QUESTIONS: Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols
Was there any connection established between Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef?
Some have tried. Both were (apparently) in the Philippines at (approximately) the same time. The OKC bombing law suit brought by a few Oklahoma citizens offered information of a connection as part of the suit. Whether or not the information is reliable, we don't know.
Since Terry Nichols is currently on trial in Oklahoma, we may find more information, or we may find nothing or no connection.
(note: Not every event is terrorism, and some may be terrorism. I may not "have the wisdom to know the difference; but, I'm going to look at events, turn them over to analyze them, and decide (preliminarily) what I think about it.
You can't find what is not there; but if you don't look you'll find nothing and know nothing. You can have a bias, but you have to be sure to look at as many facts as possible, to try to connect the dots factually and without that bias.)
BUT BERGER SAYS:
When the CIA came back and said, "Sir, we believe this is Al Qaida," I believe I would have been in favor of acting. I don't think we were at that point and I'd seen enough situations in my eight years where preliminary judgments were wrong. The Egypt Air plane that went down was terrorism. Oklahoma City, sir, was foreign terrorism for quite some time until we found out that it wasn't foreign terrorism.
In short, Berger says that Egypt Air was terrorism; OKC was NOT TERRORISM.
I accept that (for the time being) but will continue to watch for more information and look for someone (knowledgeable) who will refute the Yousef/Nichols info--including the rumor that Yousef had been known to be in the employ of Iraq. Looking forward to more data.
by Max
Sunday, March 28, 2004
9/11 INV--LEHMAN - BERGER Q&A
LEHMAN: Let's talk about 93 World Trade Center investigation.
We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day.
We have received many criticisms of the handling of that crisis at the time, in that it was handled as a criminal problem, and that the information gathered in the investigation that would have turned the light bulb on in the policy community as to the extent of the Al Qaida participation was never shared within the intelligence community until after the trial.
BERGER: Mr. Lehman, I think this is a -- I'm not attributing this to you, but I think this is a good example of reading history backwards.
In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden.
BERGER: These were things that were learned in '97 and '98.
You know, when you turn the book upside down, and when you start with the last chapter and you read backwards, it's a hell of a lot easier...
1993 WTC bombing-
***"We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day."*** (3/24/04)
***"In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden."***
If true, Saddam Hussein was harboring AQ, who was the third key planner? The blind sheik, probably.
LEHMAN: Let's talk about 93 World Trade Center investigation.
We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day.
We have received many criticisms of the handling of that crisis at the time, in that it was handled as a criminal problem, and that the information gathered in the investigation that would have turned the light bulb on in the policy community as to the extent of the Al Qaida participation was never shared within the intelligence community until after the trial.
BERGER: Mr. Lehman, I think this is a -- I'm not attributing this to you, but I think this is a good example of reading history backwards.
In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden.
BERGER: These were things that were learned in '97 and '98.
You know, when you turn the book upside down, and when you start with the last chapter and you read backwards, it's a hell of a lot easier...
1993 WTC bombing-
***"We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day."*** (3/24/04)
***"In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden."***
If true, Saddam Hussein was harboring AQ, who was the third key planner? The blind sheik, probably.
PRE-9/11 CLIMATE:
Before 9/11 the public, and the climate in the world, would not have supported some actions against terror. Europe does not agree with the US actions now; how could they have agreed prior to 9/11? Well, much of Europe would not, could not, and still does not, and might not ever. . .agree about how VERY IMPORTANT the WoT is.
I believe Iraq was and is a part of it. So much of the world disagrees with me. To be blunt, I hope I'm NOT CORRECT.
I (also) hope that I heard Sandy Berger incorrectly. (flight 800)
Before 9/11 the public, and the climate in the world, would not have supported some actions against terror. Europe does not agree with the US actions now; how could they have agreed prior to 9/11? Well, much of Europe would not, could not, and still does not, and might not ever. . .agree about how VERY IMPORTANT the WoT is.
I believe Iraq was and is a part of it. So much of the world disagrees with me. To be blunt, I hope I'm NOT CORRECT.
I (also) hope that I heard Sandy Berger incorrectly. (flight 800)
AT WAR after early August, 1998.
