home

About That Al Qaida Arrest Story

The news is all agog over the arrest of a top al-Quaida guy in Iraq who allegedly was a mastermind of the July 7 London bombings.

Why is this news now? He was captured by the CIA last year.

Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday, in a move which suggests that he was interrogated for months in a “ghost prison” before being transferred to the internment camp in Cuba.

He wasn't even transferred today -- but earlier this week.

Is the Administration just in need of a positive news story for the weekend? It sure seems so.

< New Document Dump in U. S. Attorneys' Firing | About The Surge: BushCo Does Not Want To Know >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The answer to your question is right here (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    and it has little to do with terra.  Rather, it has to do with the deputy chief of staff of the DoJ Criminal Divison suddenly having "resigned" on or about April 6, after having come "under scrutiny" in the Abramoff scandal.

    McClatchy broke the story, at this link.  The pertinent parts?

    Well, it goes like this:
    A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department's expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the case.

    Mr. Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for DoJ's criminal division.  This section oversees the Abramoff probe.

    DoJ's investigation spread to look at lobbyist Kevin Ring.

    Ring was a close, key asociate of Abramoff. Apparently, Jack got him government work, then got him private work, working for Jack lobbying, after he left government.

    Coughlin is a long-time, close friend of Ring.

    Ring, it seems, flipped April 13, the same day the feds raided the home (or business, I forget) of Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-Ca) (late of the Appropriations Committee).  

    DoJ says Coughlin had recused himself from the Abramoff investigation.

    This diary over at Kos has a little more on the story.

    And, then you turn away from the screen for a minute to pet the dog and, when you come back,  POW - the DC Madam's claimed another scalp.  First it was one of the "shock and awe" pitchmen.  Now, it seems a Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Tobias, was a customer of her escort service.  He was also the Bush Admin's "AIDS Czar" - pitching abstinence, of course.

    He's resigned.  The story moved at 8:58 PM ET. (talk about burying it).

    And, we find out the "major media outlet" the Alleged Madam shared the fifty-six pounds of phone records with was --- ABC News.

    Tobias' private cell number was among thousands of numbers listed in the telephone records provided to ABC News by Jeane Palfrey, the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," who is facing the federal charges. In an interview to be broadcast on "20/20" next Friday, Palfrey says she intends to call Tobias and a number of her other prominent D.C. clients to testify at her trial.
    "I'm sure as heck not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, four to eight years, because I'm shy about bringing in the deputy secretary of whatever," Palfrey told ABC News.

    Palfrey ... says there are a number of other prominent Washington, D.C. men who will be on her witness list.  "I'll bring every last one of them in if necessary," Palfrey said.

    As the Bush administration's so-called "AIDS czar," Tobias was criticized for emphasizing faithfulness and abstinence over condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS.

    You can't make this sh*t up.  First there was Feely Foley, hitting on pageboys.  Then came Ted Haggard, doing meth and men.  Now it's the AIDS Czar - that pitcher par excellence of abstinence and faithfulness - spending lots of dough on alleged hookers.

    So they pulled this poor alleged terrist sucker out of some torture hole (I thought all those were closed...) to make some noise.  All this was to avoid attention on:
    (1)  the DoJ doc dump today which, along with some leaks, has shown the USAs in the MD Pa, ED Wis, D Minn, and WD Mo - all electoral toss-up regions last fall - were also on the hit list for firing, besides the 8 who were fired;
    (2) more attention on Abramoff's tentacles reaching almost as far as Deadeye's, discussed above, and
    (3) to avoid more attention on exactly why they had such a problem with Carol Lam (who's being named lawyer of the year or something similar by the San Diego area bar) - the problem being, per emptywheel, that she was about to tie Wilkes, Foggo, Cunningham, MZM, the Dukestir, Deadeye's office, bribery, and MZM running the Admin's enemies' list (using the DoJ and admin access to databases) into a nice tight package.  In other words, her investigation seems to have been leading directly into the WH and its domestic spying programs.  emptywheel did a nice piece on this recently.
    (4) Hypocrites and Hookers.

    This is just so much overwhelming schadenfreude, I'm twitching with excitement over what the next debacle to erupt will be....  Meanwhile, I'll be cackling madly.

    Would this "AIDS Czar" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:10:07 PM EST
    be the Czar under whose beneficient Czar-ness a little-known initiative added to the recently-renewed Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Act diverted $60 million from the Center for Disease Control's HIV/AIDS prevention budget over the next three years into a fund for which no states actually qualify?

    Parent
    See Scribe (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by KM on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:32:51 PM EST
    Anyone reading TPM today can answer Jeralyn's question.

