|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2004 04:49:45 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I think we should get out of Iraq... Those people are living like savages in the 700th century and apparently want to remain that way, so let 'em.
As far as I'm concerned our mission is over there. There's no longer a threat from Iraq to our national security, there are no more WMD's, so let's bring our boys (and girls) home, and let those savages fight it out amongst themselves. If there's cival war, oh well, it's apparently what they want. |
Chris - that is an extremly offensive remark to make. Can I suggest you go and read up on Islam? To call these people savages only shows your ignorance. Try reading this - Islam A Short History by Karen Armstrong - ISBN 1-84212-583-4 Published by Pheonix Press
It will open your eyes, and maybe even your heart.
Message edited by author 2004-04-08 16:52:41.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 11:50:04 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by louddog:
The same people that would have criticized Bush for attacking terrorist camps before 9/11 are now complaining that he didn't and they are also complaining that he is doing it somewhere else.
(edited for bad spelling) |
Well, except that Iraq was not a training camp for Al Queda, and had nothing to do with 9/11, and "those people" - could they just possibly be from the left? - pretty much never object to attacking actual terrorist training camps or killing the terrorists actually responsible for 9/11. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 12:08:36 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by louddog:
The same people that would have criticized Bush for attacking terrorist camps before 9/11 are now complaining that he didn't and they are also complaining that he is doing it somewhere else |
Because the people who are doing this care more about regaining power than the actual well-fair of America.
I watched the entire Rice "interview" today and I flipped back and forth between all of news channels afterwards. The twisting of words bordered on unethical, the largest offender was CNN. I couldn't believe how they spliced things and the language they used to describe everything. Yet these fuckers can't wear an American flag because it might show bias?
This little bi-partisan show we had today, thanks mostly to the likes of Richard Kerrey is disgusting. It's a good thing were spending millions of dollars for this stupid panel to tell us something any person with common sense should be able to come up with. Our intelligence world had a horrible setup and didn't talk. Not only that, but if I hand you 1000's of threats that are mostly general (which they were) is it even remotly plausible (sp?) for me to expect you to pick the 1 attack that will actualy happen? Should I expect you to take them serious?
Could you imagine what the Democrats would have done if the president shut down everything that ever had a semi-serious threat logged against it now, much less pre 9-11.
All of these people in office sicken me, but I think the Liberals in DC especially needs a serious evaluation of their moral and ethical levels, they will find they are on empty.
Oh ya, how dare the W.H. not think of the unthinkable!!! Dumbasses... |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 09:35:59 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by louddog:
The same people that would have criticized Bush for attacking terrorist camps before 9/11 are now complaining that he didn't and they are also complaining that he is doing it somewhere else |
Because the people who are doing this care more about regaining power than the actual well-fair of America.
I watched the entire Rice "interview" today and I flipped back and forth between all of news channels afterwards. The twisting of words bordered on unethical, the largest offender was CNN. I couldn't believe how they spliced things and the language they used to describe everything. Yet these fuckers can't wear an American flag because it might show bias?
This little bi-partisan show we had today, thanks mostly to the likes of Richard Kerrey is disgusting. It's a good thing were spending millions of dollars for this stupid panel to tell us something any person with common sense should be able to come up with. Our intelligence world had a horrible setup and didn't talk. Not only that, but if I hand you 1000's of threats that are mostly general (which they were) is it even remotly plausible (sp?) for me to expect you to pick the 1 attack that will actualy happen? Should I expect you to take them serious?
Could you imagine what the Democrats would have done if the president shut down everything that ever had a semi-serious threat logged against it now, much less pre 9-11.
All of these people in office sicken me, but I think the Liberals in DC especially needs a serious evaluation of their moral and ethical levels, they will find they are on empty.
Oh ya, how dare the W.H. not think of the unthinkable!!! Dumbasses... |
The unthinkable? You really take this administration at their word that they had no warning that 9/11 might occur and that there was nothing do be done while George W was on his month long vacation?
Here is a list of resons why he should have done something, and why they are lying. It includes - hopefully not outdated links - to articles re specific warnings from many heads of state - including Taliban leaders (!), not to mention numerous intelligence agencies:
BuzzFlash Perspectives
9/11: Bush Knew PERSPECTIVES HOME
Support BuzzFlash
Get a copy of
click image
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEND
THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE
BuzzFlash
INTERVIEWS
WORLD MEDIA WATCH
P.M. CARPENTER
MAUREEN FARRELL
BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZ
SOUTHERN STYLE
CARTOONS
THE ANGRY LIBERAL
EDITORIALS
CONTRIBUTORS
MAILBAG
PERSPECTIVES
ANALYSIS
NEWS ALERTS
LINK ARCHIVES
SEARCH
ABOUT
FAQ
A collection of compelling articles, which refute, or, at the very least, call into question, the assertions that Bush and his administration had no prior knowledge of events that would lead to the 9-11 tragedy.
