posted on August 27, 2003 01:27:57 PM new
Saudi Arabia & Wahhabism
How Saudi Arabia Spreads terrorism and hatred of the west
By Daniel Johnson
How Saudi Arabia spreads terrorism and hatred of the West
By Daniel Johnson
According to Newsweek, a congressional joint intelligence inquiry has concluded that Saudi Arabia was deeply implicated in the attacks of September 11. A close associate of the al-Qa'eda hijackers, Omar al-Bayoumi, is alleged to have been working as a Saudi agent, operating from the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles.
The Bush administration has censored an entire section from the report, detailing the Saudi role in the events leading up to the attacks. These suppressed passages are said to explain how Saudi diplomats provided financial and logistical support for the terrorists. Leading American senators, such as Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, have pointed the finger at Riyadh.
What is the link between the twin towers of New York and the minarets of Mecca? The men who mounted the most devastating act of terrorism in modern times, the al-Qa'eda organisation for which they worked, and the Taliban regime that gave them sanctuary, all emerged from a single Islamic fundamentalist movement. That movement - Wahhabism - originated in Saudi Arabia.
Until September 11, the Saudi connection was understood only by a few experts. Most Western leaders were still fighting the last war against terrorism. Ever since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, conceptions of Islamic fundamentalism had been dominated by the revolutionary brand of Shi'ite Islam propagated by Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors.
During the Cold War and even later, Soviet-backed secular Arab nationalists, from Nasser and Gaddafi to Saddam and Arafat, posed a greater threat to the West than militant Islam. Saudi Arabia, the richest and longest-established of the Arab states, was treated as a valued ally. American and European governments, accustomed to cordial relations with the Saudis, turned a blind eye to its state religion.
Only after the September 11 attacks did the global extent of the Wahhabi menace become clear. From Algeria to Bali, from Tunis to Tel Aviv, from Moscow to Riyadh, Islamist suicide bombers left a bloody trail behind them. In the background lurked the shadowy network of Wahhabi influence.
Through charities and schools, youth groups and private foundations, Saudi oil money has been deployed on a colossal scale to finance organisations such as al-Qa'eda and Hamas. Thus did Saudi Arabia emerge as the matrix of Islamist terrorism.
While evidence of Saudi support for terrorists has accumulated from intelligence and other sources, one expert analysis that appeared a few months ago has confirmed American doubts about Riyadh's attitude to terrorism. Hatred's Kingdom (Regnery) by Dore Gold, the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, provides documentary proof of close links between Saudi oil money and the jihad against the West.
Gold shows how the tentacles of terror that extend into Africa, Asia, Europe and America are nourished by propaganda, personnel and resources from official Saudi charities that are emanations of Wahhabism.
The fortunes of Wahhabi Islam reflect those of the House of Saud. This obscurantist creed is characterised by its intolerance of other traditions of Islam and especially of non-Islamic cultures, which they regard as forms of idolatry deserving only of extirpation.
When the Saudis seized control of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from the Hashemite dynasty in the early 1920s, the local imperial power, Britain, was oblivious of the boost that Saudi custodianship of these sites would give to Wahhabism.
Now, some 80 years later, the significance of this Wahhabi takeover is clear. A lunatic fringe, backed by one of the greatest concentrations of wealth in the world, is exploiting the prestige conferred by the central places of pilgrimage in the Islamic world to promote holy war against the West.
Wahhabism began as one puritanical Muslim sect among many. Its success is explained by the fact that it is inextricably linked to Saudi dynastic ambitions. In 1744 Mohammed ibn Saud, the emir of the region around modern Riyadh, married the daughter of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi movement.
Ever since then, the Saudi royal family has proselytised on behalf of ibn Abdul Wahhab's fanatical doctrines, which treat other Muslims as no better than infidels. In recent decades, Wahhabi clerics have preached two forms of jihad against the West: terrorism, and financial jihad, whereby wealthy Saudi philanthropists subsidise terrorist groups under the guise of promoting Islamic causes.
Gold traces Wahhabi influence across Europe and America. After September 11, 2001, for example, the Sarajevo offices of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia were raided: maps of Washington DC were found with bull's-eyes on government buildings, along with a computer program for crop-duster aircraft used to spread chemical weapons, and other evidence of terrorist activity.
Other Saudi charities in the Balkans also proved to be involved in terrorism. In America, Saudi-funded charities spread hate propaganda against Jews and Christians. The Chicago office of the Islamic Benevolence Committee was used as a cover by bin Laden operatives until the authorities indicted its head for conspiracy and racketeering and blocked its bank accounts.
In the Middle East, Gold produces documentary evidence of how a committee established by another Saudi royal prince pumped money into Hamas and Islamic Jihad, including nursery schools for suicide bombers. As Gold concludes: "The Saudis were up to their necks in terrorism." They are also in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1373, which makes support for terrorism a violation of international law.
The Saudi connection has been the subject of heated debate in the United States, and this has already had consequences for American policy. The decision to withdraw American ground troops from the kingdom suggests that Saudi Arabia's strategic importance is now outweighed by the vulnerability of forces stationed there to terrorist attack. Post-Ba'athist Iraq offers similar geopolitical advantages and oil reserves, without the drawback of tying Washington's hands.
In recent months, Saudi Arabia has mounted a diplomatic counter-offensive designed to convince the West of its friendly intentions. But the Saudis have yet to admit their role in financing terrorist organisations and spreading hatred of the West. As long as the sinister connection persists between Wahhabi ideology and Islamist terrorism, all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the hands of the House of Saud.
posted on August 27, 2003 01:41:58 PM new
Carlyle's way
Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense, government, and industry.
By Dan Briody
January 8, 2002
Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.