    12:58 PM EDT:

    From a reader with his ears open ...

    So. It's Friday, and the Pentagon leaks word that a top al-Qaeda operative has been captured. Or, actually, that he was captured last year, but that he's just been transferred from the custody of the CIA to DoD. Wait, that's not quite right. He was transferred earlier in the week. But still. It's important news. Right?

    Only here's the thing. When you have a story like this, you don't release it on a Friday. There's nothing time-critical about it. There's no reason to squander the positive headlines on the slowest media day of the week.

    Maybe you've already heard something. Or maybe we'll get the word in the next few hours. But I can't think of a surer sign that the administration will be releasing some information later today that it would rather we all ignored. Who knows? It could be a post-Gonzales testimony DoJ document dump. It might be word of another probe into Rove. Maybe the RNC will be turning over some e-mails. But you can take it to the bank - something's coming down the pike.

    Wow.  Even beats the resident trolls to the punch.

    Smart reader:

    3:33 PM EDT

    6:32 PM EDT

    6:37 PM EDT

    6:40 PM EDT

    9:20 PM EDT

    More to come once the document dump's been analysed?

    Parent

    One more (none / 0) (#11)
    by KM on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:36:49 PM EST
    Oh yes, and of course, as Scribe mentioned, this.

    Parent
    I heard the news today (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    Oh boy.

    It led the top of the hour news on all the talk shows, and every time I heard it, I wondered why this obviously cold story was being reheated.

    Must be some bad news coming out somewhere else.

    All wars involve "the troops" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    but not all wars are morally supportable.

    You're gonna have to do better than "a broad brush" and some second-hand bumperstickers, ppj.

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:46:41 PM EST
    Your position regarding support for the troops is known and understood.

    You don't.

    Parent

    Heh. (1.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    This is just a wild guess, but maybe because we didn't hear about him 'til now owing to his secret detention from which he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay this week?

    Or maybe you think that Tony Snow just picked up the phone and let the Times know that he'd like to see a story printed.

    Or maybe the answer is in the very article you linked:

    Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday

    Or perhaps you wanted the Administration to sit on this news for a few years?

    Your problem with this story is puzzling to me.

    Is this so complicated? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Al on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    Malor, the question is why those intelligence sources wait until yesterday?

    Or perhaps you wanted the Administration to sit on this news for a few years?

    I think the question is why did they sit on this news for several months.

    Parent

    This week is significant because it's this week. (1.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:36:03 PM EST
    Al, he was in a secret prison until this week. Why is it surprising that we only learn of him this week?

    Parent
    Of course!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:54:17 PM EST
    Gabe! You've nailed it!!

    We didn't hear about him 'til now (insert drumroll here) because.... are you ready for this? Heh. Can you handle this? Heh heh. Are yew sitting down?

    We didn't hear about him 'til now..... because..... we didn't hear about him 'til now!!

    Thanks for clearing that up, Gabe! There's definitely a place for you in homeland security!


    Parent

    News hit (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    If they wanted max news hit, wouldn't they have waited until Monday noon?

    Easy to see (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:50:47 AM EST
    Thirteen hours and 12 comments into a post about the capture of an al-Qaida and not a single comment that says:

    Hey guys, good job. Glad you got him.

    What we do have is complaints about the administration trying to manage the news, and various other evil actions.....

    And you wonder why I paint the Left with a broad brush when I note their lack of support for the troops, and the war??

    The Boy Who Cried Wolf (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    It is because we are going on five years of a scam war based on lies. It turns out that every time that there was a red or orange terror alert it corresponded with a scandal that the Bush Administration was trying to cover up.  

    Whenever an the capture of a top al Qaida leaders has been announced it also has corresponded to news that the Bush administrtation was trying to cover up or eclipse.

    The invariable fact common to all these announcements is that the 'breaking news' happend long ago and the release is timed to take public attention away from real news of either criminal activity or incompetence at the WH.

    Parent

    Nobody is buying anymore ppj. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:32:44 AM EST
    But you knew that.

    Parent
    Slightly OT (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    And you wonder why I paint the Left with a broad brush when I note their lack of support for the troops, and the war??

    Everyone likes to support the troops as long as it doesn't involve any inconvenience.

    If "supporting the troops" meant you had to skip lunch one day a week, most of the right-wing "supporters" would choose lunch over the troops.

    Is that a strawman?  Sure.  I tried to put it in terms you would understand.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Al on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    the troops you claim to defend are not fighting Al Qaeda. They have been set up as targets for road-bomb makers in Iraq. This guy's capture is completely irrelevant to the troops.

    Take your propaganda elsewhere, PPJ. Good people don't like to see people die to satisfy someone's political ambitions.

