Saddam Hussein was Involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing?

According to Frank Gaffney, yes, indeedy.

Yesterday, we had Ari Fleischer on Hardball saying that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and “how DARE” anyone say that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. Today’s Hardball brought us Frank Gaffney, neocon extraordinaire, saying that not only was Saddam responsible for 9/11 but he had ties to the Oklahoma City bombing.

You can watch the video here (be prepared for a LOT of cross-talk as David Corn from The Nation tries to call Gaffney on his many, many lies.)

This begins at the 1:41 minute mark:

Gaffney:  He [Saddam] kept saying he was going to try to get even against us for Desert Storm, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable for people to conclude maybe that that’s what he was doing. There is also circumstantial evidence, not proven by any means,  but none the less some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated both the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and even the Oklahoma City bombing.

Really?  Saddam Hussein was involved with Timothy McVeigh in blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995?  I imagine this is another attempt at “It’s All Clinton’s Fault!” which is the biggest bunch of rubbish to spill from these rubbish-filled neoconservatives yet.

I cannot believe that there are so many people out there on this Bush Revisionism Legacy Tour ™ who can easily spit out such lies, lies I might add, which have been repeatedly debunked – this one (Iraq and 9/11) by George W. Bush, no less!

I hope Chris Matthews brings this up tomorrow and slams Gaffney for this outrageous lie.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Top Ten Myths about Iraq, 2008

Juan Cole – Informed Comment

1. Iraqis are safer because of Bush’s War. In fact, conditions of insecurity have helped created both an internal and external refugee problem:

‘ At least 4.2 million Iraqis were displaced. These included 2.2 million who were displaced within Iraq and some 2 million refugees, mostly in Syria (around 1.4 million) and Jordan (around half a million). In the last months of the year both these neighbouring states, struggling to meet the health, education and other needs of the Iraqi refugees already present, introduced visa requirements that impeded the entry of Iraqis seeking refuge. Within Iraq, most governorates barred entry to Iraqis fleeing sectarian violence elsewhere.’

2. Large numbers of Iraqis in exile abroad have returned. In fact, no great number have returned, and more Iraqis may still be leaving to Syria than returning.

3. Iraqis are materially better off because of Bush’s war. In fact, A million Iraqis are “food insecure” and another 6 million need UN food rations to survive. Oxfam estimated in summer, 2007, that 28% of Iraqi children are malnourished.

4. The Bush administration scored a major victory with its Status of Forces Agreement. In fact, The Iraqis forced on Bush an agreement that the US would withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, 2009,and would completely withdraw from the Country by the end of 2011. The Bush administration had wanted 58 long-term bases, and the authority to arrest Iraqis at will and to launch military operations unilaterally.

5. Minorities in Iraq are safer since Bush’s invasion. In fact, there have in 2008 been significant attacks on and displacement of Iraqi Christians from Mosul. In early January of 2008, guerrillas bombed churches in Mosul, wounding a number of persons. More recently, some 13,000 Christians have had to flee Mosul because of violence.

For Myths numbers 6-10, go here.

Read as well: Iraq: The Necessary Withdrawal by Juan Cole (in The Nation)

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Are we building the ‘Death Star’ for the ‘Empire’

Pentagon wants to create space vehicle to fire missiles anywhere on Earth
via: Raw Story

$100 million from sub-missile program

Buried in the 621-page House-Senate conference report on the Defense Department appropriations bill — and page A19 of Monday’s Washington Post, is a $100 million request to enhance space warfare.

As if it didn’t already have enough work in Iraq, the Pentagon plans to divert funds from an appropriation to improve submarine-launched Trident missiles to develop a “global strike” program which would allow the US to target and dispatch a “precision-guided” warhead anywhere in the world within two hours. Continue..

Continue reading

What World War III May Look Like

This is a chilling glimpse of what entering into World War III might very well look like. It is worth the reading. Who would choose to set something like this in motion..? This would be leaping blindly into the abyss while dragging the rest of the world with you; the tossing open of Pandora’s box.

by Philip Giraldi
via Antiwar.com

Neoconservatives are great observers of war and warriors, though they are sometimes not in complete agreement about the numbering of the conflicts that they send other people’s sons and daughters to fight. Norman Podhoretz, the patriarch of the neocons, believes that the Cold War was World War III and that the U.S. is now fighting World War IV against “Islamofascism.” He intends to expand World War IV by slating Iran as the next domino to fall to America’s military might. Podhoretz undoubtedly sees the current global conflict as something that is good and necessary, both containable and winnable, but as his judgment on Iraq was fallible, his prediction of Iran’s rapid destruction is also unreliable. It might be useful to imagine just how war with Iran could play out if the Iranians don’t roll over and surrender at the first whiff of grapeshot.
(Continue reading article)