<a href='http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/1/121213' target='_blank'>http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.sht...2003/5/1/121213</a>
Thursday May 1, 2003; 12:07 p.m. EDT
'Baghdad' Jim McDermott Took Cash from Saddam Ally

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who famously traveled to Baghdad last fall and pronounced President Bush a liar, accepted a cash payment less than a month later from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam Hussein.

McDermott collected the payment from Shakir al-Khafaji, the same Detroit-based Baghdad apologist who paid former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 two years ago to make a pro-Saddam documentary about Iraq.

Appearing live from Baghdad on the Sept. 29 broadcast of ABC's "This Week," McDermott proclaimed, "The president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." The comment generated a firestorm of criticism in the U.S. that earned him the moniker, "Baghdad Jim."

A little less than a month later, on Oct. 25, McDermott accepted a check from al-Khafaji for $5,000, made out to the antiwar Democrat's "Legal Expense Trust."

McDermott set up the trust to fend off a lawsuit filed by Ohio Republican John Boehner stemming from McDermott's relationship with a Florida couple who wiretapped a 1997 conference call between Boehner and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, along with several other Republicans.

The revelation that on the eve of war, a pro-Baghdad U.S. congressman was accepting cash from a Saddam ally was first reported in this week's Weekly Standard.

The magazine said that the McDermott bombshell was uncovered amidst a treasure trove of Ba'ath Party documents discovered by coalition forces after the collapse of Saddam's government. Other documents in the same find indicated that George Galloway, a pro-Saddam member of Britain's Parliament, may have accepted millions of dollars in payments from Baghdad.

The Galloway shocker was first reported by London's Daily Telegraph on April 22.

The staggering news that antiwar politicians on both sides of the Atlantic may have been on Saddam's payroll is fueling concerns that some of the antiwar coverage by Western reporters may have been bought and paid for by Baghdad.

As noted by the Standard, in 1991 the Wall Street Journal reported that Saddam's propaganda strategy included "waging an intensive, sometimes clandestine, and by most accounts highly effective image war in the Arab world" ranging from "financing friendly publications and columnists as far away as Paris to doling out gifts as big as new Mercedes-Benzes."

Today's Washington Times hints there may be a connection between Saddam's attempts to buy favor with influential Westerners and the failure of the U.S. media to devote much attention to the McDermott-Galloway story. Citing the Media Research Center, the Times reports:

"Although the Telegraph began reporting on documents showing Galloway's payoffs on April 22, it's been blacked out at ABC, CBS, NBC, as well as CNN, NPR, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.

"'But the outlets most responsible to follow the money trail to Galloway and other anti-war voices are the outlets who promoted them on American airwaves,' said [the MRC's Tim] Graham, citing ABC's 'World News Tonight,' 'Nightline' and 'Good Morning America'; CBS' 'The Early Show'; and 'NBC Nightly News.'"

Here's another story the media has "blacked out" :rolleyes:...

George Bush did business with the bin Laden family.

That's a fact.... and far more relevant to the political debate than this piece of ****** story.

Well then, how about providing a link please. I am interested in reading the story about this "business". :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Here's another story the media has "blacked out" :rolleyes:...

George Bush did business with the bin Laden family.

That's a fact.... and far more relevant to the political debate than this piece of ****** story.

You do realize that the whole bin Laden family aren't "Jihad" warriors.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Here's another story the media has "blacked out" :rolleyes:...

George Bush did business with the bin Laden family.

That's a fact.... and far more relevant to the political debate than this piece of ****** story.

You do realize that the whole bin Laden family aren't "Jihad" warriors.

TELL me about it! Geez, Roch is reaching!

I think the fact that serious media aren't touching that story suggests there are serious problems with it.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 4 2003, 09:31 AM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:I think the fact that serious media aren't touching that story suggests there are serious problems with it.

I see you still haven't posted a link to your SERIOUS article!!!!!!

The media aren't getting into Bush's connection to the bin Laden family.