    Parent

    Yea, US the good, we caught the evil terrorist (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    Ok, there's my pat on the back for the Administration. Except, where is the pat on the back for those who actually risked their lives to capture this tortured into admission terrorist?

    Who makes the who is and who is not a terrorist determination? Is it the same people who determine what criminal prosecutions the U.S. needs to be trying? Is it the same people who release this wonderful news to the public only months after it would be current news?

    I believe that this Administration painted with a very broad brush their message that "Anyone against the Administration were Nazi sympathizers and terrorist lovers". Who released that? Why did they release that? What benefit to the Administration does accusing and attaching this lable to more than half of the United States citizens serve the entire U.S. population?

    Jim you were absolutely correct when you said this:

    What we do have is complaints about the administration trying to manage the news, and various other evil actions.....

    I will complain every time this or any other Administration tries to manage the news. They were elected to be leaders not journalists. I wish they would stick to the profession they were elected to serve and not moonlight in other professions they obviously know nothing about.

    Parent

    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    You missed my earlier comment.

    If they had wanted to manage the news they would have waited til Monday. The general public doesn't pay attention on the weekend.

    Just a generic thank you guys and gals would work.

    I must have missed the Nazi part..could you give me a link???

    Parent

    et al (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    Facts are facts.

    12 comments, 13 hours and not a word of praise...

    I praised them! See above! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:24:39 AM EST
    No, you did a snarky remark hooking a complaint to q supposed thank you.

    Parent
    No, I thanked the troops who captured (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    the terrorist. The administration had nothing to do with the actual capture. Their lives were not at stake sitting behind their desks. The individuals who risked their lives and lives with their families are the ones who should be congratulated not the pencil pushing administration.

    I support the troops and those on the front lines. Do you only support the administration? That in no way was a snarky remark. President Bush or anyone sitting in Washington D.C. had nothing to do with the actual capture and arrest. That requires physical exertion, guts, and nerves of steel.

    Thank those who risked something more than approval ratings.

    Parent

    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    Nope. Won't work.

    The war is a product of the troops work. You can't claim to support them and then condemn what they do.

    Parent

    Nope won't work Jim (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    You can't switch your "Why hasn't anyone praise this administration" position now with "The war is a product of the troops work" comment!

    When did I ever condemn the Troops Jim? I, unlike you Jim, walk into extremely dangerous situations daily. Do you for one second even think that you can confuse anything I have ever said as an attack on our young, brave, and honorable service men and women? I, once again, unlike you Jim have faced situations that you can you begin to dream possible. Yet, you sit there all smug, talking tough and yet you can't even walk the walk tough guy!

    Your remark is an attempt, a very sad and sick attempt to try and paint those who do not believe anything this Administration tells us and who do not believe in stupid, false pretense for war as being against the troops? Your Sick and Twisted!

    You sick, perverted individual. You sit here and call yourself American yet, you come here daily and accuse us of what? Accuse us of hating our young, brave and honorable service men and women? Why? Why, do you do this? Is this your attempt at proving how tough you are?

    In prison Jim, I see daily individuals who are scared out of their wits scream and yell the loudest. They are the most confrontational with the staff. Why? Because they have something to prove to not only everyone around them but they have something to prove to themselves; they have to prove that they are not chickensh** crybabies. It's easier to make a scene in front of the staff because they know the staff are held to abiding by the law. However, those same loud and challenging inmates never, and I repeat never, pull that crap from the heavies in the prison.

    Jim, one word of advice for you cat. You can pull your crap here daily because we do abide by a democracy and civil debate but I would highly recommend you reserve your brave comments outside in the real world because it's not the same world you try to paint in here!

    You know who scares me the most in prison? It's the silent, under the radar inmates who cause you no trouble. The reason: You don't know the first thing about that type of inmate and most importantly, that inmate has nothing to prove to anyone else! Try your remarks outside of the safety of your home tough guy Jim. The next time you are in public Jim, accuse people whom you think hate this war, accuse them of hating our troops big guy!

    Parent

    Uh Freewill... this isn't a prison (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:53:30 PM EST
    Now, what did I write, since you seem to be incapable of reading.

    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:50:47 AM EST
    Thirteen hours and 12 comments into a post about the capture of an al-Qaida and not a single comment that says:

    Hey guys, good job. Glad you got him.

    What we do have is complaints about the administration trying to manage the news, and various other evil actions.....

    And you wonder why I paint the Left with a broad brush when I note their lack of support for the troops, and the war??

    Now, where is that specific?

    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    You missed my earlier comment.

