Democrats claim exclusive use to Firefighters

03/06/2004 10:16:30 PM · #51

Ron, first let me say that I appreciate your patiently answering ALL responses on this thread, you have given your opinions and ideas extensively and in detail. Also, it's great to be able to discuss and debate these issues without this becoming a mud slinging, name calling, verbal free-for-all.

Now, back to the melee...lol.

Despite Hamid Karzai's proclamation this week that he is in full command of Afghanistan, I have heard that the country is still in chaos and that the Taliban are still a major force. In addition, this is where al Qaida is regrouping, probably with the help of Pakistan, and are as strong as ever.

I also can remember hearing both Scott Ritter, and Hans Blix speak on radio on a number of occassions before we invaded Iraq regarding WMD's and how the inspections were going. Hans Blix on more than one occassion said that Saadam Hussein was cooperating completely and allowing the inspectors to go any place they wanted, including Sadaam's royal palaces. Scott Ritter was also very firm and emphatic that all of Iraq's WMD's had been destroyed earlier in the decade. These were people in the know and Bush decided to go against what they said and rush off to war, when according to you, it was not imminent.

In addition, Bush not only didn't listen to his ambassador from Niger, Joe Wilson, who said there was no dealing between Iraq and Niger officials regarding them trying to obtain uranium, but because Joe Wilson went against the White House, the Bush people, it is alleged by Wilson, ousted his wife, Valerie Plume, a secret CIA operative. That is a big no no in those circles and puts both Plume, and Wilson in jeopardy of their lives.

I will also say this. There is NO problem at the CIA with intelligence gathering operations, and you can bet that because Bush I was a former head of the CIA and has intelligence connections and friends, that the Bush people knew very well what was going on in all areas of the world, including the lack of WMD's in Iraq.

I would say that Bush has committed a big blunder with this one.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, it has been reported in the media that al Qaida has regrouped and strengthened because our resources went into invading Iraq. So we are still vulnerable to attacks by them. At best, all that can be said about this is that our president and his administration made a big blunder as to who to concentrate our efforts and resources toward in our war against terrorism.

The UN inspectors who were in the know all said that most, if not all, of Iraq's WMD's and their programs to produce them were destroyed and defunct as of 1994. Why didn't we listen to them? Why didn't we allow them to continue their work, but chose instead to rush off to war? If the administration had not believed that an Iraqi threat was immenent then why did rush off to war?

Joe Wilson, ambassador to Niger denied that Iraq was in dealings with Niger to acquire uranium from them. Why didn't we listen to him?

Bush chose to listen to whom he wanted to.

First of all, those are all good questions. I'll try to provide some answers, as best I can.

1) Al Qaeda has been FORCED to regroup BECAUSE of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our presence in Afghanistan has effectively eliminated their ability to train in that region. The ousting of Saddam Hussein also "probably" denied them access to the resources needed for them to develop and/or store WMD's ( those resources including, among others, Iraqi scientists, technology, and delivery capabilities ). And yes, we are quite vulnerable to attacks by them, though not as vulnerable as we were on 9/11 - at least not to major attacks of that nature ( it is extremely difficult to stop a fanatic with a pipe-bomb in his jacket from getting near enough to a bus to cause injuries or deaths ).

2) Whether our president and his administration made a big blunder or not is a matter that can be speculated until the cows come home, yet never answered to the satisfaction of all. And there will be no proof. We can never know whether Saddam actually would have provided WMD technology to Al Queda or not. The argument is therefore moot.

3) Why should we ( Bush ) have believed that the UN inspectors were, in FACT, "in the know". What evidence exists that should have given them greater credibility that that given to our own intelligence agencies ( and British and Israeli agencies, as well )? We did listen to them, but discounted their reports because our own intelligence led us to believe otherwise. Mind you, since then we have learned that much of our intelligence was faulty, but I, for one, still do not believe that the UN inspectors were "in the know" ( It is very difficult to be "in the know" when inspections are limited to the equivalent of 1 square mile in a country the size of California ).

4) We didn't allow them to continue their work, because Saddam did not allow them to do the work that they were charged to do. For example, Saddam would not allow them to interview scientists in private, without Bath party supervisors present. For another example, Saddam would not allow un-announced inspections.