A note about the articles.
* * *
9/11 report, Rice remarks in conflict; Investigators say Bush got specific data on threats
July 29, 2003
"...the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives to the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives."
[LINK]
The Secret Saudi Flight on 9-13 Could be the Key to the Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda Connection
May, 2003
"One has to wonder when George W. said, "You're either with us or against us" - just exactly who he meant by "us." "Us" is beginning to look like a Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda conspiracy, especially when one includes the well-known business ties between George H. W. Bush, James Baker, and the Bin Laden family through the infamous Carlyle Group."
[LINK]
The Secrets of September 11
April 30, 2003
"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"
//www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10
Is Bush A Liar - or is memory serving him badly?
Posted October 10, 2002
//www.visualjournalism.com/Files/
reviews/bush911/pageBig.shtml
FBI Warned D.C. It Was A Target
September 25, 2002
"A Minnesota FBI agent investigating Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that he notified the Secret Service weeks before Sept. 11 that a terror team might hijack a plane and 'hit the nation's capital.'"
//www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/57848.htm
Moussaoui Warnings Ignored
September 24, 2002
"An FBI supervisor, sounding a prophetic pre-Sept. 11 alarm, warned FBI headquarters that student pilot Zacarias Moussaoui was so dangerous he might 'take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,' a congressional investigator said in a report Tuesday."
//story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=512&ncid
=716&e=4&u=/ap/20020924/ap_on_go_co/attacks_intelligence
America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
September 19, 2002
"American intelligence received many more clues before the 11 September attacks than previously disclosed, that terrorists might hijack planes and turn them into weapons, a joint congressional committee was told yesterday."
//news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/
story.jsp?story=334633
U.S. Was Aware on bin Laden Threat
September 19, 2002
"Basically, we know that bin Laden had the means and the intent to attack Americans, both at home and abroad."
//story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=512&ncid
=716&e=5&u=/ap/20020919/ap_on_go_co/attacks_intelligence
9/11 Probers Say Agencies Failed to Heed Attack Signs
September 19, 2002
"U.S. intelligence agencies received many more indications than previously disclosed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was planning imminent "spectacular" attacks in the summer of 2001 aimed at inflicting mass casualties."
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36754-2002Sep18.html
9/11 report documents credible clues
September 18, 2002
"The U.S. intelligence community received a surprising number of credible reports of a likely terrorist attack prior to Sept. 11, including some threats to domestic targets, according to a congressional report to be unveiled today."
//www.msnbc.com/news/809370.asp?pne=msntv
U.S. knew of 12 plots for jet attacks
September 18, 2002
"Plan to attack WTC was among warnings that preceded 9/11, panel told."
//www.msnbc.com/news/809484.asp
Panel Presents 9/11 Intelligence
September 18, 2002
"An intelligence briefing two months before the Sept. 11 attack warned that Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) would launch a spectacular terrorist attack against U.S. or Israeli interests, congressional investigators said Wednesday."
//news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&ncid=703&
e=1&u=/ap/20020918/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_intelligence
Spy Agencies Had Pre-9/11 Threats on U.S. Soil
September 17, 2002
"U.S. intelligence agencies picked up threats of attacks inside the United States and of using airplanes as weapons during the spring and summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks, but were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas, a congressional source said on Tuesday."
//story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&ncid
=578&e=1&u=/nm/20020917/ts_nm/attack_
congress_intelligence_dc
Ashcroft Flying High
July 26, 2001
"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."
//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001
/07/26/national/printable303601.shtml
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
May 16, 2002
"President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday."
//www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html
Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored
September 7, 2002
"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."
//news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115
Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?
July 3, 2001
"A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April."
//www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield
-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html
Bin Laden̢۪s Relatives Evacuated From NYC
October 2, 2001
"Patrick Tyler of the New York Times is reporting from Washington: 'In the first days after the attacks on Sept. 11, the Saudi Arabian ambasador to Washington, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from ther United States fearing they might be subjected to violence.'"
//www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0110/S00008.htm
Our Pearl Harbor: The latest NSA revelations suggest the 9-11 plot could have been foiled.
June 21, 2002
"Recent news that the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted two messages the day before the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks -- messages that indicated imminent action -- obliges us to reconsider whether the airliner hijackings that led to 3,000 lost lives and $20 billion in property damage could have been foiled."
