More Conspiracies
The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed! That's pretty big news, right -- so why haven't you heard it before?
Well, first, the story appears in FrontPage Mag.
And secondly, it's by Laurie Mylroie.
But since today is Wo'C Conspiracy Day (not as much fun as "Anything Can Happen Day," but it's the best we can do on our budget), let's read some of it, won't we?
Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."
That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a “Hamburg student.” The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a “Hamburg student” provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.
Do you get it? Atta had been a student in Hamburg. When he applied for a visa, he said he was a "Hamburg student." Therefore, if somebody says that the Czechs say they found a calendar which indicates that al-Ani had an appointment with a "Hamburg student," it proves he met with Atta! And if Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague (or rather, the Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, because the Iraqi embassy in Prague was small potatoes) in April 2001, then that PROVES that Saddam was behind 9/11. Case closed.
But there's more!
Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.
You're probably thinking, "Is there any record that this false passport was used by Atta (or anybody else) to leave the United States and enter the Czech Republic in April 2001?" Nobody is saying. But hey, if the Spaniards reportedly say that two Algerians gave Atta a false passport, that should be good enough for you, you ingrate.
And why did the Czechs (they have reportedly retracted the claim) say that Atta met with al-Ani?
Because one of their counterintelligence service's Arabic informants came forward after seeing Atta's picture in the papers following 9/11, and said that back in April he saw al-Ani meet with a guy who looked like Atta.
That's it.
Could the informant have mixed up Atta with somebody else (al-Ani reportedly met frequently with one of his friends, an Arabic car dealer whom Atta resembled)? Especially after several months? Could he have lied?
No.
Because Dick Cheney and the neo-cons really, really want it to be true, and they know more than you do. Here's more from Laurie:
Never before in this country’s history has a president ordered American soldiers into battle, without fully explaining why they are asked to risk life and limb. One would never know from the administration’s public stance that senior officials, including the President, believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Iraq was indeed involved in those assaults. There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public.
So, Cheney (and the neo-cons) have really good evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- but they're just not telling us (or Dick Clarke or George Tenet or anyone else) about it, because we don't need to know. It's enough that they know. Nothing more to see here. Go about your business.
Anyway, facts and knowledge and stuff are totally overrated, as Ann Coulter demonstrates in this week's column -- which isn't about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners (imagine that!), but instead "rebuts" John S. Carroll's speech about "pseudo journalists" (which really hurt Ann's feelings, because her name never came up). She also mentions the Atta/al-Ani meeting. I suspect a conspiracy!
So, Ann is in a dudgeon (not, alas, a dungeon like she belongs) because Carroll cited that survey which showed that Fox News viewers were much more likely to believe misinformation favorable to the Bush administration than normal people were. Ann claims that it ISN'T misinformation, as Iraq really WAS behind 9/11, and we really DID find WMDs there (and Hillary Clinton really IS responsible for the Abu Ghraib photos).
Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida.
Note: last year papers actually were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Ann made up the rest.
In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."
Yes, in 1998, a bin Laden aide visited Iraq. Proof positive that Saddam was behind 9/11!
[Note: Of COURSE there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda -- much like there may be contacts between you and your religious fanatic neighbors a couple of doors down. Since you have to live near them, you try to get along. If invited, you attend their "Save the Sinners" soiree (until you suddenly recall that you have a migraine and need to go home). And in return, you invite them to your Tupperware party (because you need ten guests to earn the free cake saver). But you don't consider them friends, don't confide in them, and certainly aren't going to join their plot to bomb the abortion clinic on Main Street. End of analogy.]
In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.
No doubts about that at all, huh, Ann?
Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October.
Ann, Ann, Ann, you're such a liar. As everybody (except the Freepers, whom you plagiarize to get the "facts" for your columns) know, this is what actually happened:
A federal judge Wednesday awarded nearly $104 million in damages to the families of two victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, finding the plaintiffs had provided some evidence that Iraq provided support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Judge Harold Baer outlined the damages against bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government in a written decision in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Baer said he had concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida."
...The default judgment was granted by Baer after public announcements of the lawsuits failed to attract a response from any of the defendants.
He said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.