5) I don't believe that we "rushed" off to war. We gave Saddam and the UN ample time and a long drawn out escalation of warnings that we were serious and that we were not just posturing, but would back up our talk with action if compliance was not forthcoming.

6) Absolutely correct. Bush DID choose who to listen to. As do you. As do I. If you were to say that Bush made an error in judgement in his choice of who to believe, I would not argue with your holding to that opinion. I only object when people say that BUSH LIED or purposefully MISLED or DECEIVED the American people.

Ron

Neuferland

Google Pixel 2

03/06/2004 10:32:32 PM · #52

RonB,

First, thank you for taking the time to respond in the manner that you did, it was well thought out and a very complete answer to my short little posts. I have read them, I've heard all the things you have said before. But it doesn't change the fact that in my mind, in my heart, in my gut I have the feeling that Bush is not the man to lead this nation to greatness once again. When the man was first elected (or should I say selected) to office I have tried with every fiber of my being to be unbiased and to listen to him and try to beleive in what he had to say. I never go by first impressions, if I did I wouldn't be married to the wonderful man I am married to right now, my first impression of him was, "What a Jackass!" I don't go by second impressions for the same reasons. That being said, I give a person every chance I can before I give up on them. I tried for over 2 years to listen to Bush talk, to watch Bush work, to give Bush a chance to show me what he's capable of. I finally had to give up, there is something about that man that just does not sit well with me. I look in a person's eyes, a window to the soul if you will and Bush's eyes scare me. His attitude scares me, his words scare me. This has nothing to do with the lies he told about the WMD (they were lies, he had the correct information, I feel he choose to ignore it), the lies he is telling about 9/11 (Why won't he give the commission all the information and his time?), it has to do with my gut instinct and my heart, soul and mind tell me this is a dangerous man to have in a position of power and he needs to be removed asap.

While you took all that time to repeat what has been and no doubt what will be said again and again over the next 8 months, my mind is set and there is no changing it on this matter. Sorry.

Deannda
Believer that the eyes tell a better story than the mouth

Russell2566

03/06/2004 11:36:19 PM · #53

Originally posted by Neuferland:

This has nothing to do with the lies he told about the WMD (they were lies, he had the correct information, I feel he choose to ignore it), the lies he is telling about 9/11 (Why won't he give the commission all the information and his time?)...

If you have information that apperently no one else in the world does, then you should call the democratic party, they need your information!!!

Originally posted by Neuferland:

...It has to do with my gut instinct and my heart, soul and mind tell me this is a dangerous man to have in a position of power and he needs to be removed asap.

I'm guessing this is the same gut feeling that told you Gore was the better choice at the time of voting?

Message edited by author 2004-03-06 23:42:20.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/07/2004 12:17:10 AM · #54

Excerpts from speech given by Colin Powell to United Nations Feb. 05, 2003, verbatim.

"POWELL: Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida."

"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."

"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."

"Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery."

"From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization."

"Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."

"Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida."

"This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan."

"POWELL: His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq."

"The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."

"As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal."

kaycee

Olympus C-750UZ

03/08/2004 03:06:02 PM · #55

Another interesting tidbit:

Heinz Foundation Bankrolls Protest of 9/11 Ad

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/08/2004 04:02:55 PM · #56

I sent this to the S.F. Chronicle:

Mr. Bush's use of actors to portray firefighters carrying a flag-draped coffin might be more acceptable if he weren't so persistently suppressing all images of the coffins arriving daily from Iraq.

I think the people have the right to see those examples of his "leadership" as well, and he wouldn't even have to pay to get them aired.

03/08/2004 04:23:20 PM · #57

Originally posted by GeneralE:

true dat..

jab119

03/08/2004 04:31:40 PM · #58

Im guessing a lot of people here on the forums and in the general world population are against the US being in Iraq right now, and would like to see the US back out of there permanently.

Well I'm sure you are justified in your thoughts, but think of this...

If the US pulls out of Iraq, due to heavy protest from the US citizens and citizens and governments of other nations, and is vowed to never return, what will happen then?

