Kerry Underestimates the U.S. Military and Saddam’s Ties to Terrorist

Senator John Kerry during the debate with President Bush argued the U.S. military cannot fight a two prong war against the worldwide networks of terrorist. Calling the Iraq invasion a colossal error in judgment. I couldn't disagree more. For the justification of Kerry’s position, he referred to an opinion of a former counter terror czar Richard Clark who metaphorically insinuated "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor." Mr. Clark, who was at the White House anti terror helm pre-9/11 2001, had failed to pick up on the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorism plot and operation taking place within the borders of the U.S. during his tenure with the former Clinton administration, and his short stint with the Bush administration.

Quite possibly, in some queer sense, Mr. Clark and Mr. Kerry feel this exonerates them from their pre 9/11 shortsightedness and responsibility by deflecting their inadequacies via attacking President Bush for going after terrorist and their supporting state sponsors of terrorism worldwide. A job both Clark and Kerry should have done more expeditiously and forcefully over a decade ago. Ironically, Richard Clark has admitted as much before the 9/11 commission in his opening statement when he said "Your government failed you, and I failed you," where is John Kerry’s admission?

Kerry Lacks the Vision

Sen. Kerry uses the ability of 20/20 hindsight, to make his claims as to how he would have planned and done things differently in Iraq. But 20/20 hindsight is not forward looking vision. That is something John Kerry definitely does not have. Because if he did, he would have been proactively advocating for more body armor for the troops and armor for the humvees prior to the invasion, not only after the removal of Saddam‘s regime.

Likewise, Kerry wasn't advocating the guarding all the Iraqi ministries before the invasion of Iraq took place, only after the fact. What is a matter of fact though, is that there is a problem with Kerry's statement with respect to the after invasion guarding of the ministries. Contrary to Kerry's assertion, Iraq's ministries were being systematically destroyed before the war, some during the war, and little bit after the war. "Not all looting of Iraq's ministries took place only after the war", as Kerry’s misleading statement alludes to.

Even if all of Iraq's ministries were and successfully guarded a day or two prior to the invasion by some extremely risky special forces operation, or even as the invasion progressed, that doesn't mean the important information relating to the missing WMD and other selectively missing or destroyed information would have been in place untouched. The force build-up was a little obvious and did take some time appearing imminent to everyone including foreign governments opposed to military action against Iraq, like Russia and France. This gave all of them more than enough time to take the actions before the war, to destroy and remove their important historical archives systematically.

There is a story going around that Saddam didn't think we were going to actually invade and that he was shocked the invasion started. I just don't buy that. Any time you have a military build-up like what occurred, that would definitely send a very strong signal "way in advance" an attack was imminent. If Saddam did indeed say that, then its most likely he would be covering for something. It would be illogical to believe that If he was truly startled, and taken by surprise, the last thing he would be worried about would be to systematically and methodically destroy the archives. If he isn't talking about WMD, and is willing to talk about being startled, then he is covering. And I don't believe its only the oil for food program he is concerned about either.

The pictures below here are the proof that Iraq's ministries were systematically destroyed before the invasion began, some during the war, and some tampered with after the war, but not all was done after the war, as John Kerry would lead us to believe. Ordinary looters don't systematically and selectively destroy and remove historical files during the very short initial time period (perhaps a little too short) that it took for the removal of Saddam's regime , and then leave untouched other types of information in place. That just doesn't gel..

 Courtesy: CIA Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The basement historical files were systematically selected and destroyed.

Courtesy: CIA Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage.

Courtesy: CIA Burned Documents Found at SAAD Center: An exploitation team on a recent mission to the SAAD Center, part of the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center, found massive looting and the remnants of deliberately destroyed documents. Other documents were left untouched, however, and recovered by the team    

(next paragraph was referenced from another Analysis and opinion I did titled: Paralleling Strategies  a must read

Corroborated by the evidence shown in the pictures above, it does appear there was a deliberate (planned) strategy to cover up the different types of evidence by systematically destroying the important records relating to WMD, the associations and activities related to supporting nations such as the long time Saddam allies like  Russia and France, Iraq's ties (support) to terrorist organizations and other potential war crimes evidence. This destruction of the documentation and computer hard drives was occurring before the war, during the war, and after the war. I would say that was a very ambitious and serious operation. I also suspect this was done at the direction and help of another foreign intelligence service. 