We were at war after August 1998, the people didn't realize it or know it. When Bin Laden declared war against us, Congress should have been notified and war declared officially.
There were many possible errors which led to 9/11; but, this might have been a big one. There are various reasons why this was not done:
US Economy; acknowledgement of terror activities in general; declaring war on an organizationed group--rather than a country; acknowledging specific terror activities and being pushed into a hasty response; panic.
We were at war after August 1998, the people didn't realize it or know it. When Bin Laden declared war against us, Congress should have been notified and war declared officially.
There were many possible errors which led to 9/11; but, this might have been a big one. There are various reasons why this was not done:
US Economy; acknowledgement of terror activities in general; declaring war on an organizationed group--rather than a country; acknowledging specific terror activities and being pushed into a hasty response; panic.
SANDY BERGER--(IT WAS AN ERROR--INCORRECT--RETRACTED & EXPLAINED)
Sandy Berger was the National Security Adviser to Clinton Administration, 1997-2001.
During Wednesday's testimony, Berger was discussing Flight 800. I have been waiting for years to hear more.
Did Berger just say what I think he said? I had missed his testimony on Wednesday-- the coverage was not carried except in replays during the next few days. I missed the first part in the replays. Now I have to watch the whole thing again because there may have been something very important earlier (that Berger said.)
Did Berger say that preliminary indications on the cause of the Flight 800 disaster were not Al Qaeda. That later preliminary judgements were that it was AQ, that too many witnesses sighted missiles from earth into the air.
I heard pieces of this in the background until it caught my attention. Now I don't know if that is what I heard; it is what I thought I heard. If this was not the case, why mention it; an air accident has nothing to do with 9/11. Wonder if there is a transcript somewhere. I heard all of Rumsfeld; some of Powell; Berger; Clarke.
THE ABOVE IS IN ERROR, BELOW IS FROM ACTUAL BERGER TRANSCRIPT:
BERGER: We thought TWA 800 was terrorism. *It was not terrorism.* People actually -- dozens of people saw the missile strike TWA 800 as it went up over Long Island.
(Here is where I was rolling back "mental tape"--What? Flight 800? People saw the missile strike. . .) (Then, I heard: . . .)
LEHMAN: Yes, but you just told us...
BERGER: Preliminary judgments, I have come to learn, are not the same as judgments. And when the CIA was ready -- they were certainly not sitting on their hands, and when they were ready to come back and say, "It's our best judgment that this is Al Qaida," we should have acted. That did not happen on our watch, sir
Well, it was a challenging day. I'm still watching; but, probably, there will be little more on this one.
I did learn something new!
Sandy Berger was the National Security Adviser to Clinton Administration, 1997-2001.
During Wednesday's testimony, Berger was discussing Flight 800. I have been waiting for years to hear more.
Did Berger just say what I think he said? I had missed his testimony on Wednesday-- the coverage was not carried except in replays during the next few days. I missed the first part in the replays. Now I have to watch the whole thing again because there may have been something very important earlier (that Berger said.)
Did Berger say that preliminary indications on the cause of the Flight 800 disaster were not Al Qaeda. That later preliminary judgements were that it was AQ, that too many witnesses sighted missiles from earth into the air.
I heard pieces of this in the background until it caught my attention. Now I don't know if that is what I heard; it is what I thought I heard. If this was not the case, why mention it; an air accident has nothing to do with 9/11. Wonder if there is a transcript somewhere. I heard all of Rumsfeld; some of Powell; Berger; Clarke.
THE ABOVE IS IN ERROR, BELOW IS FROM ACTUAL BERGER TRANSCRIPT:
BERGER: We thought TWA 800 was terrorism. *It was not terrorism.* People actually -- dozens of people saw the missile strike TWA 800 as it went up over Long Island.
(Here is where I was rolling back "mental tape"--What? Flight 800? People saw the missile strike. . .) (Then, I heard: . . .)
LEHMAN: Yes, but you just told us...
BERGER: Preliminary judgments, I have come to learn, are not the same as judgments. And when the CIA was ready -- they were certainly not sitting on their hands, and when they were ready to come back and say, "It's our best judgment that this is Al Qaida," we should have acted. That did not happen on our watch, sir
Well, it was a challenging day. I'm still watching; but, probably, there will be little more on this one.