You are right: It doesn't link Bush to terrorism. But neither does what we've read above.

And, you better believe it that if Bill Clinton had done business with the bin Laden family, we would have had a Congressional investigation.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 4 2003, 05:26 PM-->

Still waiting on the link???

<a href='http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=480' target='_blank'>http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.a...p?ArticleID=480</a>

Keep in mind my point, which is that the McDermott story is scuzzy.

That's why I'm comparing it to the Bush-bin Laden connection. It strikes me as just as weak -- yet, more relevant, if only because we are talking about the president of the United States.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:<a href='http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=480' target='_blank'>http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.a...p?ArticleID=480</a>

Keep in mind my point, which is that the McDermott story is scuzzy.

That's why I'm comparing it to the Bush-bin Laden connection. It strikes me as just as weak -- yet, more relevant, if only because we are talking about the president of the United States.

Saudi Arabia isn't our enemy as of yet braniac. Iraq WAS! Duhuh......

If you want to disassociate yourself with anyone that has "Shady" family members, your list is going to so extensive that you will HAVE no associates. The Bin Laden family is in the contruction business. They aren't radicals, UBL is. Like I said.....you're reaching.

The Telegraph is also reaching. That's my point.

Quote:"This Week," McDermott proclaimed, "The president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war."

So, this quote from ABC's "This Week" is just made up and scuzzy????? I think the man is a slim ball, he blaintly called HIS president a liar.

Quote:So, this quote from ABC's "This Week" is just made up and scuzzy????? I think the man is a slim ball, he blaintly called HIS president a liar.

No. I'm sure he said that.

And I think he was pretty close to the truth. Half of Americans think Saddam had something to do with 911. Bush did nothing to erase that impression and chose his wording to enhance it.

Did he lie? He came pretty close.




<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 6 2003, 01:03 PM-->

Sadam did have something to do with 9-11, he in is a terrorist and supports terroists. To think otherwise is to be an osterich, but that is typical democratic policy.

Saddam's terrorists never attacked America.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Saddam's terrorists never attacked America.

BS. He has AL Queda IN Iraq and had a terrorist training camp, Salmon Pak, just south of Baghdad. They ALL have the same damn goal, world domination by Islamic Rule.

If Saddam's terrorist were or were not linked directly with 911 are they not still terrorist?Is Saddam's terrorist any better or less evil than other terrorist groups?Are we not at war with terrorism?

Quote:If Saddam's terrorist were or were not linked directly with 911 are they not still terrorist?Is Saddam's terrorist any better or less evil than other terrorist groups?Are we not at war with terrorism?

It's a very slippery slope, going to war against countries that have neither attacked us nor shown evidence of planning to do so.

In fact, such a war would be unjust according to traditional Christian philosophy and illegal according to the United Nation charter, which the United States helped write.

And that's been my problem with it from Day One.

Now, we could cite whatever mutual defense treaty we may have with Israel to justify this (and does anyone know if we have one?). The terrorism Saddam has sponsored led has generally been directed at either Israel or Turkey.

But look, then, at what this would boil down to: America going to war to protect Israel's settlements. (After all, Turkey didn't want this war).

That's crap. Count me out. Palestine should stop killing civilians and Israel should tear down its illegal settlements. I don't have a dog in that fight.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 6 2003, 10:30 PM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:If Saddam's terrorist were or were not linked directly with 911 are they not still terrorist?Is Saddam's terrorist any better or less evil than other terrorist groups?Are we not at war with terrorism?

It's a very slippery slope, going to war against countries that have neither attacked us nor shown evidence of planning to do so.

In fact, such a war would be unjust according to traditional Christian philosophy and illegal according to the United Nation charter, which the United States helped write.

And that's been my problem with it from Day One.

I can understand youre point of view and it would have been in line with most Americans and uor government before WW2.We were isolationist back then and wanted to remain that way but things have changed in this world since then unfortunately.I wish we could go back to youre way of thinking personaly.