    If they had wanted to manage the news they would have waited til Monday. The general public doesn't pay attention on the weekend.

    Just a generic thank you guys and gals would work.

    I must have missed the Nazi part..could you give me a link???

    Again a point that the comment was generic.

    Guess that was too complex for you, or else you just wanted to be difficult...

    Yea, US the good, we caught the evil terrorist (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:25:58 AM EST Ok, there's my pat on the back for the Administration. Except, where is the pat on the back for those who actually risked their lives to capture this tortured into admission terrorist?

    Who makes the who is and who is not a terrorist determination? Is it the same people who determine what criminal prosecutions the U.S. needs to be trying? Is it the same people who release this wonderful news to the public only months af

    Huh? You have no proof that he has been tortured, and by linking the captue to torture you have insulted the troops.

    But did I get all herky jerky? Nope. Calmly I replied.

    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:24:39 AM

    EST
    No, you did a snarky remark hooking a complaint to q supposed thank you.

    Of course having let the cat out of the bag, you panic and yell:

     

    No, I thanked the troops who captured (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    the terrorist.

    .... support the troops and those on the front lines. Do you only support the administration

    Well, at this point I still haven't made any remarks specific to either. (try reading again.)
    So I'm kind of curious as to why you want to claim things I didn't say.

    Anyway, I just replied:

    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    Nope. Won't work.

    The war is a product of the troops work. You can't claim to support them and then condemn what they do.

    At which point you broke down into your rant.

    A few points in regards to that.

    I don't care what you have seen in prison. Means exactly nothing to me. In fact, I have found that people who have seen bad things don't talk about'em. Especially in a public forum such as this.

    That's a nice way of telling you I think you are full of it. I do think you have a tendancy to be a bully, so working with prisoners probably appeals to you, although you may have problems with some of the pyschological testing....

    And BTW. I've been posting here for four years. I don't need your permission.

    And I repeat. You can not support the troops and condem the war. The war is a product of the troops. Your whole hearted support is necessary for the successful war effort. If you harm that effort, you have harmed the troops.

    And you can't step around that because your earlier comment made it crystal clear. Wanna see it again??

    Except, where is the pat on the back for those who actually risked their lives to capture this tortured into admission terrorist?

    So if you did support the troops, it wouldn't take bunches of comments and arguments about the administration managing news, etc. etc.

    All you would have had to write was:

    "Hey you're right. Here's some thanks to the guys and gals that captured him."

    That you didn't speaks volumes.

    Try the mirror old son. Look deep into your own soul. And if you are against the war, fine. Just understand that you are also against the troops.  

    Parent

    This is pretty close the most disgusting, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:17:55 AM EST
    revolting, intentionally personally insulting, and foul trolling garbage I've ever seen you post here, Jim.

    It's not the worst you've ever produced here. But it's damn close.

    If you are not ashamed of yourself you need some serious psychoanalysis.

    Old son.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    It bothers you that I point out that Freewill claimed I said things I didn't?

    Well, as my response showed, he did. He shouldn't have done so when what was said is in the same thread. Something you and squeaky are too smart to do.

    He could have also left off the psycho babble about prison, etc., etc. But he didn't, and he got the same back.

    Now if, you want to claim that you can support the troops while you condemn the war, please do so. My response to such nonsense is in my reply to Freewill.

    Have a nice day Edger. Don't let your excess venom drip on your clothes. It makes ugly stains and can never be removed.

    But it does let you be seen from a distance.

    Parent

    It's your (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    revolting-ness that bothers me Jim. And your lies. But mostly just your revolting-ness.

    Parent
    You see, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Your lies and your claims can be and are easily refuted.

    Revolting-ness, however, is irrefutable. I guess it's all you have left.

    Parent
    edger traps edger (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    You know edger, once upon a time I proved you to be totally wrong, and demanded an apology.

    You were not man enough to do so. Now you smear and do it again.

    Let's take a walk down memory lane.

    Edger (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    Since you want to get back into the subject, I note that even when you are proven wrong, you can't bring yourself to apologize for calliing someone a liar.
    Link
    ----------------
    Re: deleted comments? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 08:17:50 AM EST
    Jim. The Nola/Red Cross thread has 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden).
    Comments 1 thru 59 are all there, Jim. No comments were deleted...
    Why do you lie, Jim? Even when you know you'll be held accountable?
    And more importantly, why do you do this to yourself, Jim? No snark - I really am concerned for you.
    --------------------
    Edger - Here they are (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:02:10 AM EST
    Lie? Here they are. I just copied them.
    Edger, you need help.
    (Comments shown on original)

    ---------------------------------------------
    Oh yes, right Jim. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:29:23 AM EST
    I remember now. .....
    ---------------
    Edger (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    So, you call me a liar and when proven wrong you don't apologize, you just make an excuse...
    ----------------
    Whatever, Jim (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:19:08 AM EST

    Does it taste better when you eat it the second time??