That the Carlyle Group had its conference on America's darkest day was mere coincidence, but there is nothing accidental about the cast of characters that this private-equity powerhouse has assembled in the 14 years since its founding. Among those associated with Carlyle are former U.S. president George Bush Sr., former U.K. prime minister John Major, and former president of the Philippines Fidel Ramos. And Carlyle has counted George Soros, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin Laden's estranged family among its high-profile clientele. The group has been able to parlay its political clout into a lucrative buyout practice (in other words, purchasing struggling companies, turning them around, and selling them for huge profits)--everything from defense contractors to telecommunications and aerospace companies. It is a kind of ruthless investing made popular by the movie Wall Street, and any industry that relies heavily on government regulation is fair game for Carlyle's brand of access capitalism. Carlyle has established itself as the gatekeeper between private business interests and U.S. defense spending. And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up.
In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management. But while successful in the traditional private-equity avenue of corporate buyouts, Carlyle has recently set its sites on venture capital with less success. The firm is finding that all the politicians in the world won't help it identify an emerging technology or a winning business model.
Surprisingly, Carlyle has avoided the fertile VC market in defense technology, which now, more than ever, comes from smaller companies hoping to cash in on what the defense establishment calls the revolution in military affairs, or RMA. Thus far, Carlyle has passed up on these emerging technologies in favor of some truly awful Internet plays. And despite its unique qualifications for early-stage funding of defense companies, the firm seems to have no appetite for the sector.
Despite its VC troubles, however, the Carlyle Group's core business is set for some good times ahead. Though the group has raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill in the past, the firm's close ties with the current administration and its cozy relationship with several prominent Saudi government figures has the watchdogs howling. And it's those same connections that will keep Carlyle in the black for as long as the war against terrorism endures.
For the 11th-largest defense contractor in the United States, wartime is boom time. No one knows that better than the Carlyle Group, which less than a month after U.S. troops began bombing Afghanistan filed to take public its crown jewel of defense, United Defense, a company it has owned for nearly a decade. That this company is even able to go public is testament to the Carlyle Group's pull in Washington.
United Defense makes the controversial Crusader, a 42-ton, self-propelled howitzer that moves and operates much like a tank and can lob ten 155-mm shells per minute as far as 40 kilometers. The Crusader has been in the sights of Pentagon budget cutters since the Clinton administration, which argued that it was a relic of the cold war era--too heavy and slow for today's warfare. Even the Pentagon had recommended the program be discontinued. But remarkably, the $11 billion contract for the Crusader is still alive, thanks largely to the Carlyle Group.
"This is very much an example of a cold war-inspired weapon whose time has passed," notes Steve Grundman, a consultant at Charles River Associates, a defense and aerospace consultancy in Boston. "Its liabilities were uncovered during the Kosovo campaign, when the Army was unable to deploy it in time. It is exceedingly expensive, and it was a wake-up call to the Army that many of its forces are no longer relevant."
But the Carlyle Group was having none of that. While it is impossible to say what U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was thinking when he made the decision to keep the Crusader program alive, people close to the situation claim to have a pretty good idea. Mr. Carlucci and Mr. Rumsfeld are good friends and former wrestling partners from their undergraduate days at Princeton University. And while Carlyle executives are quick to reject any accusations of them lobbying the current administration, others aren't so sure. "In this particular effort, I felt that they were like any other lobbying group, apart from the fact that they are not," said one Washington, D.C., lobbyist with intimate knowledge of the Crusader negotiations, noting the fine line between lobbying and having a drink with a old friend.
According to Greg McCarthy, a spokesperson for Representative J.C. Watts Jr. (R: Oklahoma), whose district is home to one of the Crusader's assembly plants, the Carlyle Group's influence was indeed felt at the Pentagon. "Carlyle's strength was within the DoD, because as a rule someone like Frank Carlucci is going to have access," says Mr. McCarthy. "But they have other staff types that work behind the scenes, in the dark, that know everything about the Army and Capitol Hill."
Perhaps even more disconcerting than Carlyle's ties to the Pentagon are its connections within the White House itself. Aside from signing up George Bush Sr. shortly after his presidential term ended, Carlyle gave George W. Bush a job on the board of Texas-based airline food caterer Caterair International back in 1991. Since Bush the younger took office this year, a number of events have raised eyebrows.
Shortly after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, he broke off talks with North Korea regarding long-range ballistic missiles, claiming there was no way to ensure North Korea would comply with any guidelines that were developed. The news came as a shock to South Korean officials, who had spent years negotiating with the North, assisted by the Clinton administration. By June, Mr. Bush had reopened negotiations with North Korea, but only at the urging of his own father. According to reports, the former president sent his son a memo persuasively arguing the need to work with the North Korean government. It was the first time the nation had seen the influence of the father on the son in office.
But what has been overlooked was Carlyle's business interest in Korea. The senior Bush had spearheaded the group's successful entrance into the South Korean market, paving the way for buyouts of Korea's KorAm Bank and Mercury, a telecommunications equipment company. For the business to be successful, stability between North and South Korea is critical. And though there is no direct evidence linking the senior Bush's business dealings in Korea with the change in policy, it is the appearance of impropriety that excites the watchdogs. "We are clearly aware that former President Bush has weighed in on policy toward South Korea and we note that U.S. policy changed after those communications," says Peter Eisner, managing director at the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., which has an active file on the Carlyle Group. "We know that former President Bush receives remuneration for his work with Carlyle and that he is capable of advising the current president, but how much further it goes, we don't know."
While the Center for Public Integrity looks for its smoking gun, others in Washington say hard evidence is unimportant. "Whether the decisions made by the former president are a real or apparent conflict of interest doesn't matter, because in the public's eye they're equally as damaging," says Larry Noble, executive director and general counsel of the Center for Responsive Politics. "Bush [Sr.] has to seriously consider the propriety of sitting on the board of a group that is impacted by his son's decisions."
