confirmed information about collaboration between them on weapons of mass destruction.

Yesterday, after a lengthy investigation, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States laid out a detailed body of evidence supporting Kurtz's view. Although recent polls have shown that more than 40 percent of the American public is still convinced that Iraq collaborated with al Qaeda and had a role in the terrorist attacks, (evidently neo-con nincompoops...editorial comment from the Gimp ) the commission reported finding no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" between the two or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.

It stated that representatives of the two may have been in contact in 1994 or 1995, 1998 and possibly 1999, largely because of what the commission described as a shared hatred of the United States. But the commission found that their interests were largely out of sync, and nothing came of the contacts.

After probing the depth of ties between al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah, a closely linked terrorist group, the commission found no evidence of Iranian or Hezbollah awareness of al Qaeda's plan for Sept. 11, 2001.

But its judgment regarding Iran was not as strong. Pointing to travel by the future Sept. 11 hijackers through Iran, in one instance on the same plane as an unnamed Hezbollah "associate," as well as unusual attentiveness by Hezbollah "operatives" to other movements by the hijackers, the commission called for "further investigation" of the question of cooperation.

The issue of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda has figured prominently in debate over the wisdom of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Senior administration officials have repeatedly linked the two and said the war eliminated a sanctuary for terrorists. Administration supporters may now interpret the commission's evidence of meetings between the two as a problem that could have become a significant threat.

The commission staff previously cast doubt on such claims regarding Iraq. Yesterday's report -- issued in the name of the commission members, not just its staff -- affirms that skepticism and makes the case in greater detail.

Kurtz's memo, prepared in response to a request from President Bush, had little bearing on what the commission report depicts as the determination of a handful of senior policy officials -- centered mostly at the Pentagon -- to take military action against Iraq as well as bin Laden.

Providing a rich account of high-level deliberations after the attacks, the report states that advocates of this view wasted no time in pressing their case. Even at 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, the report states -- citing notes taken by witnesses -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard B. Myers that his instinct was to hit Hussein at the same time as bin Laden.

Rumsfeld told the commission that he then thought Iraq or bin Laden might have been responsible for the attack.

Four days later, when Bush convened a seminal meeting of his senior advisers at Camp David to decide retaliatory steps, the Defense Department submitted a paper that depicted Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda as priority targets in the first stage of action, the commission states. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith argued in three memos for Rumsfeld in subsequent days why Iraq should be hit, the report discloses.

The memos -- including one dated Sept. 18 and titled "Were We Asleep?" -- listed alleged ties between al Qaeda and Iraq that the commission report debunks , such as a theory that Ramzi Yousef, an al Qaeda-affiliated bomber convicted of masterminding the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, was an Iraqi agent.

The commission quotes Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his interview with the panel in January 2004, saying Wolfowitz "was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with. And he saw this as one way of using this event." Powell also told the panel he felt Wolfowitz's claims were unjustified, and that Bush did not then give them much weight.

Bush did, however, order the Pentagon on Sept. 17 to be ready to occupy the Iraqi oil fields if the country acted against U.S. interests, the commission states. Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who eventually directed the war in Iraq, is depicted by the commission as lobbying immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks for authority to plan for military action there. In his commission interview last April, Franks said he personally believed that Iraq and al Qaeda might be colluding.

Still, the commission found no evidence of significant dealings between Iraq and al Qaeda.

It says, for example, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in 1994 or 1995, at the encouragement of Hassan Turabi, then a radical Islamic party leader in Sudan; Turabi was arrested and accused of plotting a coup in 2001. Bin Laden "is said to have asked for space to establish training camps" and help in procuring weapons, but no evidence exists that Iraq responded.

This information was in any event not learned until late May 2003, according to the report, weeks after Bush declared major combat in Iraq successfully finished.

In 1997, after bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan, he "sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation," the report states. But Iraq was trying then to improve ties with Saudi Arabia, which officially disapproved of bin Laden. Iraq made no significant reply.

A year later, Iraq's position reversed. Impressed by bin Laden's declaration of holy war against the United States, Iraqi intelligence officials reportedly hosted a visit by two al Qaeda members; follow-up meetings took place in 1998 and possibly in 1999, the report states. But bin Laden declined an Iraqi offer of haven.

The commission repeated intelligence claims that "there are indications" of Iraqi tolerance of and potential assistance in the late 1990s to an extremist Islamic group in northeastern Iraq known as Ansar al-Islam, which was an al Qaeda ally and fighting Kurdish groups opposed to Hussein. But recent U.S. military intelligence from Iraq, not cited in the commission's report, has suggested that Ansar's membership is distinct from al Qaeda's.

The commission also says "the available evidence does not support" a claim by many top administration officials, including at one point Vice President Cheney, that Mohamed Atta, who flew one of the jetliners into the World Trade Center, met an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Czech authorities discount the report, which was based on a single source, and say the Iraqi intelligence agent, who is in jail, was not in Prague at the time. The FBI meanwhile has found evidence that Atta was in the United States at the time, and al Qaeda officials in U.S. custody have denied the meeting occurred.

A Defense Intelligence Agency report dated July 2002 was titled "Special Analysis: Iraq's Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida," the commission's report says.

Al Qaeda ties to Iran appear to have been much more substantial, according to information disclosed by the commission. An agreement brokered by Sudan in 1991 or 1992 led to Iranian training of senior al Qaeda operatives in explosives, for example. Iran also repeatedly assisted the transit of al Qaeda figures into and out of Iran by agreeing not to stamp their passports. No similar evidence of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq was cited by the panel.

