South Korean taken hostage with 24 hour deadline - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

soccerchamp76 · 06-20-2004, 10:27 PM

Edit (link added) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...age/index.html

Quote:

(CNN) -- A South Korean who was kidnapped Thursday in Iraq was shown on a videotape Sunday pleading for his life, with his captors threatening to behead him unless the South Korean government pulls its troops from Iraq.

The Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera broadcast the video, in which the hostage cries in English, "Please get out of here. I don't want to die ... Your life is important, but my life is important."

The South Korean Foreign Ministry in confirmed that the man shown in the videotape is Kim Sun-il, 33. He works for a trading company that had been working privately to try to secure his release.

After an emergency National Security Council meeting Monday, South Korea said it would go ahead with its planned troop dispatch despite the militants' threat to kill Kim. (Full story)

South Korea has about 600 troops in Iraq and on Friday announced plans to send another 3,000.

The deployment would make South Korea the third-largest contributor to the coalition in Iraq, after the United States and Britain. (Full story)

The video showed Kim seated in front of three men whose faces were covered with scarves.

Two of the men held rifles; the third delivered an ultimatum to South Korea's government.

"We ask the government of South Korea and the people of Korea to pull their forces out of Iraq and not to send additional forces," the man said.

"Otherwise, we will send this hostage's head back to them and, God willing, we will kill more of your troops in Iraq. And you have 24 hours, starting tonight."

Al-Jazeera's editor in chief, Ahmed al-Sheikh, said the tape was left Sunday at the network's office in Baghdad and that he verified it was authentic before broadcasting segments of it. He did not broadcast the entire tape because some of it was repetitious, he said.

The South Korean government has set up a task force and plans to send a high-level official to Baghdad to try to secure his freedom, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

The spokesman also warned South Koreans not to travel to Iraq and advised those already there to leave as soon as possible.

Weekend violence scattered
Seven Iraqi police officers and 10 civilians were wounded in a 45-minute gunbattle that followed a failed attempt to assassinate Iraq's minister of health in western Baghdad, Iraqi Police Col. Azher Kamal said Sunday.

The fight began early Saturday evening when a roadside bomb exploded as a convoy carrying Iraqi Minister of Health Alaa Alwan passed by, Kamal said.

No one was injured in the explosion, but when Iraqi police rushed to the scene near the Alja'afer police station, they were attacked by a group of insurgents with small arms and grenades, Kamal said.

In Tikrit, north of Baghdad, a leading member of the City Council, Izz Aldeen Al-Bayati, was shot to death by insurgents Sunday as he was on his way into town, according to another council member. Al-Bayati's driver and bodyguard were wounded, the council member said.

In an incident Sunday morning in central Baghdad, an Iraqi police officer and four civilians were wounded when a bomb damaged a storefront near Ahrar Bridge, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

In Anbar province, a Marine assigned to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force was killed in action Saturday while conducting security and stability operations, according to a military spokesman.

Repairs to pipelines sabotaged last week in the south of Iraq have not been completed, and the flow of crude oil from Iraq had not resumed, a coalition spokesman said Sunday.

As of late Sunday afternoon, repairs to the 42- and 48-inch pipelines were still under way, and there was no estimation as to when they would be completed, the spokesman said.

Attacks by Iraqi insurgents damaged the pipelines Tuesday and Wednesday. Exports are expected to resume when the pipelines are fixed.

Seems like they may do this for the smaller supporting countries in an effort to reduce support for the United States. Any thoughts?

seretogis · 06-20-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soccerchamp76
Edit (link added) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...age/index.html

Seems like they may do this for the smaller supporting countries in an effort to reduce support for the United States. Any thoughts?

Any country that pulls out because terrorists make threats regarding one hostage, is not worth the title of "US ally."

Zeld2.0 · 06-20-2004, 10:38 PM

they probably won't pull out anyways unless the entire country's populace wants it to - then they won't have a choice (same for any other 'democracy')

soccerchamp76 · 06-20-2004, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Any country that pulls out because terrorists make threats regarding one hostage, is not worth the title of "US ally."