I did learn something new!
Friday, March 26, 2004
RIVERBEND
As one of very few bloggers from Iraq, Riverbend became well-known and many people read her opinions. If you don't expect anyone to read your blog, you might not have a comments section; but, this did not seem to be the case. She came on the net with the encouragement of Salam. He had a huge following which shot him into prominence. It's reasonable to believe that she would have a large readership.
Her views coincide with opposition views within Iraq, and her efforts are directed toward anti-Coalition positions. She has no obligation to speak the truth, does not seem to search for it, perpetuates rumors; and it is a well-written drumbeat marching steadily toward pure propaganda.
Salam seemed to gravitate more to the left, after becoming “famous.” Riverbend appears to be firm in her opinions, was encouraged to blog (with expectation of wide-readership.) I doubt her views were unknown to Salam. Raed blogs within Salam’s “Where’s Raed” and might be considered to have views more similar to Riverbend. Raed’s mother blogs. (Faiza), his sibling blogs (Khalid) and another sibling Majid edits almuajaha.com (which is supposedly a Baghdad newspaper and net access website on indymedia.com but could be just the netsite.) They know each other and it seems they know a left-wing journalist fairly well.
Are we looking at the natural spread of blog-a-maniacs; or, a slowly organizing group of blog-a-gandists? Almost everyone has a bias, but many are willing to listen to another view. I’m American; but, I can listen.
Is Riverbend. . .Hamza?
As one of very few bloggers from Iraq, Riverbend became well-known and many people read her opinions. If you don't expect anyone to read your blog, you might not have a comments section; but, this did not seem to be the case. She came on the net with the encouragement of Salam. He had a huge following which shot him into prominence. It's reasonable to believe that she would have a large readership.
Her views coincide with opposition views within Iraq, and her efforts are directed toward anti-Coalition positions. She has no obligation to speak the truth, does not seem to search for it, perpetuates rumors; and it is a well-written drumbeat marching steadily toward pure propaganda.
Salam seemed to gravitate more to the left, after becoming “famous.” Riverbend appears to be firm in her opinions, was encouraged to blog (with expectation of wide-readership.) I doubt her views were unknown to Salam. Raed blogs within Salam’s “Where’s Raed” and might be considered to have views more similar to Riverbend. Raed’s mother blogs. (Faiza), his sibling blogs (Khalid) and another sibling Majid edits almuajaha.com (which is supposedly a Baghdad newspaper and net access website on indymedia.com but could be just the netsite.) They know each other and it seems they know a left-wing journalist fairly well.
Are we looking at the natural spread of blog-a-maniacs; or, a slowly organizing group of blog-a-gandists? Almost everyone has a bias, but many are willing to listen to another view. I’m American; but, I can listen.
Is Riverbend. . .Hamza?
AL ZAWAHIRI
The recent attempt to catch Zawahiri appears to be a failure. Al Jazeera aired a tape (supposedly) calling for the toppling of the Pakistan government and the assassination of Musharraf. It doesn't seem to be working. There are demonstrations.
Are the people of the world recognizing that to support ANY TERRORIST, is supporting all terrorist? There is hope that this is happening. Otherwise, we (the people of the world) are making a supremely, serious, stupid mistake--which is very likely to kill us.
The recent attempt to catch Zawahiri appears to be a failure. Al Jazeera aired a tape (supposedly) calling for the toppling of the Pakistan government and the assassination of Musharraf. It doesn't seem to be working. There are demonstrations.
Are the people of the world recognizing that to support ANY TERRORIST, is supporting all terrorist? There is hope that this is happening. Otherwise, we (the people of the world) are making a supremely, serious, stupid mistake--which is very likely to kill us.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
TOO SLOW; TOO KIND; TOO CAREFUL?
It seems to be coming out that we had been very careful not to act in haste, not to kill numbers of innocents (collateral damage) on vague intelligence; and couldn't get to UBL fast enough to get him. We were not at the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment.
If I heard correctly: There was an opportunity missed. OBL and UAE meeting, UAE in large compound, OBL in tent compound, they focused on the large compound. Should have hit the small tent compound, at night when OBL returned. Waiting to hear more about this.