And the controversy is expected only to increase as Carlyle's investments in Saudi Arabia are scrutinized during the war on terrorism. Mr. Eisner says that very little is known about Carlyle's involvements in Saudi Arabia, except that the firm has been making close to $50 million a year training the Saudi Arabian National Guard, troops that are sworn to protect the monarchy. Carlyle also advises the Saudi royal family on the Economic Offset Program, a system that is designed to encourage foreign businesses to open shop in Saudi Arabia and uses re-investment incentives to keep those businesses' proceeds in the country.
But the money flowing out of Saudi Arabia and into the Carlyle Group is of even more interest. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, reports surfaced of Carlyle's involvement with the Saudi Binladin Group, the $5 billion construction business run by Osama's half-brother Bakr. The bin Laden family invested $2 million in the Carlyle Partners II fund, which includes in its portfolio United Defense and other defense and aerospace companies. On October 26, the Carlyle Group severed its relationship with the bin Laden family in what officials termed a mutual decision. Mr. Bush Sr. and Mr. Major have been to Saudi Arabia on behalf of Carlyle as recently as last year, and according to reports, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently looking into the flow of money from the bin Laden family. Carlyle officials declined to answer any questions regarding their activities in Saudi Arabia.
But for all the questions, Carlyle has stayed clean in the eyes of the law. Lobbying laws in Washington, D.C., are ambiguous at best, requiring only that former politicians observe a one-year "cooling-off period" before they reënter the lobbying scene on behalf of industry. It is playing within this gray area that has given the Carlyle Group some of the best returns in the business.
After David Rubenstein, a former aide in the Carter administration, and William Conway Jr., former chief financial officer of MCI Communications, hooked up at New York's Carlyle hotel in 1987 to form the company, the Carlyle Group spent two lost years investing in a hodgepodge of companies. It wasn't until 1989, when the company brought in Mr. Carlucci, fresh off his two-year stint as U.S. secretary of defense, that Carlyle got serious in government. In 1991 the company made a name for itself by facilitating a $590 million purchase of Citicorp stock for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Shortly thereafter, Carlyle snatched up defense contractors Harsco, BDM International, and LTV, turning the companies around and selling them to the likes of TRW, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.
The Carlyle Group has diversified its holdings since then, investing in everything from bottling companies to natural-food grocers. In the process, it has become one of the biggest, most successful private-equity firms in business, with annualized returns of 35 percent. (Judging by the early numbers from some of their funds, however, like many other private-equity funds, 2001 will be a considerably less profitable year for Carlyle.) "They are the new breed of private equity, acting more like a large mutual fund of private companies," says David Snow, editor of PrivateEquityCentral.net, a Web site that tracks private-equity firms. The numbers are impressive: Carlyle employs 240 people, as opposed to the 10 or 12 typical of most private-equity firms. It has ownership stakes in 164 companies, which collectively employ more than 70,000 people. George Soros invested $100 million in the group's funds; the California Public Employees' Retirement System is in for $305 million.
Carlyle has succeeded by raising money first, then finding the talent to manage it. For instance, it raised a fund for buying out telecom companies and hired William Kennard, the former U.S. Federal Communications Commission chairman, to run it. Accused early on of being nothing more than a bunch of Washington grip-and-grinners, Carlyle has proven its critics wrong. At a Salomon Smith Barney private-equity conference last March, a panel of professional investment managers were asked who the best fund managers are. Carlyle cofounder Mr. Conway was one of two managers chosen.
With its size and success, questions about the firm's ability to grow revenue has arisen. Carlyle has placed its bets for future growth on the VC markets, which it entered in 1996. But to date, it has found that venture capital is a game with far different rules than that of corporate buyouts. "They may be very established in private equity, but it seems to me that they don't really know the venture capital business," says one VC who has done deals with Carlyle. "In buyouts, you take over a company and fight the management, but in venture capital it's the opposite. You want to work with people."
Carlyle executives admit as much. As a result, the Carlyle Europe Venture Partners fund has been slow to commit its capital. So far, it has spent just more than 20 percent of its $660 million, and 3 of its original 17 investments have already folded. None has gone public or been acquired. As Jack Biddle, cofounder of Novak Biddle Venture Partners, dryly puts it, "I haven't been involved in a lot of venture deals where the participation of a president mattered that much. In venture capital, it's all about the technology."
For a firm that has made its money in highly regulated, politically charged industries, picking business-to-business plays is hardly second nature. While Carlyle has investments in highly regulated sectors like telecom and banking, it has avoided defense entirely, instead focusing on tech industries that have already gone flat. The firm's European fund alone boasts six B2B companies, two optical-networking companies, and Riot-E, a wireless media play. Jacques Garaïalde, managing director of the Europe fund concedes that expectations have been shifted. "Clearly, we can't make 100 times returns on B2B, but there are some situations in which we can make 3 times."
But the struggles in its VC business may be offset, at least temporarily, by the expected windfall from the war on terrorism. The federal government has already approved a $40 billion supplemental aid package to the current budget, $19 billion of which is headed straight to the Pentagon. Some of the additional government spending is likely to find its way into Carlyle's coffers.
The Bush administration isn't afraid to mix business and politics, and no other firm embodies that penchant better than the Carlyle Group. Walking that fine line is what Carlyle does best. We may not see Osama bin Laden's brothers at Carlyle's investor conferences any more, but business will go on as usual for the biggest old boys network around. As Mr. Snow puts it, "Carlyle will always have to defend itself and will never be able to convince certain people that they aren't capable of forging murky backroom deals. George Bush's father does profit when the Carlyle Group profits, but to make the leap that the president would base decisions on that is to say that the president is corrupt."
Additional reporting by Lawrence Aragon, Mark Chediak, Julie Landry, Christopher Locke, Eric Moskowitz, Mark Mowrey, and Michael Parsons.