Baer said the opinions of the lawyers' experts was sufficient to show that Iraq collaborated in or support bin Laden's terrorist acts on Sept. 11.
The judge noted that the experts provided few actual facts that Iraq provided support to the terrorists.
But he said the experts "provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al-Qaida."
But back to Ann, to prove that the judge's ruling proves that Fox News viewers are really smart.
When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.
Exactly! Ann, I knew that if you kept up those dermabrasion treatments, in time some free-floating information would seep through your pores and into your head.
Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA (news - web sites) doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust.
Well, the Czechs have also said it isn't true, the FBI says it isn't true, there is no evidence that it's true, and it's a really stupid story on the face of it. But hey, if you and Fox News say it's true, then any non-belief is just a case of silly liberals taking the CIA's side.
The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.
Ann, everybody in the know says that Bush and Cheney told the CIA to find evidence that there were WMDS in Iraq -- and when they didn't, Cheney and the Pentagon started their own intelligence agency (with Chalabi et al. as their primary sources) to come up some. Then, on the eve of the invasion, the White House invites Tenet and his deputy to present what they had. They show charts, photos, intercepts -- but it's not that exciting. Bob Woodward says that somebody (either Bush or Rice, it would seem) told Tenet that the presentation wasn't that convincing ("It won't sell Joe Public"), and indicated that somebody with more PR experience should put together a better dog and pony show ("Bush told Condoleezza Rice, 'Let's get some people who've actually put together a case for a jury.') That's when Tenet allegedly made the "slam dunk" remark about the WMDs. So, Ann -- who created this "misperception"? Not just the CIA, right? And anyway, how stupid are Fox News viewers if they still believe it?
Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)
Ann (not surprisingly) claims that we HAVE found "weapons of mass destruction," such as "systems, plans, 'recipes' and equipment," "research," and "that old jar of botulism spores found in that scientist's fridge."
But what I really want to discuss is Ann's question to NPR listeners, "Which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?" Ann is implying that NPR listeners are so out of touch with what it REALLY important (unlike Fox viewers) that they would think that handguns kill more kids. And, of course, handguns do kill more kids. Ann got her research from John Lotts, which is why she (once again) looks like an idiot.
First, let's look at the Killer Bucket factoid. Per a pro-gun piece I found via Google, "According to Yale researcher John Lott, more children under age five die from drowning in mop buckets than are lost to handgun accidents all the way to age 15." That's apparently the quote that stuck in Ann's mind (she doesn't offer a citation) -- but she forgot Lott's stipulation about only accidental handgun deaths counting (because if people kill people, then you can't blame the poor gun.). So, we're only going to answer question as asked: "which kills more children, handguns or buckets?" (However, even in accidents, firearms still kill way more kids than buckets do -- and buckets are rarely used in homicides.)
However, a 1999 Aquatic Injury Fact Sheet (with information compiled by the National SAFE KIDS Campaign) informs us that:
More than 320 children, 88 percent between the ages of 7 and 15 months, have drowned in buckets containing water or other liquids used for mopping floors and other household chores since 1984.
So, how many kids under 14 died from handgun injuries between 1984 and 1997? I'm not sure, but I can tell you that, per the very cool CDC Injury/Mortality Searchable Database, 11,416 children aged 0-14 were killed by firearms during that period.
Other stats show that the majority of people killed by firearms are killed by handguns. [A Connecticut Safe Kids site says: "More than 70% of unintentional firearm shootings involve handguns." A Georgia study shows 64% of the firearms used in fatal accidents in that state in 1998 involved handguns. Stats compiled by the "Trauma Foundations" indicated that "Although they account for less than one third of all guns, handguns are used in four out of five gun homicides, in seven out of ten gun suicides, and are involved in the majority of unintentional gun deaths of children and adolescents."]
So, if we just give the handguns every advantage and say that only half of the firearm deaths were caused by handguns, we get over 5000 children killed by handguns from 1984-97. Which is more than the 320 who were killed by buckets (I found stats for other time periods, and the average of 22-24 kids drowning in buckets each year seems to hold true). So, Ann, I think this proves, once and for all, that NPR listeners are smarter than Fox viewers. And that you're a complete fraud. At least, that's the conspiracy theory I want to start.
5:23:09 AM 
|