It seems to be coming out that we had been very careful not to act in haste, not to kill numbers of innocents (collateral damage) on vague intelligence; and couldn't get to UBL fast enough to get him. We were not at the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment.
If I heard correctly: There was an opportunity missed. OBL and UAE meeting, UAE in large compound, OBL in tent compound, they focused on the large compound. Should have hit the small tent compound, at night when OBL returned. Waiting to hear more about this.
IDIOT TALKING HEADS:
William Cohen was speaking about his concerns in 1997. Then he began saying that people comment about no attacks since 9/11. That we need to understand that they are coming again, they're already here, we aren't safe. . .(talking head rattles on and on right through the rest of Cohen's remaining paragraph or two.)
Okay! I have a controller. It's even called a "remote control." It just doesn't control the important things. Someone else decides which part of this I can hear, and which part is really important. All the news networks do this (to varying degrees) except C-SPAN which would rather show today's House of Regurgitation.
C-SPAN, you have really let me down, today! It's important, it should be live, and you should be showing it NOW. I was counting on you; YOU LET ME DOWN.
William Cohen was speaking about his concerns in 1997. Then he began saying that people comment about no attacks since 9/11. That we need to understand that they are coming again, they're already here, we aren't safe. . .(talking head rattles on and on right through the rest of Cohen's remaining paragraph or two.)
Okay! I have a controller. It's even called a "remote control." It just doesn't control the important things. Someone else decides which part of this I can hear, and which part is really important. All the news networks do this (to varying degrees) except C-SPAN which would rather show today's House of Regurgitation.
C-SPAN, you have really let me down, today! It's important, it should be live, and you should be showing it NOW. I was counting on you; YOU LET ME DOWN.
MEDIA CRACKPOTS with control
Okay, who decides what is on the news ticker? The guys in charge should be fired. Can you count the times you catch something important-looking on the news ticker and suddenly it's gone, never to appear again--at least not while I'm watching.
Commercial Time superscedes ALL! IMAGINE noticing part of the ticker news. . .
". . .HUGE EXPLOSION, BODY PARTS EVERYWHERE, in the little town of. . ." Later you find out that there was a boiler explosion at a sheep rendering plant in Pocatella, ID which tossed mutton for a mile. Well, you don't find that out for hours, or days, because they don't start the ticker at the cut for commercial, or they don't repeat the item for hours, or they don't repeat it at all.
Since they know when they are having a commerical (to the second), why don't they cut off the ticker before the last item and start it (upon return) with the next complete item. (Of course, they could always skip the commercial--snicker.)
Okay, who decides what is on the news ticker? The guys in charge should be fired. Can you count the times you catch something important-looking on the news ticker and suddenly it's gone, never to appear again--at least not while I'm watching.
Commercial Time superscedes ALL! IMAGINE noticing part of the ticker news. . .
". . .HUGE EXPLOSION, BODY PARTS EVERYWHERE, in the little town of. . ." Later you find out that there was a boiler explosion at a sheep rendering plant in Pocatella, ID which tossed mutton for a mile. Well, you don't find that out for hours, or days, because they don't start the ticker at the cut for commercial, or they don't repeat the item for hours, or they don't repeat it at all.
Since they know when they are having a commerical (to the second), why don't they cut off the ticker before the last item and start it (upon return) with the next complete item. (Of course, they could always skip the commercial--snicker.)
9/11 INV--
C-SPAN is replaying a morning interview; FOX didn't go back to the hearings; CNN was covering the hearings and left, I don't get C-SPAN III. I may have to resort to the old fashioned radio. Frustrating!
The "not-as-important" people may "let-slip" the more important information. But, it doesn't look like it will be seen live. Even C-SPAN may wait to cover testimony by the big guys. Nuts!!!
The committee is back in session and C-Span is watching the posterior of the Sgt.-at-Arms in the House. Finally, FOX is carrying the remainder of Powell.
C-SPAN is replaying a morning interview; FOX didn't go back to the hearings; CNN was covering the hearings and left, I don't get C-SPAN III. I may have to resort to the old fashioned radio. Frustrating!