Evidence of the Threat Saddam Posed

 RFE/RL is funded by the U.S. Congress. In 2001, Iraqi Embassy Second Consul Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani who was Saddam’s intelligence officer in Prague of the Czech Republic, was caught numerous times “scoping out” the RFE/RL building in Prague using video cameras. These were the same pre-planning tactics that Al Qaeda terrorist would use prior to an attack against a target. Some coincidence (sarcastically).

Hynek Kmonicek, who is presently the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the United Nations, was the person who expelled Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in 2001, because of the fear that Saddam was preparing to retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasting into Iraq.

In the picture below, you will see an actual undercover photo of Saddam's intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani while he was photographing the RFE/RL building in Prague, Czech Republic. This photo was snapped during the winter of 2000.

No one has tried to refute this picture.


                   All Rights Reserved / TheXReport.com/ 2002-2004

The Iraq and Al-Qaeda Connection  (In Prague)         

During the debate with the President, John Kerry referred to the 9/11 commission as saying "the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein". I feel that is another misleading statement. Just because they couldn't prove it by obvious paper trail, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The 9/11 commission as well as the FBI were looking for obvious corroborating paper trails which they not so surprisingly didn't find. So in other words, they can't prove it or disprove it one way or another.

By the 9/11 commission's own admissions and words, the hijackers had and used multiple fictitious passports for travel to and from this country. Logically, it would be very conceivable to believe that Atta may have been using other passports for covert travel to Prague. Also, Atta was operating here in the U.S. undetected, plotting and planning for the 9/11 attacks right under the noses and unbeknownst to the entire U.S. government which includes Senator John Kerry and at the time anti terror czar Richard Clark.

Any successful spy, or a terrorist in this particular matter, would not leave a paper trail leading back to a state sponsor, such as Iraq would be. Obviously, Atta was very successful against the United States or else the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred.

To this very day, the Czech government maintains that a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani has occurred. Drawing the following information from the RFE/RL website (Link to Report)http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2002/06/3-cee/cee-050602.asp which was published on 6/05/2002, word for word, is the following report: (Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Hynek Kmonicek has said that 11 September hijack suspect Mohammad Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent, despite claims in the U.S. media that the liaison never took place, "The Prague Post" of 4 June reported. "The meeting took place" between Atta and Iraqi Embassy Second Consul Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the English-language weekly quoted Kmonicek as saying. "At the time, I was in Prague," Kmonicek said. "I was the person who had to expel al-Ani." Kmonicek was serving as a deputy foreign minister when he alleges the two men met in April 2001. U.S. media, including "Newsweek," "The Washington Post," and "The New York Times," have cited unidentified U.S. officials as saying there is no evidence the meeting took place. Czech officials, including Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, have maintained that Atta and Al-Ani met in Prague.)

"The entire report above directly contradicts the 9/11 commissions "general findings" in regards to Atta being in Prague and meeting with al- Ani, contradicts Kerry's statements during the debate when he said, "the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein" and directly contradicts New York Time reporting, Newsweek Reporting and the Washington Post reporting".

Then In another report, four and a half months later, from RFE/RL  on 10/22/2002  (link to Report)http://www.rferl.org/reports/mm/2002/10/41-251002.asp  the Czech Presidents Spokesperson had this to say " CZECH REPUBLIC PRESIDENTIAL SPOKESMAN REJECTS 'NY TIMES' REPORT AS 'FABRICATION.' A spokesman for Czech President Vaclav Havel has dismissed a report in "The New York Times" claiming Havel told U.S. officials there is no evidence that suspected 11 September hijacker Mohammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, CTK reported on 22 October. The 21 October report cited unidentified Czech officials as saying Havel discreetly called White House officials to cast doubt on the alleged meeting. "It is a fabrication. Nothing like this has occurred," Havel's spokesman, Ladislav Spacek, said of the alleged phone conversation". ("RFE/RL Newsline," 22 October)