It is just one hostage now, if they continue this trend the bodies will add up and the governments will take a harder look at the situation.

whocarz · 06-20-2004, 11:15 PM

There may be hope for the hostage if the South Koreans take a hard-line stance. Japan was in the same situation, yet now their hostages are safe and back in Japan because they refused to budge. If the South Koreans sit on the fence about the issue, you can be sure they'll kill the hostage to sway their opinion.

rsl12 · 06-21-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Any country that pulls out because terrorists make threats regarding one hostage, is not worth the title of "US ally."

It should be noted that a very large percentage of the S. Korean population has NO DESIRE to be labeled a US ally. N. Korea already publishes plenty of propoganda accusing S. Korea of being a US puppet state. The fact that S. Korea is providing some support in Iraq has been a very controversial issue, mostly because it does make S. Korea look like a puppet. S. Korea is NOT going in iraq because they want to help rebuild the country. The S. Korean president himself, when asked to defend the decision to send koreans there, has responded with something to the effect of "it's important that we retain good relations with the United States."

It'd be like if your big brother that you disliked forced you to hide something from your parents, even though you don't want to, and your parents threatened to punish you if you didn't tell them what was going on. Then your big brother says to you, "if you tell them, you're a terrible little brother." The analogy is not exact, for obvious reasons, but you get the idea.

Derwood · 06-21-2004, 10:06 AM

Here's the thing: These people can behead 1000 people a day and it won't get Bush out of Iraq. If he's not going to pay attention to millions of protesting American Citizens, why would he be swayed by these psychos?

onetime2 · 06-21-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
Here's the thing: These people can behead 1000 people a day and it won't get Bush out of Iraq. If he's not going to pay attention to millions of protesting American Citizens, why would he be swayed by these psychos?

Millions of protesting citizens? I must have missed that gathering.

Zeld2.0 · 06-21-2004, 10:50 AM

Given the population of the U.S., its certainly possible there is 1 million who are willing / have protesed.. though certainly not at the same location and time

Either way, the point is made an who knows now

Kadath · 06-21-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Millions of protesting citizens? I must have missed that gathering.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "protested." What is the approval rating regarding the handling of the war in Iraq? Slightly less than 50% now? That Americans are lazy and can't be bothered to get down to DC to march does not change that they are not pleased with the war.

Back to the matter at hand -- it's frustrating that we're not fighting a country or even an organization here. We'll stamp out this cell and another, unconnected group will grab another civilian.

Hwed · 06-21-2004, 03:33 PM

Yes, it's frustrating. But the lifeblood of these groups is funding and safehaven. That's what we've got to attack, and that's what we're doing in Iraq.

We can't allow these animals a place to hide and organize, and we can't allow despots and scumbags like Saddam to fund them.

We can't do it all at once, but we've hit their two biggest strongholds by taking out Saddam and the Taliban. Truth be told, they're getting desperate, which is encouraging, despite the sadness we all feel when we see something like this.

F*ing animals.

clockworkgreen · 06-21-2004, 05:16 PM

Deadline ended at 4pm EST today, figure we'll be seeing a video released any minute now...

nanofever · 06-21-2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
Yes, it's frustrating. But the lifeblood of these groups is funding and safehaven. That's what we've got to attack, and that's what we're doing in Iraq.

We can't allow these animals a place to hide and organize, and we can't allow despots and scumbags like Saddam to fund them.

We can't do it all at once, but we've hit their two biggest strongholds by taking out Saddam and the Taliban. Truth be told, they're getting desperate, which is encouraging, despite the sadness we all feel when we see something like this.

F*ing animals.

Could you toss us a bit of evidence connecting the Taliban funding and Saddam?

I only ask because these lovely pieces of evidence from the 9/11 commission suggest you're spouting bullshit over this forum.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin...atement_16.pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin...atement_15.pdf

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-21-2004, 07:23 PM

Nano get fucking serious, Iraq has definitly provided support to Al Qeada. albeit outside of 9/11.

Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

nanofever · 06-21-2004, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Nano get fucking serious, Iraq has definitly provided support to Al Qeada. albeit outside of 9/11.

Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

I was so close to victory, and then, Mojo used his superior evidence, wit, logic and intelligence to destroy my position. I strongly suggest that all forum users begin fearing Mojo's logical prowless. I can't help but agree with Mojo after that; you are simply the better debater Mojo.

seretogis · 06-21-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
I was so close to victory, and then, Mojo used his superior evidence, wit, logic and intelligence to destroy my position. I strongly suggest that all forum users begin fearing Mojo's logical prowless. I can't help but agree with Mojo after that; you are simply the better debater Mojo.

Sometimes, I really wonder if some of you even think about what you type before you click "Submit Reply."

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-21-2004, 07:46 PM

Fear my prowess...

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Quote:

Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.

Forgive the sauce...

So we know Saddam has supported a known Al Qeada leader in Al Zarqawi who to this day is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi's and American soldiers alike.

We know he has provided support for Ansar Al- Islam an Al Qeada affiliated group in Northern Iraq that we fought with in the early stages of the war.

I would at this point inform you to please refrain from being "ignant".
Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

The evidence is there and overwhelming and proven, just because you don't choose to see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

/huggles for Seretogis

nanofever · 06-21-2004, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Fear my prowess...

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...0243-5787r.htm

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Forgive the sauce...

The Wash times article is talking about actions WAY after the fall of Saddam.

And the techcentral article is written by one guy and he named zero sources. I think the 9/11 comission and Richard Clark trump him.

Although, I do like that you used some evidence in your argumentation. Nice work.

The richard clark article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

"(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer. Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl. After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer." Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over." By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden. The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"

"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."

Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?

"Yes ... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power?

"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay," says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that price for doing it."

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

"I'm an independent. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign," says Clarke. "I have worked for Ronald Reagan. I have worked for George Bush the first, I have worked for George Bush the second. I'm not participating in this campaign, but I am putting facts out that I think people ought to know."

60 Minutes received a note from the Pentagon saying: "Any suggestion that the president did anything other than act aggressively, quickly and effectively to address the al Qaeda and Taliban threat in Afghanistan is absurd.""

tiberry · 06-22-2004, 06:33 AM

Lol...you guys are classic...

Anyway - anyone notice the coincidence that they kidnapped a South Korean at the same time that we're having "difficulties" with the Koreans because of our planned move of about 12000 troops out of USFK (United States Forces Korea)? Our relationship with the Koreans is on shaky grounds right now, just seems like an opportune time to make it worse by kidnapping a Korean...

Coincidence? or Plotting Terrorists?

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 09:11 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...korean_hostage

He's dead.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 09:36 AM

How many contactors/mercenaries are we as a nation going to weep for? These people are in Iraq for financial gain....am I wrong?

For the record there has been no clarification of any justification for the invasion of this Nation (Iraq....I just had to keep going with my Sugar Ray Leonard/Jesse Jackson).

Stompy · 06-22-2004, 10:32 AM

I'm not really understanding al Qaeda's line of thinking here...

Do they REALLY think that the govts will pull out just because they have a hostage of theirs? Sorry, but even I know that the govt doesn't give a rip about the hostages.

"Oooh please don't kill the hostage. Ok, you got us. We'll pull outta the region! Sorry bout that!"

They might as well take a hostage and demand that GWB kill himself.

You figure they'd be smarter about it. They're just wasting their own time. Their goal is to kill americans and such... yet they waste 5 days on demands that they KNOW won't be met? Why not just kill them right off the bat? Why not just kill every american/whoever that they see? It doesn't make much sense to wait around 5 days when they could knock 'em off one by one at a faster rate.

Karby · 06-22-2004, 10:34 AM

poor poor guy.
he didn't want to die that way, pleading for his life

.
edit: i took out the link because a story to it was already posted.

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 10:36 AM

I dunno if they are wasting their time actually.
How scared would you be going into Iraq with brutal beheading after beheading?

And making the "demands" is effective too because it helps to build the appearance that the home nation is doing little to nothing to get them back.

Not only is this bringing citizens of "Coalition" member nations more and more against this war. But it is surely making civilian contractors think twice before risking their necks. Without the civilians the Occupation and rebuild will fail. I think this is probrably the best strategy they can use to actually beat us back.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
I'm not really understanding al Qaeda's line of thinking here...