I do believe that some terrorist organization will start to take over small countries that have small armies. Oil prices will sky rocket for everyone, not just in the USA. Then those countries will call on who for protection?? the USA... why??? because the USA will take care of business, unlike other countries that have become, or have been, pacifist and wont do a thing to reslove the issue.

As a veteran I am truly sad for each soldier, marine, sailor and airman and their families, who has lost their lives in helping to keep the WORLD a better place.

James

03/08/2004 04:34:02 PM · #59

Originally posted by GeneralE:

True dat, indeed. Right you are. The people DO have the right to see those. Though I'm curious as to just how Mr. Bush can exerts enough power to supress the use of THOSE images, but can't suppress the use of OTHER images that are not favorable to him. Perhaps it's not suppression at all - just a respect for the families that have lost loved ones in the cause of freedom. Then again, if the people have a "right" to see those images, you must concede that the people also have the right to see images of the Iraqi citizens weeping and wailing over the mass graves that are being dug up in Iraq - you know, the graves that were filled by Saddam's henchmen, Yes?

And here's a little tidbit for you Kerry fans - Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the New York Sun, ( March 1, 2004 ):

"The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me - 30 years ago when he was still CNO - that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets."We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said."
View the full article HERE

Ron

03/08/2004 04:46:33 PM · #60

jab,
oil prices ARE sky rocketing. i paid $1.79 for regular unleaded today. wtf is this? we take over iraq and oil prices go up?!

i think its not so much about being for or against the war at this point, as much as it is how this 'war' is being handled and the way bush n' company are throwing around terrorist this and terrorist that and weapons of mass distraction to get what they want.

besides, the US created the roots that became the terrorist group that attacked us anyways. how about we stop funding groups that are not trust worthy?

A Weaver

Sony DSLR-A100

03/08/2004 04:55:34 PM · #61

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by louddog:
Anyone see the photo of him trying to catch a football with his eyes closed? He wants to be the most powerful man in America and he's afraid of the ball! That offends me too.

Dont blame Bush... Blame the guy that handed them to him with the lens covers on!!!!!! Are you telling me you never took a picture with the lens cap on????

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/08/2004 04:57:08 PM · #62

Originally posted by RonB:

By banning all press coverage ? The bodies are arriving at military bases after all.

03/08/2004 04:59:26 PM · #63

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

We aren't getting any oil from Iraq. Seems that some folks hate the U.S. more than they love the Iraqis, so they keep sabotaging the Oil Pipelines in Iraq.

What is your best guess at what Bush 'n' company want, that they keep throwing around terrorist this and terrorist that and weapons of mass distraction ( sic ) to get?

I agree - we should stop funding groups that are not trust worthy. What kind of crystal ball do you use to tell which ones are and which ones aren't? Bush could definitly use one of those.

Ron

Russell2566

03/08/2004 05:11:08 PM · #64

Bush has a lot of faults, but I'm clueless as to why anyone with 2 pennies worth of common sense to rub together would think Kerry would be better than Bush as president. He's indecisive, doesn't have the balls to make hard decisions, wants to kiss the ass of every OTHER country and keep their interest above ours, he's a proven lier, he's never worked a day in his life, he only has a voting record of 1/3rd and I'm pretty sure he has never authored or co-authored a single major bill in his upteen years in office...

Personally, I could care less what France thinks of us... I'm guessing if they agree with what were doing, we should probably re-evaluate what were doing...

BTW: Has anyone considered why Kim Jung Whatever from North Korea has come out in favor of Kerry?

Also, why is Kerry bashing bush for going into Iraq alone (Kerry can't do math) yet is bashing bush for involving the UN with NK? Oh ya, president material all the way!!! Great choice boys, I'd rather have clinton back!

Message edited by author 2004-03-08 17:14:02.

03/08/2004 05:13:34 PM · #65

my crystal ball says "dont fund religious fanatic groups". quite easy to see accually.

03/08/2004 05:14:52 PM · #66

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

True dat, indeed. Right you are. The people DO have the right to see those. Though I'm curious as to just how Mr. Bush can exerts enough power to supress the use of THOSE images, but can't suppress the use of OTHER images that are not favorable to him.