#########

[reconeil]

I certainly can't disagree with anything that Firemedic, SuperScout or Seascamp responded to your typical Party Line thread. After all, all alluded to usually deal honestly with realities, have common sense and sound logic,...vis-a-vis what those most purposefully nationally-dividing so as to: "Recapture The White House" Democrats/LEFTISTS normally put forth favorably for themselves alone and/or self/clique-servingly propagandize, even though often quite suspect of ACTUAL intent or ACTUAL allegiance.

Neil


P.S. SuperScout,
Think I might have a different take on your query about where: "...socialism...has been a roaring success"?

Believe that in France (most of Europe also), or anywhere where gasoline goes for either $4-5-6 (or better) a gallon, are ROARING (both ways) SUCCESSES!!! Granted most drivers, The Schnooks and/or The People such rip-offs are forced on DON'T THINK SO,...and only The Socialistic Rulers can TRULY appreciate such as being GREATLY $UCCE$$FUL & QUITE REWARDING. I know that my Governor McGreevey would just love having $4-5-6 (or better) a gallon gasoline, right here in New Jersey. Just another windfall, like our absurdly high (highest in nation) property taxes.

Guess it's fair saying that if our Dem/Lib brand of socialists take over again or: "Recapture The White House",...WATCH-OUT-GAS & GASOLINE PRICES!!! Then, and with those kind of numbers, we could probably put the whole-damn-world on Welfare?

SS, sorry to nit-pick at your good stuff.
Neil

[Gimpy]

There Neil..................I can always count on you to come back with that "other" party line (repub/right-wing/neo-con/facist/nazi) propaganda as usual, right????? :cd: :cd:

[Gimpy]

bit of compelling evidence that supports what I have stated above!

########
The 9/11 Report: Bad News for Bush


07/23/2004 @ 07:40am
By David Corn

* The alliance (or lack thereof) between al Qaeda and Iraq .


The 9/11 commission created a firestorm not too long ago when it released an interim report that said the commission had found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and al Qaeda.

In response, Bush and Cheney declared there had been a "relationship." After all, Bush had argued before the war that Hussein was "a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." Without that connection and without the (still missing) WMDs, Bush's primary case for war--Hussein as an "immediate" threat--would fall apart.

Thus, Bush-backers and neocon advocates of the war have relentlessly tried to keep alive the supposed connection between Hussein and al Qaeda, even as the Senate intelligence committee report on the prewar intelligence says the intelligence community was correct to conclude there was no confirmation of a working relationship between the two.

After the 9/11 commission released that interim report, there was talk that its final report might shy away from this matter. But the commission hang tough. These are the relevant portions:.......................


Bin Ladin was also willing [in the early 1990s] to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Sudanese leader Husan al] Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control....

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.....

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.

The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States...........................

Isn't it time to say "case closed" ? No doubt, the neocons will claim the 9/11 report, the CIA, and the Senate intelligence committee are all wrong on this subject. But at some point, doesn't good manners compel them to hoist the white flag? Speaking of which....

* Mohamed Atta in Prague.

Cheney and others have not been able to let go of the allegation--long deemed unlikely by the CIA and the FBI--that Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague several months before the September 11 attacks. When the 9/11 commission issued a preliminary finding declaring there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation, Cheney insisted the Prague meeting remained an open question. In its final report, the commission tries to bury this charge once and for all. Will Cheney accept the panel's verdict? Probably not, but maybe he will stop talking about a meeting that probably never happened. This is what the commission reports: .................................


Mohamed Atta is known to have been in Prague on two occasions: in December 1994, when he stayed one night at a transit hotel, and in June 2000, when he was en route to the United States. On the latter occasion, he arrived by bus from Germany, on June 2, and departed for Newark the following day. The allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001 originates from the reporting of a single source of the Czech intelligence service. Shortly after 9/11, the source reported having seen Atta meet with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, an Iraqi diplomat, at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on April 9, 2001, at 11:00 A.M. This information was passed to CIA headquarters.

The U.S. legal attache ("Legat ") in Prague, the representative of the FBI, met with the Czech service's source. After the meeting, the assessment of the Legat and the Czech officers present was that they were 70 percent sure that the source was sincere and believed his own story of the meeting. Subsequently, the Czech intelligence service publicly stated that there was a 70 percent probability that the meeting between Atta and Ani had taken place. The Czech Interior Minister also made several statements to the press about his belief that the meeting had occurred, and the story was widely reported.

The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on April 11, where he and Shehhi leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida. We cannot confirm that he placed those calls. But there are no U.S. records indicating that Atta departed the country during this period.

Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab. They have also reviewed pictures from the area near the Iraqi embassy and have not discovered photos of anyone who looked like Atta. No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.

According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague on April 8 ?9 and did not return until the afternoon of the ninth, while the source was firm that the sighting occurred at 11:00 A.M. When questioned about the reported April 2001 meeting, Ani--now in custody--has denied ever meeting or having any contact with Atta. Ani says that shortly after 9/11, he became concerned that press stories about the alleged meeting might hurt his career. Hoping to clear his name, Ani asked his superiors to approach the Czech government about refuting the allegation. He also denies knowing of any other Iraqi official having contact with Atta.

The FBI and CIA have uncovered no evidence that Atta held any fraudulent passports. KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] and [Ramzi] Binalshibh both deny that an Atta-Ani meeting occurred. There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States. The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting..........................................


To recap, then: no working relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, no Prague meeting, no strong reaction from Bush to the pre-9/11 warnings of a pending al Qaeda attack, no more than routine attention devoted to the al Qaeda threat by the Bush team in the months before September 11. GOPers can wag their fingers at Bill Clinton, who also did not do enough (obviously). But there is no denying this report is bad news for Bush and his crew. If Bush wants this election to be a referendum on how he has handled the threat posed by al Qaeda, this report--available now in local bookstores and online at the 9/11 commission's site--ought to be read by those 49 swing voters in Ohio who will be deciding the election for the rest of us.

################



********************