//www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/06/prados-j-06-21.html
Al-Qaida monitored U.S. negotiations with Taliban over oil pipeline
June 5, 2002
"A memo by military chief Mohammed Atef raises new questions about whether failed U.S. efforts to reform Afghanistan's radical regime -- and build the pipeline -- set the stage for Sept. 11."
//www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/
memo/index_np.html?x
U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda
June 4, 2002
"U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group, but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur, according to U.S. officials. The disclosures add to a growing body of evidence to be examined in congressional hearings that open today into how the CIA, FBI and other agencies failed to seize on intelligence pointing to the deadliest terror attack in U.S. history."
//www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/06/03/cia-attacks.htm
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
June 3, 2002
"Don't let them fool you, folks: They knew.
They might have been surprised by the ferocity of the attacks, but the highest-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration knew before Sept. 11 that something terrible was going to happen soon."
//www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL
Egypt Warned U.S. of a Qaeda Plot, Mubarak Asserts
June 3, 2002
"Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday."
//www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/national/04WARN.html
U.S. Ignored Warnings From French
May 28, 2002
"A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11."
//www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/ridgeway2.php
Whopper of the Week: Condoleezza Rice Abroad at home.
May 23, 2002
"The overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas."
- White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in a May 16 news briefing.
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
- Title of the CIA's Aug. 6 briefing memo to President Bush . . .
//slate.msn.com/?id=2066154
Tracking a Counterterrorism Breakdown
Timeline Shows Failure to Connect Key Clues Before Sept. 11
May 23, 2002
"Lawmakers are questioning what the administration knew and when. NPR's Mike Shuster reports on Morning Edition that government agencies had several clues that might have triggered alarms in the months before Sept. 11. But no one put them together."
//www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/timeline/index.html
U.S. was warned that Moussaoui had close ties to al-Qaida, analyst says
May 23, 2002
"Who knew what, and when? Could the FBI have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks?"
//www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/23/warning/index_np.html
Poppies for planes: White House hides behind veil of executive privilege
May 22, 2002
"Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror attack. He warned his replacement, Condoleezza Rice, "You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other." Problem was, she didn't."
//www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=13365
The U.S. ignored foreign warnings, too
May 21, 2002
"When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001."
//www.iht.com/articles/58269.html
Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes
May 20, 2002
"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday."
//www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html
Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings
May 19, 2002
"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
//www.sundayherald.com/24822
U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida
May 16, 2002
"President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News."
//www.msnbc.com/news/753359.asp
Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes
May 15, 2002
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft..."
//www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html?
US agents told: Back off bin Ladens
November 7, 2001
"US special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, it was reported today."
//www.old.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html
Hijackers reportedly made test runs
October 11, 2001
"During a six-hour flight from Boston to Los Angeles in August, movie actor James Woods said te only passengers besides himself seated in first-class were four men who he said appeared to be Middle Eastern in origin. Woods said the four neither ate nor drank, did not read or sleep and talkedto each other in whispers.
On Sept. 12, Woods called the FBI to tell investigators about his experience. He was interviewed by agents on Sept. 13, but has had no comment."
//www.gazettenet.com/americantragedy/10112001/7363.htm
Bush: ‘We’re At War’
September 24th, 2001
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
//www.msnbc.com/news/629606.asp
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
September 18, 2001
"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks."
//news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/
newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks
September 16, 2001
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."
//news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$52PMOXQAAD
W5PQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml&sShe
et=/news/2001/09/16/ixhome
Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel
September 12, 2001
For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.
//www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=
/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL
Commission warned Bush
September 12, 2001
"But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year."
//www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html
Jeb Bush signs Executive Order allowing him to declare martial law in Florida...
September 7, 2001
"Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism..."
//sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/
2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html
* * *
The article link is the last known location of the article (unless otherwise noted). We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the links -- online publications often archive their articles in password-protected areas. If you know where an article has been moved to, and that location is viewable by anyone, we would appreciate your letting us know.
Thanks, BuzzFlash
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 09:42:38 AM · #55 |
And here is furthur ( edited) documentation from The wall Street Journal, hardly an instrument of the lunatic left ;)
//www.bopnews.com/archives/000486.html#000486 |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:07:33 AM · #56 |
That Bush and his cronies failed to protect the country from the 9/11 attack is patently obvious and their coverup is despicable.
HOWEVER, of more interest is the deep background of why and how such a catastrophic and highly coincidental failure of multiple agencies occured simultaneously.
Frankly, the more one looks into this whole sorry mess, the more inescapable becomes the deep suspicion if not outright conclusion that some very very very troubling things were done by the Bush administration for some very disturbing and often self-serving reasons.