Middle East Media Research Institute
December 20, 2002
Web site: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01202
Preliminary Overview. - Saudi Arabia's Education System: Curriculum, Spreading Saudi Education to the World and the Official Saudi Position on Education Policy
By Steven Stalinsky*
Introduction[I]
For the past two decades, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been engaged in an extensive effort "to spread Islam to every corner of the earth."[1] This has meant supporting or creating schools with a curriculum primarily based upon the teachings of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, the 18th century founder of the Islamist Wahhabiyya movement.[2]
This report offers a preliminary overview of the Saudi education system focusing on its main principles, aspects of its organizational structure, translations from its textbooks and statements made by high ranking Saudi officials on the Saudi education policy.
Part I: The Philosophy of Education
Education Based on the Teachings of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab
According to a book published in 1995 by the Saudi Cultural Mission to the U.S. on education in the Kingdom, titled "Education in Saudi Arabia,"[3] the roots of the contemporary Saudi education policy date back to the 18th century when Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab called for the return of Muslims to the fundamentals of Islam as preached by the Prophet Muhammad.
The cornerstone of education in Saudi Arabia consists of the most pervasive themes in Islam.The book, published by the Saudi Cultural Mission to the U.S., quotes a document published by the Higher Committee for Educational Policy[4] which contains 236 principles that explain how students should promote loyalty to Islam by denouncing any system or theory that conflicts with Islamic law. The students are also taught to understand Islam in a correct manner, how to plant and spread Islam throughout the world, and how "to fight spiritually and physically for the sake of Allah,"[5] with emphasis on early Islamic glories.[6]
Spreading Islam throughout the World
The concept of spreading Islam throughout the world is a fundamental pillar of the Saudi education system, as the following principles from the document by the Higher Committee for Educational Policy indicate:"The purpose of education is to understand Islam in a proper and complete manner, to implement and spread the Muslim faith, to provide a student with Islamic values, and teachings."[7]The document discusses the importance of "providing the individual with the necessary ideas, consciousness and abilities to preach the message of Islam."[8]Another concept within the Saudi education system is "widening the horizons of the thinking of the students by acquainting them with various countries of the world… and in attending to the duty of spreading its [Islam's] message..."[9] In order to successfully spread Islam, students are taught "… at least one of the living languages in addition to their original language to enable them to acquire knowledge… [to] transmit our Saudi knowledge… to other communities and participate in the spreading of Islam."[10]
Teaching the History of Islamic Glories
Educating students in "the spirit of Islamic struggle" is another common theme in the Saudi education system, as the following principles indicate: "Striving and fighting for the sake of Allah is a prescribed duty, a followed tradition and an existing necessity. This spirit of striving will remain in force until the Day of Judgment."[11] This is done by "teaching history in a systematic way, deriving crucial lessons from it and explaining the Islamic points of view," highlighting the glorious stances in the history of Islam and the civilization of its people, "so as to be an example to be followed by our present Muslim generation."[12] "Awakening the spirit of Islamic struggle to resist our enemies, restore our rights and glories, and perform our duties towards the Islamic message"[13] is a general theme students are expected to learn.This in effect will lead to "prompting his [the student's] zeal for the restoration of the glories of his Muslim nation… and for the resumption of the march along the path of glory and honor."[14]
Part II: Organizational Aspects
Government Control of Schoolbooks to Guarantee They are Consistent with Islam and Devoid of Anything Conflicting with Its Principles
The Saudi government maintains control of every aspect of educational material:[15] "The government shall be concerned with the control of all books coming into the Kingdom from abroad or going out of the Kingdom to the outside world. No books shall be allowed for use unless they are consistent with Islam, the intellectual trends and educational aims of the Kingdom..."[16] The government policy also states: "All books should fulfill the aims of education and be devoid of anything conflicting with Islam."[17] Students also learn "how to face misleading rumors, destructive doctrines, and alien thoughts,"[18]The Saudi education authorities insist "the school textbooks should be in line with Islamic requirements."[19]
Textbook Development
According to the study by the Saudi Cultural Mission to the U.S., "committees at the Ministry of Education oversee the development of textbooks[20] in every subject for all educational levels… Textbooks are updated periodically to reflect developments in different subjects. The textbooks used in Islamic studies, for example, which primarily cover the traditional religious texts and their interpretation, change very little over the years. Textbook materials in fields such as mathematics, science, and social studies, however are reevaluated regularly. Similar textbooks are used by male and female students who also follow the same academic curricula.It is compulsory that private schools use the same textbooks and curricula employed in the public schools. The government provides textbooks to private schools free of charge."[21]
Part III. Translations from Saudi Schoolbooks[22]
Jihad
From an early age, schoolchildren are taught about Jihad for the Sake of Allah (Al-Jihad fi sabil Allah). In a textbook for 8th grade students, a Hadith is introduced about a companion of the Prophet Muhammad who asked the Prophet: "What labor is most favored by Allah? He [the Prophet] answered: Prayers on time; he then asked: what next? The Prophet answered: love thy parents. He then asked: what else: The Prophet answered: Jihad for the sake of Allah."The textbook interprets the conversation between the Prophet and his companion as follows: the most important activity is Jihad for the sake of Allah and the convocation of Allah's religion on this earth.[23]
In a textbook titled "Pictures from the Lives of the Companions," the students are told that following the battle of Badr (the first victory of Muslims over the disbelievers) a new chapter in the Koran had descended on the Prophet which raised, in the eyes of Allah, the status of the mujahideen (Jihad warrior) and their preference over those who sit still. The chapter challenges the mujahid to Jihad, and discourages those who sit still.[24]
Jews and Christians – Cursed by Allah and Turned into Apes and Pigs
A textbook for 8th grade students explains why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs.Quoting Surat Al-Maida, Verse 60, the lesson explains that Jews and Christians have sinned by accepting polytheism and therefore incurred Allah's wrath.To punish them, Allah has turned them into apes and pigs.[25]
The Whole World Should Convert to Islam and Leave Their False Religions Lest Their Fate Will Be Hell
A schoolbook for 5th grade instructs the students: "The religions which people follow on this earth are many, but the only true religion is the religion of Islam.As for the other religions, they are false as mentioned in the Koran (the Sura of Aal 'Umran Verse 85): 'And whoever follows a religion that is not Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the Hereafter he will be of the losers.''The religion of Islam we know from the Koran and the Hadiths about the Prophet. The whole world should convert to Islam and leave its false religions lest their fate will be hell. As mentioned in the Koran (the Sura of Al-Nihal Verse 125): '[I swear] by Him who holds Muhammad's soul in his hand that not one Jew or Christian who had heard me and did not believe in the message that I was sent with shall die without being one of those whose fate is hell.'"