Again, this directly contradicts Kerry's statement during the debates with President Bush, and proves the reporting from the New York Times,  Newsweek, and The Washington Post to be inaccurate at the very least, and quite possibly, may have been involved in and complicit in a "attempted Cover-up". Because I just don't see how three so-called prominent news services, could all get it so wrong. But then, The Washington Post did admit recently, they were mislead by Joseph Wilson. And John Kerry's  website, JohnKerry.com, has taken down their endorsement and their website pages of Joseph Wilson's claims. This alone "constitutes an admission of irrefutably misleading inaccuracies from Joseph Wilson" falsely charging the President lied when during his state of the Union speech when the president uttered the sixteen words, The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium, which the British government has very recently since proven to be very accurate. Which I proved , (link to archives page 07/11/2004 - 09/19/2004  to see the proof on the on this website and all corresponding related opinion and analysis by me).

More evidence of a connection I was able to put together

In the picture below, I personally believe, with reasonable confidence, shows a meeting between 9/11 lead hijacker and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, which was Saddam's intelligence officer in Prague pre-9/11. No one has ever told me that personally either before or after I gathered the photo. I drew these conclusions on my own.

With a little imagination, yes imagination, which the 9/11 commission referred to as the single most important factor in the massive intelligence failures leading up to 9/11/2001, which did not stop with the 9/11 attacks, and with a little work and using special software, I was able to clear up the photo's and make a reasonable determination of who I believe is in the photo's. . And that being of one 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta, and Saddam's intel officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani which was stationed in Prague of the Czech Republic at the time these undercover photo's were taken. I believe because it had to take a little work with imagination, this is why no one was able to identify the other person with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. That is why I am a originator of these photo's, because of  my creative work using imagination. I was able to make a determination with reasonable certainty.

I also used many other methods for evaluating the photographs, some of which I have disclosed in some detail with the original posting of the photo's and original analysis on this website. Others, I have not discussed. One can view the initial analysis by me on this website by following this link: http://www.thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

(excerpt from my original analysis posting): How I arrived at my conclusion  First, I found a passport photo that was plastered all over the net and made a copy. I then compared the facial structure of Mohamed Atta's passport photo to the picture taken in Prague. What I have concluded is the following. 1) the hairlines are exactly the same. 2) the raised eyebrow bone structure is the same as the Prague picture below. 3) the recessed eyes exist in both pictures, both show shadows from being recessed. 4) the nose on both pictures appear to have the same shape and size. 5) the upper lip extrudes over the lower lip on both pictures. 6) the ears on both pictures appear to have the same shape as well as dimensions and placement on the head when compared. 7) upon magnification of the photo's, I determined that the adams apple located on the neck of both pictures appear to be identical both is size and shape.  8) the bottom of the jaw bone appears to have the same shape with the only difference being that in the passport photo, he had his head cocked back whereas in the Prague photo he was looking down at AL-ANI.  9) I then copied a second passport photo and applied a mustache (see below)  and I then definitely came to the conclusion that this was Mohamed Atta in the photo taken in Prague.  I drew this conclusion on my own. No one, told me that.  TW 10/22/2002)

In the pictures below, you can definitely see how one can make a reasonable determination using the above mentioned methods and all related factors above. Again, short of having a provable paper trail, which no successful spy or terrorist operating against the target country rarely would leave behind linking them to a state sponsor like Iraq and Saddam, I believe this is the best proof the U.S. has showing that a direct meeting and connection between Iraq's intel oficer (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani and Al Qaeda operative (Mohammed Atta with the camera in hand). Another coincidence?

Below: Undercover Photo Taken During the Winter of 2000

                 All Rights Reserved/TheXReport.com/ 2002-2004

In 2003, Former CIA Director James Woolsey had this comment about The Iraq and Al Qaeda connections. "Last June, former CIA Director James Woolsey said that "there were enough connections [between al Qaeda] and Iraq and Iraqi intelligence that we ought to be looking at this very hard, as we capture files and people and hard disk drives in Iraq and so on, and see what we can turn up." source: National Review.Com James S. Robbins on Iraq & Terrorism on National Review Online 

My Comments: What files and hard disk? They were all systematically destroyed or removed as the pictures and the CIA indicate! And no one is talking either.

by  Ted Weaver  10/03/2004 - 5:40 PM  

additional comment: For the record, I stand behind my information and my work 100%  TW 10/4/2004