Issues such as the Bush family's long-standing deep financial and personal ties with the Saudi royals and the Bin Laden family; the Bush administrations secret pre 9/11 negotiations and financial support with the Taliban to secure the ability to build a hugely (personally) profitable oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan which would help out the fortunes of many of Cheneys friends on his still secret Energy commission - notably Ken Lay of Enron Fame; the Bush-directed insulation of Osama, the Bin Ladens, the saudi royals, Saudi members of Al Queda fromCIA and FBI investigation; the lack of any readiness of NORAD on 9/11 despite all the above-mentioned threats....and on and on all paint a picture a reasonably sceptical observer can not help but be shocked at.
And if you don't believe me, take a look at the 9/11 family suvivor's web site, where they have questions for the 9/11 commission that they would like answered along these lines - questions likely never to be raised.
Here is an article to get you started. I've posted enough for now, I think. If anyone wants more on any of this, let me know. :)
//inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_M |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:20:09 AM · #57 |
George Bush and his entire staff knew when and how we were going to be attacked and chose to do nothing about it just so he could start a war and get re-elected. Is that what you are trying to say?
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:24:03 AM · #58 |
How about you do us a favor and remove your dribble that you copy and pasted. Create a link for it and I'll go read it, but don't just post someone else's work up here and take up 4 pages worth of screen.
BTW: The intellgience leaks are so horrible and the Pentigon, FBI and CIA are laden with so many Clinton apointees and supporters that if any of your stupid assumtions were true, the whistle blowers would have been coming out of the wood work.
Originally posted by louddog:
George Bush and his entire staff knew when and how we were going to be attacked and chose to do nothing about it just so he could start a war and get re-elected. Is that what you are trying to say? |
Your not really this stupid are you? |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:27:50 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by louddog:
The same people that would have criticized Bush for attacking terrorist camps before 9/11 are now complaining that he didn't and they are also complaining that he is doing it somewhere else.
(edited for bad spelling) |
Well, except that Iraq was not a training camp for Al Queda, and had nothing to do with 9/11, and "those people" - could they just possibly be from the left? - pretty much never object to attacking actual terrorist training camps or killing the terrorists actually responsible for 9/11. |
Pay attention! Al Queda is not the only threat against America. Iraq is a threat, and if left alone some day they would have been powerful enough to be a serious threat. North Korea is a big threat, and in a few years they will be a much bigger threat if they are not dealt with. We are dealing with Iraq because they are a potential threat, just as Al Queda was a potential threat prior to 9/11 and should have been dealt with.
Yes I know Iraq is not a training camp for terrorist. Iraq was something worse, a country that wanted to destroy us rather then an organization. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:33:40 AM · #60 |
Do those of you with 20-20 hindsight also point fingers of accusation at the family members and friends of people who commit suicide saying "All the signs were there. It was YOUR responsibility to notice them and do something to prevent that act. If any ONE of you didn't observe enough signs on your own, then ALL of you failed because you didn't SHARE al the bits and pieces of information that, taken all together, would have been obvious. But we know-it-alls will only hold those of you who saw the victim in the last few months responsible."
No? I didn't think so.
So why do you take such an attitude about the events of 9/11?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:38:34 AM · #61 |
| good post Ron, good way to break it down! |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:53:36 AM · #62 |
I do pay attention, louddog, as I believe my prior posts demonstrate. And I don't appreciate you taking a personal potshot. There is no need for that, you know.
I do not agree with you that Iraq weas a threat to us. They had no intention or ability to do us any harm. Saddam knew quite well that to attempt to do so would be madness.
They had only the weakest army in the Mideast at their disposal, no weapons of mass distruction, and the only terrorists they aided were Hamas - who before the invasion only wanted to destroy Israel. Al queda was their enemy, and they had their hands full with the Kurds in the north. Iraq or Saddam was not a problem - it was an excuse for W to flex muscle, avenge Dad, and secure influence in the region.
Unfortunately, because of the incredible arrogance and misguidedness of the administration, they have bumbled nearly every aspect of their post 9/11 "mission", and they are in a mess.
Iraq IS now a breeding ground for terrorists, a fdantastic advertisement for terrorists, and is beginning to come apart at the seams as all factions there, formerly disparate, are now uniting against a common enemy - the occupying U.S. forces and the accompanying U.S businesses which are completely looting the country with official U.S. aegis.
You are right about North Korea.
BTW, if I remember correctly, they got some of their nuclear capability from a renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer - perhaps the most dangerous man on the planet - who the Bush adminstration has decided in their wisdom will not be procecuted as a terrorist in order to make a deal with President Musharrif of Pakistan that will enlist his help to try to capture Bin Laden, who just escaped in a mile-long tunnel. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 11:13:01 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I do pay attention, louddog, as I believe my prior posts demonstrate. And I don't appreciate you taking a personal potshot. There is no need for that, you know.