The students are then asked to mark "yes" or "no" to the following questions:
*"The Islamic religion is the road to heaven…"
*"Other religions bestow eternal damnation on their adherent…"[26]
"There is a Jew Behind Me, Come and Kill Him!"
A schoolbook for the 9th grade on Hadith introduces a famous narration known by the name, "The Promise of the Stone and the Tree."It tells a story about Abu Hurayra, one of the Prophet's companions who quoted the Prophet as saying: "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.A Jew will [then] hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: 'O Muslim, O slave of Allah! there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' - except for the gharqad tree, for it is one of the trees of the Jews."[27] The Hadith is accompanied by a number of statements:
1. "It is Allah's wisdom that the struggle between Muslims and Jews shall continue until the Day of Judgment."
2. "The Hadithbrings forth the glad tidings about the ultimate victory, with Allah's help, of Muslims over Jews."
3. "The Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the believers.They will not be favorably disposed toward Muslims and it is necessary to be cautious [in dealing with them] ."
The book asks questions for class discussion:
1. "Who will be victorious in the Day of Judgment?"
2. "With what types of weapons should Muslims arm themselves against the Jews?"
3. "Name four factors leading to the victory of Muslims over their enemies."[28]
Jewish Treachery
In a textbook for 5th grade on the "History of the Islamic State" the students are told that the Prophet Muhammad had concluded an agreement with the Jewish tribes in Medina so that they would not commit treacheries against Muslims. "The Jews (then) broke their promise because they were known for treachery, and the Prophet had expelled them from Medina to their relatives in Khaibar where they started plotting (again)."It is then that the Prophet had decided to invade them, destroy their fortifications and bring them under submission.[29]
A subject of discussion in the classroom is the case of Abdullah bin Saba, a "hypocrite Jew" who converted to Islam fraudulently and caused sedition among Muslims which resulted in the martyrdom of the third Khalifa, Othman ibn 'Affan.[30]
Jesus is Not the Son of God
Islam acknowledges Jesus, the son of Miriam, as a prophet. In the book, "Interpretation of the Oneness of God (Tawheed)," for first year high-school students it is related that God had sent Jesus to order the Jews to worship the oneness of God. The book then states that "He [Jesus] is the messenger of God, not his son as the Christians claim."[31]
Part IV: Exporting the Saudi Education System
Spreading Islam throughout the world is emphasized on numerous occasions in the official Saudi document authored by the Higher Committee for Educational Policy. For example, students are taught: "to plant and spread the Islamic creed,"[32] and that "preaching of Islam throughout the world … is the duty of the state and its citizens."[33] The Saudi curriculum also educates students on the importance of "propagating Islam in all areas of our globe, with wisdom and sound preaching."[34]
OnMarch 1, 2002, 'Ayn-Al-Yaqeen, a weekly news magazine published online by the Saudi royal family, detailed the efforts of the Saudi royal family to spread Islam throughout the world.[35] The article states, "The cost of King Fahd's efforts in this field has been astronomical, amounting to many billions of Saudi riyals. In terms of Islamic institutions, the result is some 210 Islamic centers wholly or partly financed by Saudi Arabia, more than 1,500 mosques and 202 colleges and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children in non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia…"
According to 'Ayn-Al-Yaqeen, the list of countries where the Saudis have established schools includes (among others): the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, Spain, Austria, Scotland, Italy, Croatia, Bosnia, Hungary, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Burundi, Fiji, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Algeria, Nigeria, Chad, Kenya, Cameroon, Senegal, Uganda, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Brazil, Eritrea, and Djibouti.[36]
The Case of the Islamic Academy in Washington, D.C.
The 'Ayn-Al-Yaqeen article added, "it is not surprising that King Fahd Ibn Abd Al-Aziz initiated a program to establish Islamic academies in some of the major capitals of the world…Amongst them is the Islamic Academy in Washington, D.C. established in 1984. The academy has 1,200 students... 549 are Saudis. The rest represent 29 nationalities." A report in The Washington Post on July 11, 2002, explained that the Saudi academy now educates about 1,300 students from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade on two campuses in northern Virginia, with a dual American and Middle Eastern curriculum. Muslim educators say the academy is unlike other Muslim schools in the United States, many of which struggle for resources, in part because it is heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. Some Islamic studies classes at the school use Saudi Arabian textbooks that promote hatred of other religions. The Saudi Islamic Academy lost its accreditation and withdrew its membership from a respected association of private schools in Virginia following an unwelcome inquiry. According to sources, the association raised questions regarding the Academy's funding sources, as well as voiced concern about the substance of the Academy's curriculum.[37]
Part V: Saudi Officials on their Education System
Of late, many members of the Saudi royal family, as well as government spokesmen, have made statements regarding the Saudi education system. Saudi government preachers also speak often about education.Sheikh Majed 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Firian recently stated in the SuleimanBin Muqiran mosque in Riyadh: "Muslims must… educate their children to Jihad. This is the greatest benefit of the situation: educating the children to Jihad and to hatred of the Jews, the Christians, and the infidels; educating the children to Jihad and to revival of the embers of Jihad in their souls. This is what is needed now…"[38]
In reaction to U.S. criticism[39] of Saudi education policy, high level Saudi officials have issued statements in defense of their education system, insisting it does not teach hatred and Jihad. In fact, this has been part of the message of the multi-million dollar Saudi PR campaign in the U.S. to explain to Americans that Saudi Arabia is against terrorism. In an interview with the Associated Press[40]on October 21, 2002, 'Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Adbullah, urged Americans not to fault the Saudi education system for producing 15 of the September 11 hijackers by saying, "the Unabomber went to Harvard" and "can you tell me that Timothy McVeigh represents America?"