Do they REALLY think that the govts will pull out just because they have a hostage of theirs? Sorry, but even I know that the govt doesn't give a rip about the hostages.

"Oooh please don't kill the hostage. Ok, you got us. We'll pull outta the region! Sorry bout that!"

They might as well take a hostage and demand that GWB kill himself.

You figure they'd be smarter about it. They're just wasting their own time. Their goal is to kill americans and such... yet they waste 5 days on demands that they KNOW won't be met? Why not just kill them right off the bat? Why not just kill every american/whoever that they see? It doesn't make much sense to wait around 5 days when they could knock 'em off one by one at a faster rate.

This is a rational thought. I thought along the same line(s) about why the 9-11 planes didnt go fly into Nuclear plants or just do more damage than they did. It really does not add up but one result is that now Iraqis are being meshed with Al Queda.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I dunno if they are wasting their time actually.
How scared would you be going into Iraq with brutal beheading after beheading?

And making the "demands" is effective too because it helps to build the appearance that the home nation is doing little to nothing to get them back.

Not only is this bringing citizens of "Coalition" member nations more and more against this war. But it is surely making civilian contractors think twice before risking their necks. Without the civilians the Occupation and rebuild will fail. I think this is probrably the best strategy they can use to actually beat us back.

Please clarify...You think that this OCCUPATION (as you termed it yourself) is justified?

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 10:39 AM

Twin Towers were hit because they were a symbol. And the goal is to create terror among the general populace. They attacked civilians directly, it made us all feel unsafe. They did it to make you feel they might hit you next.

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman
Please clarify...You think that this OCCUPATION (as you termed it yourself) is justified?

Hmm, have you not seen me here much?
I've been very vocal against the war in particular and our handling of it afterwards.
But, having torn the nation down, we now have a moral obligation to not leave that country in an anarchic mess. Our occupation isn't justified, but it is now necessary for the average Iraqi.
What we should do is admit we can't do it and offer full control of all decision making to the UN, of which we will fully support.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Twin Towers were hit because they were a symbol. And the goal is to create terror among the general populace. They attacked civilians directly, it made us all feel unsafe. They did it to make you feel they might hit you next.

It does not seem as though (whoever the enemy is because we sure dont know) Terrorists have anyhing to gain by scaring the heebeejeebees out of us. What are their demands? Never really heard of Terrorists without demands.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Hmm, have you not seen me here much?

What we should do is admit we can't do it and offer full control of all decision making to the UN, of which we will fully support.

I may have forgotten your stance although it should have been easy as it is a minority here.

I agree a handoff to the UN is in order and would be a good look for the USA.

onetime2 · 06-22-2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
What we should do is admit we can't do it and offer full control of all decision making to the UN, of which we will fully support.

The UN bugged out when they lost a few aid workers. They have no stomach for loss and will be wholly incapable of stabilizing Iraq. Additionally they too will be seen as occupiers and the transition to Iraqi rule would be even longer with the UN in charge. Iraqi rule and responsibility for security are the best bet for stabilization and that's the path we've been on since the beginning.

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 10:47 AM

They have plenty to gain. Osama and his ilk want us completely out of the arab region. They don't want us to have military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They don't want us financially backing the Israelis. They want to be able to overrun Israel and set up in it's place Palestine.

By making Americans afraid that our involvement in the region is the reason for these attacks they hope that the terror can convince American voters to keep our government on a leash.

They have made demands, maybe you missed the videos. They weren't televised much, the goverment convinced the media to not show them because of the possibility of hidden messages to domestic terror cells.

onetime2 · 06-22-2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
They have plenty to gain. Osama and his ilk want us completely out of the arab region. They don't want us to have military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They don't want us financially backing the Israelis. They want to be able to overrun Israel and set up in it's place Palestine.

By making Americans afraid that our involvement in the region is the reason for these attacks they hope that the terror can convince American voters to keep our government on a leash.

