Comments Posted By Rick Moran
Displaying 911 To 920 Of 1317 Comments
Steve:
If you are not going to read what is posted, you are not going to be able to leave a comment here.
Last warning.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.04.2006 @ 07:52
Dear Live:
Read any newspapers lately?
From today's Strategypage:
Prior to the liberation of Iraq in 2003, and in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there were indications that Saddam's regime was at least talking with al Qaeda. The most publicized (and hotly debated) were reports from the Czech government that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 911 hijackers, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April, 2001. Less publicized, and far more damning, is the case of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Shakir was an attendee at the January, 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, after escorting at least one of the 911 hijackers through Malaysian customs while working as a greeter for Malaysian Airlines. Shakir got that job through the Iraqi embassy, which also controlled his work schedule. Six days after 911, Shakir was caught with information pertaining to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and a 1995 al Qaeda plan to destroy multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean. In November, 2001, the London Observer reported the presence of a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, which is about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. There, men were trained in how to hijacking airliners, using knives and the bare hands. This is similar to the methods used in the attacks as well. The coincidences were clearly piling up.
The liberation of Iraq, however, adds more information to the mix. The first of these documents was unearthed in April, 2003, by Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter. This 1998 document discussed bringing an envoy from Osama bin Laden to Baghdad to discuss "the future of our relationship with him". This is the first evidence from inside the regime backing the long-running suspicions of a connection. In October, 2004, CNSNews.com published additional documents. These not only showed that Saddam Hussein was looking to hit at America (including looking into methods to attack American forces in Somalia), but he also started providing support to a group led by Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al-Jehad al-Islamy). Saddam's regime was also attempting to acquire mustard gas and anthrax.
In 2005, even more information leaked. This time, it was an evidence summary for an al-Qaeda operative being held at Guantanamo Bay. This summary indicated that the al Qaeda operative traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence officer as part of an abortive plan to attack the American and British embassies with chemical mortar shells. This was not only a joint operation between the terrorist group and Iraqi intelligence, it involved a weapon of mass destruction.
The present document releases from the Director of National Intelligence add even more. One of the damning documents was Document CMPC-2003-001488, (possibly changed to ISGP-2003-00014127), a letter detailing a report from a source in Afghanistan discussing a meeting with a Taliban consul. This letter indicates that not only did Saddam's regime have a relationship with al Qaeda, but that the relationship lasted through at least September 15, 2001.
This review of the evidence shows that the containment was limited to conventional military efforts at best. Saddam Hussein was not only seeking a means to attack American interests around the world, his regime had already worked with al Qaeda in an effort to launch a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction. If this is containment that is "working well", what would containment that was failing look like? - Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
Get stuffed.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.04.2006 @ 07:39
WHY COOLER HEADS MUST PREVAIL ON IRAN
Dougf:
You ask the $64,000 question about Iranian intentions. The question I am asking is can we stop them from building a nuke even if we bomb them? With their infrastructure so spread out, it's not a certainty by any means.
That said, would placing a nuclear umbrella over our allies in the region (as we did in Europe) give us any kind of deterrence? I think it might. If they're loony enough to commit national suicide, I doubt whether bombing will stop them anyway.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 5.04.2006 @ 16:19
Paul:
I'm very sensitive about this site - sort of like a baby. I too apologize for the rough language.
I'm afraid I don't share your belief that a "moderate" will emerge in Iran after Ahmadinejad. That faction has been pretty much dehorned thanks to a concerted effort by the radicals to purge that element from IRanian politics and society.
As I mentioned, the alternative would be Rafsanjani who is only slightly less radical than Ahamdinejad (he succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini upon that worthy's death) but more subtle in his hatred of America and Israel. He wants to wipe the Jewish state off the map - but he's smart enough not to say it out loud.
Dave:
I've read and been influenced by your writings on this subject (as you can probably tell). I agree that the SSI options are unsatisfactory - especially helping the Saudis and Egyptians go nuclear. And deterrence is also problematic although if the Iranians are stupid enough to bomb Israel with nukes, the mullahs will be sitting on top of a pile of radioactive rubble.
That said, I think if we start approaching the problem from a proliferation angle, that might - just might - keep the nuclear genie in the bottle as far as other countries in the region getting nukes. The IAEA under Barradei has been something of a nuclear enabler but that's only because they hate confrontation with near nuclear states like Iran and NoKo. They can be bullies when they want to be and we should allow them free reign with nations that want to test the nuclear waters.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 5.04.2006 @ 13:41
Charlie:
1. Get. A. Life.
2. Get a sense of humor. I was kidding.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 5.04.2006 @ 06:31
IT'S TIME: MEDALS OF HONOR FOR THE PASSENGERS OF FLIGHT #93
Mr. Holsinger et al:
I realize that the MOH is not given to units or groups. I realize that it is not given to civilians. The point being that this is an extraordinary case and an exception should be made.
It is not my intent, as I said in the post, to cheapen the award. I just can't think of a more powerful statement to make about how admirable their action was and how their actions speaks to the best things that America is.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 5.04.2006 @ 03:49
DREAMS AND MYTHS: HOLLYWOOD AND 9/11
I think your fears are somewhat justified about Stone. However, it probably won't be too bad. I doubt whether he'll include any of the cockamamie conspiracy theories. And if he shines a light on some of the real incompetence of government employees that day (not bashing Bush) that will be okay in my book.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 4.04.2006 @ 09:36
Tony:
Love your Saturday serial analogy. Although too young, I caught Flash Gordon on Saturday morning TV when growing up and with the same breathless anticipation I awaited the next week's installment.
That scene of Jack emerging from the smoke was extremely well done - well crafted and the production values were outstanding, as good as anything you'll see on TV.
It takes a lot of time to set up a shot like that and TV usually doesn't have the time to devote to one shot that takes up a few seconds of film (my guess would be 1 1/2 hours for the set up and with several takes).
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 4.04.2006 @ 11:37
Jennie:
Technically you are correct. However, since Evelyn was about ready to spill the beans anyway, I just assumed that she was going to name Logan.
Maybe you're right. Maybe she'll name MRS LOGAN! Good grief wouldn't that be a twist, eh?
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 4.04.2006 @ 10:31
Publius:
Oh ye of little faith...all will be revealed in due course - maybe. Then again, suspending belief is part of the show as well as throwing logic to the four winds and immersing oneself in fantasy.
My advice is to relax and have fun with it - though I do appreciate you pointing out the silliness and inconsistencies.
Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 4.04.2006 @ 09:28