During the last week of August 2002, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia released a 10 page summary report from its embassy in Washington, D.C.[41] documenting its "Initiatives and Actions in the Fight Against Terrorism." The Saudi embassy document explains: "Our education system does not teach anti-American doctrines and hatred of the West... Islam teaches peace, amicability, and tolerance, not violence and hatred…" Saudi Foreign Minister Prince S'ud al-Faysal's address to the UN[42] on September 19, 2002 added, "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which itself suffered from acts of terrorism… made the fight against terrorism part of basic school curricula…"
Another official government reaction came on the first anniversary of September 11.Saudi Minister of the Interior, Prince Naif Ibn Abd Al-Aziz[43] gave an interview to the Saudi-owned London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.He spoke about his views of those who call for changing the Saudi school curricula, especially on subjects relating to Jihad. The prince said: "We do believe in the soundness of our educational curriculum, but we never oppose development of educational methods in a manner that does not run counter to the country's deep-rooted principles."The prince added: "We strongly believe in the correctness of our education system and its objectives. We don't change our systems on the demands of others... "[44]
On October 20, 2002, Prince Kahled Bin Fahd Bin Khaled wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that the Saudi school curriculum is based on Shari'ah (Islamic Law) and that while it is true that a small group of Saudis were involved in September 11, they were not the masterminds of these acts.The prince explained that the leading perpetrators of the attack were unaware of the objectives and the impact of the operations which were erroneously and arbitrarily linked to Saudi Arabia's educational curriculum. The prince claimed that the Saudi curriculum does not warrant baseless accusations.[45]
The same week on October 26, 2002, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Ibn Abd Al-'Aziz[46] discussed his country's education system: "We will never change our education policy, and there is no demand that we change it. Our country has a policy... and above all religious curricula that must never be harmed.Any demand by another country in the world that Saudi Arabia change its curricula is unacceptable interference in [Saudi] sovereignty. There is no such demand, and we ask that our free press take note that there are people who belong to Israel [and act] against the [Saudi] kingdom's policy and do the impossible in order to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. in particular, and between Saudi Arabia and the European countries. Our friendship will continue, and it is flawless..."[47] During a press conference held between American and Saudi officials in late October 2002,[48]Saudi Deputy Education Minister Dr. Khaled Al-'Awad also referred to the matter, claiming that during recent meetings with U.S. officials, the Americans had retracted their accusations regarding the Saudi curricula. He explained: "Meetings were held between top Saudi Education Ministry officials and American media personnel and officials to clarify that the Saudi curriculum is fine and does not encourage or boost terrorism and hatred of a member of another religion or faith. This follows attacks on the Saudi curriculum, according to which it was claimed that the curricula nourished the [ideas] of terrorism in the souls of the pupils following the events of September 11, in which 15 of the 19 perpetrators of the events that shocked New York and Washington and killed hundreds of people were Saudis." Dr. Al-'Awad also claimed that the U.S. admitted it made a mistake regarding criticism of the Saudi education system and would be offering an apology: "These meetings yielded positive results, and since most of those present realized that the Saudi curricula were fine, they retracted their baseless accusations.In light of the facts and information presented to them during this meeting, some of the media personnel realized that the Saudi learning process is fine, and they promised to stop the attacks and to apologize for the false accusations. Similarly, some of the officials promised to retract their previous positions."[49]
posted on August 27, 2003 01:50:56 PM new
Thanks for the info on the "Triangle Defense" but how about the Triangle Offense:
Introduction to the Triangle Offense
Several championship rings later the Triangle is becoming one of the most prominent offenses of the 90-00's. While the Michael Jordan-Phil Jackson led Chicago Bulls of the 1990's demonstrated the effectiveness of this offense, the current Los Angeles Lakers of Shaquille O'Neill, Kobe Bryant, and Glen Rice are showing the offense wasn't but just Mr. Jordan. While it certainly takes talent to play a read and react passing oriented offense like the Triangle, in reality this offense contains elements found in nearly all successful offenses. More importantly, the interest amongst coaches in the Triangle swings the pendulum, of offenses in the last quarter century from multiple screening actions, back to one more focused on good spacing, ball movement, cutting, and reacting to what the defense gives, much like Bob Knight's old passing game, or Pete Carril's Princeton Offense.
The Triangle Offense is the child of current NBA Los Angeles Laker Assistant Coach Tex Winter. However, the grandfather of the Triangle was an offense called the Center Option Offense coming out of the University of Southern California in the 1940-50's where players like Tex Winter, Bill Sharmon, and Alex Hannum played for and had great success with it's predecessor under Coach Sam Berry.