They have made demands, maybe you missed the videos. They weren't televised much, the goverment convinced the media to not show them because of the possibility of hidden messages to domestic terror cells.

Al Qaeda's desire goes way beyond wanting us out of the Middle East. Check the name of the cell that just killed the Korean. Monotheism isn't just a slogan to them.

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Now that's funny. The UN bugged out when they lost a few aid workers. They have no stomach for loss and will be wholly incapable of stabilizing Iraq. Additionally they too will be seen as occupiers and the transition to Iraqi rule would be even longer with the UN in charge. Iraqi rule and responsibility for security are the best bet for stabilization and that's the path we've been on since the beginning.

Disagree. They bugged out because they saw the only security force in the country, ours, couldn't protect them. They would take over, with heavy arab support, if we offered it to them.
Terror would decrease because the UN would actually fast track real elections and not install puppet governments or corrupt fuckholes like Chalabi.

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 10:51 AM

AQ was formed specifically to get us out of Saudi Arabia.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
They have plenty to gain. Osama and his ilk want us completely out of the arab region. They don't want us to have military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They don't want us financially backing the Israelis. They want to be able to overrun Israel and set up in it's place Palestine.

By making Americans afraid that our involvement in the region is the reason for these attacks they hope that the terror can convince American voters to keep our government on a leash.

They have made demands, maybe you missed the videos. They weren't televised much, the goverment convinced the media to not show them because of the possibility of hidden messages to domestic terror cells.

OK I knew about the military bases and I assumed it was obvious but thanks for posting.

What my thought(s) are then focused on is why does not the USA just declare our actions Imperialistic? Why is everything masked to make it appear as though the hethens & disindiginous are going to kill us. If these actions are solely to keep the rich..filthy rich and to keep our SUVs and DVDs working why not just state it it? I feel it is kept in the present day version because it isnt moral.

onetime2 · 06-22-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Disagree. They bugged out because they saw the only security force in the country, ours, couldn't protect them. They would take over, with heavy arab support, if we offered it to them.
Terror would decrease because the UN would actually fast track real elections and not install puppet governments or corrupt fuckholes like Chalabi.

No chance they could or would get things running more quickly. The UN is a clusterfuck and which of their members do you honestly believe would send troops to stabilize Iraq?

The insurgency will not go away with the advent of UN control. It will only get worse as it will be seen as a victory from their past efforts.

Bookman · 06-22-2004, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
No chance they could or would get things running more quickly. The UN is a clusterfuck and which of their members do you honestly believe would send troops to stabilize Iraq?

The insurgency will not go away with the advent of UN control. It will only get worse as it will be seen as a victory from their past efforts.

Honestly...then why dont we just pull out?
Let those people deal with their own problems.

onetime2 · 06-22-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman
Honestly...then why dont we just pull out?
Let those people deal with their own problems.

Because their "problems" invariably involve the rest of the world.

Superbelt · 06-22-2004, 11:00 AM

I'm sure all of the arab nations would gladly send enough troops under UN auspices. American troops could be interspersed with them as well to make up any difference.

06-20-2004, 11:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	There may be hope for the hostage if the South Koreans take a hard-line stance. Japan was in the same situation, yet now their hostages are safe and back in Japan because they refused to budge. If the South Koreans sit on the fence about the issue, you can be sure they'll kill the hostage to sway their opinion. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-21-2004, 10:06 AM	#7 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Here's the thing: These people can behead 1000 people a day and it won't get Bush out of Iraq. If he's not going to pay attention to millions of protesting American Citizens, why would he be swayed by these psychos? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-21-2004, 07:23 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Nano get fucking serious, Iraq has definitly provided support to Al Qeada. albeit outside of 9/11. Don't cut your nose to spite your face. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-22-2004, 06:33 AM	#19 (permalink)
tiberry Insane Location: Location, Location!	Lol...you guys are classic... Anyway - anyone notice the coincidence that they kidnapped a South Korean at the same time that we're having "difficulties" with the Koreans because of our planned move of about 12000 troops out of USFK (United States Forces Korea)? Our relationship with the Koreans is on shaky grounds right now, just seems like an opportune time to make it worse by kidnapping a Korean... Coincidence? or Plotting Terrorists? __________________ My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