By banning all press coverage ? The bodies are arriving at military bases after all.

Come on Gordon. It is a far, far stretch indeed from not allowing cameras at Dover Air Force Base, to "banning all press coverage". If Bush was capable of "banning all press coverage" then how did Tim Harper get that article published? The press, if they are gutsy and insensitive enough, can cover anything they want to once the coffin leaves Dover A.F.B. I don't think they are ( yet ) that gutsy or insensitive - the families would be outraged, as they should be.

Ron

Brooklyn513

Sony DSC-F505

03/08/2004 05:15:32 PM · #67

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

my crystal ball says "dont fund religious fanatic groups". quite easy to see accually.

I'm with you. To bad the constitution did not read Freedom from Religion.

jab119

03/08/2004 05:43:23 PM · #68

Originally posted by A Weaver:

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by louddog:
Anyone see the photo of him trying to catch a football with his eyes closed? He wants to be the most powerful man in America and he's afraid of the ball! That offends me too.

Dont blame Bush... Blame the guy that handed them to him with the lens covers on!!!!!! Are you telling me you never took a picture with the lens cap on????

i guess none of you have seen Night vision Binoculars....

For the unknowing, NVDs are kept capped during the day as the lens burns out if exposed to very bright light.
There is a pinhole in the lenscap that lets in only enough light to active the close tint (the green shades you see when you look through a night vision scope) so you get an idea of what it does at night. So, to the Democrats who don't really understand what the military does, and never look closely at a picture, what you are looking at is a picture of the president following proper procedure in the use and care of a $4,000 piece of equipment.

Google it and you will find a lot of debate about this photo....

James

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/08/2004 05:48:29 PM · #69

why would he be using night vision goggles durring the day?

jab119

03/08/2004 05:54:58 PM · #70

it does not matter what country the oil comes from, if the US is to back out as a world protector, and let evil rain terror on the world, then the oil we get from our own soil in the USA will be so high many wont be able to buy gas for their cars.

I am a Bush supporter and I like him, granted he has done some bone head things, but what president has not or wont do stupid things, every president is part hand puppet that has some large group with their hand up his @#& partly controling what goes on.

James

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/08/2004 07:09:02 PM · #71

How about a little perspective? (Copied from an e-mail, source unknown. Some of these issues have been discussed here, others not.)

The following appeared in a local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:

Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One person recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

03/08/2004 07:32:18 PM · #72

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

my crystal ball says "dont fund religious fanatic groups". quite easy to see accually.

Another idea that I wholeheartedly support. But does that mean that your crystal ball says that it's ok to fund religious groups if they are NOT fanatic? or groups of fanatics as long as they are NOT religious ( for example, the Contras in Nicaragua )?

And who would ever be foolish enough to fund religious fanatic groups anyway? It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure that one out.

Ron

03/08/2004 08:20:34 PM · #73

the united states CIA funded and trained bin ladin and his organization.

03/08/2004 09:01:38 PM · #74

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Did the Bush admin put forth the idea that Hussein and al Qaida were teaming up and that Hussein was transferring weapons to al Qaida? Has this turned out to be true?

Urm no, even the Whitehouse isn't that deluded to claim that one makes any sense. They've even stated that it doesn't make sense.

The sad thing is, last survey I saw 70% of the US apparently believe it is true, which just demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding.

Can anyone provide a source that indicates the white house, or more specifically Bush, ever claimed this? I can't claim to have access to everything Bush ever said, but as I recall, what I did hear myself from Bush indicated evidence of links between Hussein and terrorism. (Even 60 Minutes reported a few years back, complete with documentation, that the Isrealies found tons of documentation of monetary and other types of support to terrorists recovered from Palestinian sources.) Then, the media and the leftwing pundits followed up by arguing there was no link between Hussein and Al Queda in terminology that made it sound like that's what Bush had said. I remember yelling at the TV at the time "That's not what he said!"

But, just like Oly with this ad (you admit you haven't seen it, but accept unquestioned the "reporting" - really the editorializing - that's fed to you) - people heard it reported and accepted it.