The purpose of today's clinic is to introduce you to some of the basic concepts of the Triangle Offense. All offenses are specifically designed to open good scoring opportunities. Any coach worth his weight in gold will understand however that it is the execution of fundamentals and the system which produces the best scoring chances. You cannot teach the Triangle or any offense for that matter successfully if you players cannot master and execute basic offensive skills. As your players skill level increases the more they can be integrated into team play and the greater flexibility your offense will have to generate high percentage scoring chances. To be most effective every team concept including offense has definitive roles players must understand and except. When player acknowledge their roles and execute them you are on your way to a successful season.
The Triangle Offense has definite roles and responsibilities without falling into the tactical tar pit of fixing a center, forward or guard on a given position. The Triangle requires that all players both understand, and can play each position in the Triangle regardless of their size or athletic ability. Keep this in mind if you are considering whether or not to install the Triangle into your team's offensive concept.
Spacing and Positions in the Triangle Offense
The most essential element of the Triangle (and for that case any offense) is getting into and maintaining proper floor spacing. Teams that cannot maintain this proper spacing end up allowing the defense to crowd an area making passes ineffective and forcing this offense into chaos. For the pro players the optimal spacing is 15-20', for college 15-18', for high school 15', and for youth even less at 12'. In this first diagram we demonstrate the proper positioning and spacing for the Triangle Offense's "sideline triangle". Keep this in mind as you follow me through the remaining animations of our Concepts for the Triangle Offense Clinic. You should make note in all of the following animated parts of this clinic that spacing and triangles formed and maintained no matter where the ball is located on the court. This is the essence of the Triangle Offense. The second concept of the Triangle important to understand is that the offense is entered into by filling what is called the "sideline triangle". This can be done in a variety of ways we will show you shortly (see Concepts of the Triangle Offense: Part II the sideline fill).
Triangle Spots
The third concept you must understand in teaching the Triangle Offense is that there are specific spots on the court which are identified to help players understand their positioning, roles and spacing. These are the corner spots (CS), wing spots (WS), low-side post (LSP), high-side post (HSP), top of the circle (TOC), and the primary scoring spots the "sweet spot" (SS), and the "garden spot (GS). I will use these acronym's throughout the clinic to help you identify responsibilities, cuts and fills. Remember you must throw away the normal assumption that guards play out front, forwards the wings, and centers the low post in order to make this offense work.
Line of Deployment
One reason the Triangle Offense can be so effective is because it teaches what is called the "Line of Deployment" (LOD) philosophy of play in the post. The LOD means that in order for the defender to defend the post he must play between the offensive post player and the line to the basket. If this is the case then it will be relatively simple to enter the ball into the post because the defender has stayed on the Line of Deployment. However we all know the defender will fight to change position based on where the ball is passed. Because of the positioning of the offensive players (triangle) the defender must change their position to one side (high or low side) in order to defend our post. If the defender adjusts their position, they have been "deployed" off the line in guarding our post to the basket. A quick pass to the open side of the post will leave the defender out of position. The offensive team must work on positioning and sealing off the defender so they are incorrectly deployed. Proper spacing, quick recognition and skilled passing put the ball in the hand of the post who can score. When the defense doesn't help the post defender is isolated one on one making it difficult to stop the points in the paint. Any help defense run at the post leaves a teammate open on a slash to the basket or a kick out an uncontested perimeter shot. If no immediate shot is available to the post or perimeter ball movement and repositioning the sideline triangle opens up more opportunities
posted on August 27, 2003 01:54:33 PM new
Speaking of which: Did you hear about General Wesley Clark's 6/15
appearance on Meet The Press, where he said flat-out that the Bush
people wanted him to falsely claim that Saddam was behind 9/11?
Go to http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html. Here's an
excerpt:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001,
starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people
around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11.
I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say
this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it,
but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
As FAIR notes, Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS
Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002.
Here's the article
CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American
Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for
striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam
Hussein to the attacks.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in
the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show
exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News
National Security Correspondent David Martin.
At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the
Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the
injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications
worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's
operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet
Republic of Georgia.
The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was
still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that
eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing
in on Washington.
It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told
Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.
Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something,"
and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words,
the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action
against bin Laden.
But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests
for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were
suspected al Qaeda operatives.
"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to
the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which
had also been the work of bin Laden.
With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld
ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40
p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast.
Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at
same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin
Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very no evidence Iraq
was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are
accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up.
Things related and not."
posted on August 27, 2003 02:17:05 PM new
BBC - Did you hear about General Wesley Clark's 6/15 appearance on Meet The Press, where he said flat-out that the Bush people wanted him to falsely claim that Saddam was behind 9/11?
Yes I did....back in JUNE. Have you heard that both his statements against Bush weren't true? HE HAS ADMITTED SUCH.
He was on Fox News and Sean Hannity forced him to admit that what he was speaking about on Tim's show WASN'T TRUE. It was a call he received from someone in CANADA.
Then he admitting to spreading the other rumor about Bush getting him kicked off CNN. CNN states it was a mutual decision. He blamed Bush. On Hannity's show he admitted he was just repeating a RUMOR he'd heard.
The whole Brit Hume panel laughed at him [clark] saying IF he was going to run for President he was going to have to be careful he was only stating TRUTHFUL things CLEARLY, FULLY....as the press has a way of verifying what is said.
You really need to keep up BCC if your Bush hating posts are to even give a SIGHT appearence of being truthful.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 27, 2003 02:21 PM ]
posted on August 27, 2003 02:32:34 PM new
Brit Hume is the biggest selective quoting but bum that the republican party has. I voted republican last election and still am quite sure he is a jackass. Taking his views for fact is along the same line as thinking skylite it an unbiased observer. Hume is in it for one reason and one reason only and it aint for the good of the people. Some of the behind the scene statements and actions he has made are pathetic even for a but boy like him.
Damn it I've gone and defended bigcity a little bit and I sure hate doing that so Stop it Linda !
posted on August 27, 2003 02:40:52 PM new
Everything Clark said was true. The only channel dissing him is Fox News not surprisingly. Sean Hannity asked him who told him and he said he wouldnt give any names.