06-22-2004, 10:32 AM	#22 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I'm not really understanding al Qaeda's line of thinking here... Do they REALLY think that the govts will pull out just because they have a hostage of theirs? Sorry, but even I know that the govt doesn't give a rip about the hostages. "Oooh please don't kill the hostage. Ok, you got us. We'll pull outta the region! Sorry bout that!" They might as well take a hostage and demand that GWB kill himself. You figure they'd be smarter about it. They're just wasting their own time. Their goal is to kill americans and such... yet they waste 5 days on demands that they KNOW won't be met? Why not just kill them right off the bat? Why not just kill every american/whoever that they see? It doesn't make much sense to wait around 5 days when they could knock 'em off one by one at a faster rate. __________________ I love lamp.

06-20-2004, 10:38 PM	#3 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	they probably won't pull out anyways unless the entire country's populace wants it to - then they won't have a choice (same for any other 'democracy')

06-21-2004, 10:50 AM	#9 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Given the population of the U.S., its certainly possible there is 1 million who are willing / have protesed.. though certainly not at the same location and time Either way, the point is made an who knows now

06-21-2004, 03:33 PM	#11 (permalink)
Hwed Tilted	Yes, it's frustrating. But the lifeblood of these groups is funding and safehaven. That's what we've got to attack, and that's what we're doing in Iraq. We can't allow these animals a place to hide and organize, and we can't allow despots and scumbags like Saddam to fund them. We can't do it all at once, but we've hit their two biggest strongholds by taking out Saddam and the Taliban. Truth be told, they're getting desperate, which is encouraging, despite the sadness we all feel when we see something like this. F*ing animals.

06-21-2004, 05:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
clockworkgreen Psycho Location: DC	Deadline ended at 4pm EST today, figure we'll be seeing a video released any minute now...

06-22-2004, 09:11 AM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...korean_hostage He's dead.

06-22-2004, 09:36 AM	#21 (permalink)
Bookman Insane	How many contactors/mercenaries are we as a nation going to weep for? These people are in Iraq for financial gain....am I wrong? For the record there has been no clarification of any justification for the invasion of this Nation (Iraq....I just had to keep going with my Sugar Ray Leonard/Jesse Jackson).

06-22-2004, 10:34 AM	#23 (permalink)
Karby Psycho Location: somewhere	poor poor guy. he didn't want to die that way, pleading for his life. edit: i took out the link because a story to it was already posted. __________________ ~my karma ran over my dogma.~ Last edited by Karby; 06-22-2004 at 10:39 AM..

06-22-2004, 10:36 AM	#24 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I dunno if they are wasting their time actually. How scared would you be going into Iraq with brutal beheading after beheading? And making the "demands" is effective too because it helps to build the appearance that the home nation is doing little to nothing to get them back. Not only is this bringing citizens of "Coalition" member nations more and more against this war. But it is surely making civilian contractors think twice before risking their necks. Without the civilians the Occupation and rebuild will fail. I think this is probrably the best strategy they can use to actually beat us back.

06-22-2004, 10:39 AM	#27 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Twin Towers were hit because they were a symbol. And the goal is to create terror among the general populace. They attacked civilians directly, it made us all feel unsafe. They did it to make you feel they might hit you next.

06-22-2004, 10:47 AM	#32 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	They have plenty to gain. Osama and his ilk want us completely out of the arab region. They don't want us to have military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They don't want us financially backing the Israelis. They want to be able to overrun Israel and set up in it's place Palestine. By making Americans afraid that our involvement in the region is the reason for these attacks they hope that the terror can convince American voters to keep our government on a leash. They have made demands, maybe you missed the videos. They weren't televised much, the goverment convinced the media to not show them because of the possibility of hidden messages to domestic terror cells.

06-22-2004, 10:51 AM	#35 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	AQ was formed specifically to get us out of Saudi Arabia.

06-22-2004, 11:00 AM	#40 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm sure all of the arab nations would gladly send enough troops under UN auspices. American troops could be interspersed with them as well to make up any difference.