    Parent

    Nothing left, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    It's all gone.

    Parent
    Personal Experience Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Freewill on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    Don't let your excess venom drip on your clothes. It makes ugly stains and can never be removed.

    Are you speaking from experience Jim?

    Parent

    That is a true fact (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    Facts are facts.
    Whether they are true or false.

    12 comments, 13 hours and not a word of praise...
    A false fact.

    Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year
    A presumably true fact

    Abd al-Hadi, 45, was regarded as one of al-Qaeda's most experienced, most intelligent and most ruthless commanders.
    A fact that has not yet been proven true or false.

    Bets anyone?

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:45:57 PM EST
    Could I see a link to where you praised them...last year??

    You didn't, you haven't now...

    Parent

    Un American (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    Had any of the people 'captured' been treated  in a way that reflect the American values which had made us a model in the international community I would applaud loudly.

    These Bush Administration is flaunting US and International law by redefining torture, maintaining secret concentration camps, denying basic human rights, etc.

    This is not anything I would ever support. Even the most notorious war criminal is a human being and deserves fair and open treatment. Otherwise we are worse than our worst enemies.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:22:20 PM EST
    Well DA, I must say that your mother had some terrible experienes.

    But what that has to do with Freewill's false claims... and I proved them false... and his psycho babble I really don't know.

    DA ... I resorted to the yadda yadda response just because of your comments like the above. It has nothing to do with the subject, and ignores facts presented.

    So..

    yadda yadda yadda yadda

    That's what you desire.

    Self Delusional at Best (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    I have to agree with DA you proved more about yourself than anything about Freewill's claims.

    Parent
    There may be more behind this (none / 0) (#1)
    by Al on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:49:14 PM EST
    This guy is said to be an Iraqi, who served as a major in the Iraqi army. The implication would be that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to Al Qaeda. See for example this.

    Why now? (none / 0) (#6)
    by chupetin on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:39:15 PM EST
    Could the capture of 172 Al-Qaeda suspects by the Saudis have something to do with it?
    Who caught this guy anyway, was it the Rangers,Seals or just regular Marines?

    but.............. (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 05:26:06 AM EST
    Now, it seems a Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Tobias, was a customer of her escort service.

    there was no sex involved, only massages! according to reports, he's changed services, to one using latin american "providers".

    why do i get the feeling, after abc goes through that list, that the only members of the administration who are going to be left are bush and rice? and frankly, i'm not positive about rice. :)

    If they're (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    not being the worst kind of revolting, lying, selfserving "news managers"..this time, then I praise the capture.

    Or, after twelve hours and thirteen comments, or whatever it is, is it too late?

    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:25:39 AM EST
    That's just a snarky remark... Typical.

    Parent
    Coincidence. Right. (none / 0) (#25)
    by YFS on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:23:19 PM EST
    From Powerline's John Hinderaker this morning:

    So al-Hadi, a former Iraqi soldier who became a top al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan and later supervised that organization's operations in Iraq was caught re-entering that country from Iran: three entities that, we are told, cannot possibly have anything to do with one another.

    Another Non-AQI leader killed. (none / 0) (#26)
    by YFS on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    Boy, for an organization that doesn't exist, it sure has a lot of bodies. From Bill Roggio:
    The raids against al Qaeda senior operatives continue on a daily basis. Coalition forces killed a senior al Qaeda leader during a raid northwest of Baghdad on April 20th. Abu Abd al-Satter is described as "a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader known to operate in Karmah and Ameriyah areas and was the al-Qaeda in Iraq Security Emir of the eastern Anbar Province." Satter's car bomb cell "used 12- to 13-year-old children as VBIED drivers" to conduct its attacks. One of Satter's associates was killed and another captured during the raid. Today, Coalition forces captured six al Qaeda operatives during raids in Salman Pak and Karma.

    Well Then (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    I guess that the US troops have it about wrapped up then. Time to bring the troops back home.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cptsalesman on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:44:55 AM EST
     What is bothering me most about all this is what has been missing from this discussion. By putting this prisoner in a Secret Prison and holding him with contact to the outside world world, isn't Bush thumbing his nose at SCOTUS? In all my searchs I have only seen one author write about this and he is a barely known blogger over at DailyKos.

     Shouldn't this be a big deal ? Ignoring SCOTUS and it's ruling on Bush having to follow the Geneva Convention, common article 3 seems to me to big news ignored.