The "not-as-important" people may "let-slip" the more important information. But, it doesn't look like it will be seen live. Even C-SPAN may wait to cover testimony by the big guys. Nuts!!!
The committee is back in session and C-Span is watching the posterior of the Sgt.-at-Arms in the House. Finally, FOX is carrying the remainder of Powell.
9/11 INV--General
Is there any possibility that this committee could be bi-partisan? No way! It won't happen in an election year, and the contest of appearing bi-partisan, while shooting poop-bombs, continues.
While this is happening, the average American will be acquiring information which we wouldn't get elsewhere. What? Yes, these people are under oath and may not wish to lose credibility, in public, millions watching. In short, they are less likely to like and more likely to fudge the issue, but tell the truth--if you can find it.
We will have to keep in mind that the committee is not under oath, but those who give testimony are under oath. Some facts will come out in the muck. And, there will be replays. Watching this, cuts some of the crap and middle men out of the equation. It will not be Albright said that. . .(followed by interpretation), we will hear Albright say, "This is. . ." The words will be hers, spoken through her mouth, recorded and replayed for proof and examination. This goes for Powell, too; and any others who testify.
Is there any possibility that this committee could be bi-partisan? No way! It won't happen in an election year, and the contest of appearing bi-partisan, while shooting poop-bombs, continues.
While this is happening, the average American will be acquiring information which we wouldn't get elsewhere. What? Yes, these people are under oath and may not wish to lose credibility, in public, millions watching. In short, they are less likely to like and more likely to fudge the issue, but tell the truth--if you can find it.
We will have to keep in mind that the committee is not under oath, but those who give testimony are under oath. Some facts will come out in the muck. And, there will be replays. Watching this, cuts some of the crap and middle men out of the equation. It will not be Albright said that. . .(followed by interpretation), we will hear Albright say, "This is. . ." The words will be hers, spoken through her mouth, recorded and replayed for proof and examination. This goes for Powell, too; and any others who testify.
MISSED PART--9/11 INV.
I missed part of this mornings's start of the 9/11 Investigation committe hearings. Saw some of Maleleine Albrights's testimony (under oath.) Got company. Missed much of Colin Powell's testimony, but was able to hear some. Then the committee adjourned for lunch, to come back at 1:30. C-SPAN mentioned that they would change to the House, might not come back to the Hearings. WHAT?
Frequently, C-SPAN shows important events; BUT, to change from important hearings to a bunch of babbling speech makers doesn't not seem a wise choice. The hearings are far more important. . .and even tho' it could be on C-SPAN III, I don't get that.
Fortunately, CNN and FOX seem to be carrying it--just have to suffer through the commercials and wonder what was said during the break.
I missed part of this mornings's start of the 9/11 Investigation committe hearings. Saw some of Maleleine Albrights's testimony (under oath.) Got company. Missed much of Colin Powell's testimony, but was able to hear some. Then the committee adjourned for lunch, to come back at 1:30. C-SPAN mentioned that they would change to the House, might not come back to the Hearings. WHAT?
Frequently, C-SPAN shows important events; BUT, to change from important hearings to a bunch of babbling speech makers doesn't not seem a wise choice. The hearings are far more important. . .and even tho' it could be on C-SPAN III, I don't get that.
Fortunately, CNN and FOX seem to be carrying it--just have to suffer through the commercials and wonder what was said during the break.
Monday, March 22, 2004
MADAM AMBASSADOR
Rend Al-Rahim will be the first Ambassador from Iraq to the United States after the transfer of power is completed.
C-SPAN replayed Al-Rahim's speech to CAIS, at Johns Hopkins University. It was fairly impressive. The information imparted with clear, concise, to the point; and, probably answered many of the questions the audience would ask, prior to the asking.
I didn't take notes (maybe should have) because it may be replayed again and I preferred to get an overall impression. The impression was very good.
Rend Al-Rahim will be the first Ambassador from Iraq to the United States after the transfer of power is completed.
C-SPAN replayed Al-Rahim's speech to CAIS, at Johns Hopkins University. It was fairly impressive. The information imparted with clear, concise, to the point; and, probably answered many of the questions the audience would ask, prior to the asking.
I didn't take notes (maybe should have) because it may be replayed again and I preferred to get an overall impression. The impression was very good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)