Also CNN has said they would give no comment on what the white house was telling them.
posted on August 27, 2003 02:44:19 PM new
tomyou Hey...feel free to support whomever you wish. I've never had a problem with that.
-------
BUT maybe I didn't make myself clear enough to you tom. It was CLARK himself who when under pressure to admit to Sean, make the statements. Hannity was, of course, pissed that Clark was misleading the nation with the statement BCC posted. When penned down, Clark admitted to Sean that while he received MANY calls after 9-11...NO ONE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED. He admitted it was a caller from Canada who was pressuring him.
And on the Brit Hume part....the panel was just laughing at Clark saying when he made statements on a radio station [they played the audio]....then they were just commenting that when he's confronted about his statements....he admits he was spreading a rumor. And he was. He [clark] admitted it.
posted on August 27, 2003 02:44:31 PM new
By the way. Fox News is not a conservative news channel. It is a NEOCON news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Project For The New American Century.
posted on August 27, 2003 02:46:51 PM new
BCC- I guess I'd like to understand just what you think the US should do about Saudi Arabia right now? You appear to believe they were behind 9-11 so what should the US do now?
posted on August 27, 2003 02:47:00 PM new
He never said he got a call from the white house. He said he got a call. He said that he got information that the white house was going to blame Iraq for 911.
I know this becouse he defended himslef on Buckannan and Press.
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Aug 27, 2003 02:51 PM ]
posted on August 27, 2003 02:53:07 PM new
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001,
starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people
around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11.
I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say
this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it,
but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence
posted on August 27, 2003 02:56:31 PM new
[i]CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people
around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11.
I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say
this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it,
but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
----------
BCC - YOU'RE LOSING IT!!! Now you say, "He never said he got a call from the white house. He said he got a call. Do you ever read what you copy and paste?
The above is what YOU posted. Now you say he didn't say he got a call from the White House? oh brother....
posted on August 27, 2003 03:04:26 PM new
OH...so your solution is to go to the UN and get permission to destroy Saudi Arabia??? or all muslim countries????....
posted on August 27, 2003 03:18:55 PM new
No not all muslums just the Saudis. Their the only ones that have the Wohabbi religion.
We should go to the UN and get the rest of the world to take them out. The only real enemeies of ours in the Muslum world are the Saudis. Syria is not a threat or an enemy. On the contrary they have been our biggest help hunting down Al Quida but weve been ignoring all th info they try to give us.
posted on August 27, 2003 03:34:28 PM new
He said the concerted effort came from the White House about were to try and lay the blame.
Then He says he got a phone call about that information. He never said THAT PHONE CALL in question was FROM the white house, just the information.
He does not say that THE CALL came from the white house. Just shows that people can read into and imply anything they want to fit their own agenda. That one reason I like Clark. He really doesn't give a shi&t what the republicans or Democrats think. He is his own man and for the time being not afraid to act like it.
WASHINGTON — The White House pressured CNN to fire former military analyst Gen. Wesley Clark (search), the retired Army chief told a Phoenix radio station on Monday.
"The White House actually back in February apparently tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war," Clark told Newsradio 620 KTAR. "Apparently they called CNN. I don't have all the proof on this because they didn't call me. I've only heard rumors about it."
CNN had no immediate comment on the general's allegations. White House officials told Fox News that they are "adamant" that they "never tried to get Wesley Clark kicked off the air in any way, shape or form." Beyond that, the White House "won't respond to rumors."
Clark was one of cable network CNN?s military analysts and commentators during the Iraq war. Frequently named as a possible presidential candidate, Clark has not said whether he is interested in seeking the Democratic nomination.
But, in his comments on the "Drive Home With Preston Westmoreland Show," Clark indicated that he is debating a bid. "I had a very clear understanding with CNN that if I ever decided to go forward in considering becoming a political candidate that I would at that point, leave CNN. That's what I did in June," he said.
[i]Previously, Clark claimed publicly that after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, he was pressured by the Bush administration to link the attacks directly to Iraq[/b].
When pressed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show, Clark refused to name White House names and instead fingered a public policy think tank in Canada.
"I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11," Clark said.
When asked who in the White House contacted him, Clark responded that he was "not going to go into those sources." Once again, the White House insisted they never applied any pressure.
posted on August 27, 2003 03:48:25 PM new
Ill say it again. He never said the call came from th white house. Your post has been discredited. Please stop posting Fox News garbage.
posted on August 27, 2003 03:49:00 PM new
Ummm ! that justs says what I was trying to poing out. Perhaps you should head your own advise and read what you paste instead of reaing into what you you paste.
posted on August 27, 2003 04:39:19 PM new
LOL - You guys take it however you wish to take it. Tim asked him BY who? Who did what? And it's clear he implied THE WHITE HOUSE. Later in another interview, with Hannity...he brings up the Candian think tank .....only after he's confronted with his initial statement.
Oh so Helen....you voting for Clark if he EVER decides he's running. He hasn't even decided which party he's running for. I'd like to suggest you go read the article "Gen. Wesley Clark, unplugged. It's on www.salon.com. You'll be thrilled by what he has to say about our VP, rummy, wolfy, etc. LOL
And do you agree with BCC about how we should deal with SA? LOL
posted on August 27, 2003 04:42:08 PM new
BCC - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No not all muslums just the Saudis. Their the only ones that have the Wohabbi religion
And you think if Wesley Clark is elected he'll do this???
posted on August 27, 2003 04:48:04 PM new
I will tell you one more time. He asked who said that. He said the white house and people around the white house which is true. He didnt say the white house called him. He said the people trying to pinpoint Iraq for the attacks on 9/11 were people in the white house and around the white house.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 27, 2003 02:21 PM ]
!