I do not agree with you that Iraq weas a threat to us. They had no intention or ability to do us any harm. Saddam knew quite well that to attempt to do so would be madness.
They had only the weakest army in the Mideast at their disposal, no weapons of mass distruction, and the only terrorists they aided were Hamas - who before the invasion only wanted to destroy Israel. Al queda was their enemy, and they had their hands full with the Kurds in the north. Iraq or Saddam was not a problem - it was an excuse for W to flex muscle, avenge Dad, and secure influence in the region.
Unfortunately, because of the incredible arrogance and misguidedness of the administration, they have bumbled nearly every aspect of their post 9/11 "mission", and they are in a mess.
Iraq IS now a breeding ground for terrorists, a fdantastic advertisement for terrorists, and is beginning to come apart at the seams as all factions there, formerly disparate, are now uniting against a common enemy - the occupying U.S. forces and the accompanying U.S businesses which are completely looting the country with official U.S. aegis.
You are right about North Korea.
BTW, if I remember correctly, they got some of their nuclear capability from a renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer - perhaps the most dangerous man on the planet - who the Bush adminstration has decided in their wisdom will not be procecuted as a terrorist in order to make a deal with President Musharrif of Pakistan that will enlist his help to try to capture Bin Laden, who just escaped in a mile-long tunnel. |
I don't understand why George W. Bush chose Condoleeza Rice as his National Security Advisor instead of you. It is obvious that you know a heck of a lot more about Iraq, Saddam, Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Bin Laden, etc. than she does. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 11:15:04 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
How about you do us a favor and remove your dribble that you copy and pasted. Create a link for it and I'll go read it, but don't just post someone else's work up here and take up 4 pages worth of screen.
Not possible to link to that page. The word is " drivel".
BTW: The intellgience leaks are so horrible and the Pentigon, FBI and CIA are laden with so many Clinton apointees and supporters that if any of your stupid assumtions were true, the whistle blowers would have been coming out of the wood work.
Thanks for calling my assumptions "stupid". You know, there really is no need to get personal, and name-calling is not exactly a devasting analysis.
And if you read the posts I provided, you will see that they are, indeed, filled with whistleblowers and people on the scene with first hand experience.
Why is it that right-wing supporters of George W, which I take it you are (?), when confronted with documented evidence of malfeasance from highly reputable sources, usually don't talk about facts and evidence, they just start slinging mud?
Originally posted by louddog:
George Bush and his entire staff knew when and how we were going to be attacked and chose to do nothing about it just so he could start a war and get re-elected. Is that what you are trying to say? |
Your not really this stupid are you? |
Have you heard of the Project for the New American Century?
It is a neoCon think tank manned by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc which publishes ia long and detailed position paper on the role of the U.S. They believe the U.S MUST act unilaterally, and miltarily, as a superpower; that it is imperitive that we invade and rearrange the power structure of the Middle East to secure oil crucial to our economy and affect terrorism, and here is the good part...
They say that it will be nigh impossible to do this without a nationally rivetting catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil.
Hey, America NEEDS that oil - make no mistake. If a few thousand soldiers die to secure it, no one has a problem, right? Well, how about a few thousand American patriots? Do you have a problem with that?
Just type PNAC into google and start reading. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 11:18:26 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I do pay attention, louddog, as I believe my prior posts demonstrate. And I don't appreciate you taking a personal potshot. There is no need for that, you know.
I do not agree with you that Iraq weas a threat to us. They had no intention or ability to do us any harm. Saddam knew quite well that to attempt to do so would be madness.
They had only the weakest army in the Mideast at their disposal, no weapons of mass distruction, and the only terrorists they aided were Hamas - who before the invasion only wanted to destroy Israel. Al queda was their enemy, and they had their hands full with the Kurds in the north. Iraq or Saddam was not a problem - it was an excuse for W to flex muscle, avenge Dad, and secure influence in the region.
Unfortunately, because of the incredible arrogance and misguidedness of the administration, they have bumbled nearly every aspect of their post 9/11 "mission", and they are in a mess.
Iraq IS now a breeding ground for terrorists, a fdantastic advertisement for terrorists, and is beginning to come apart at the seams as all factions there, formerly disparate, are now uniting against a common enemy - the occupying U.S. forces and the accompanying U.S businesses which are completely looting the country with official U.S. aegis.
You are right about North Korea.
BTW, if I remember correctly, they got some of their nuclear capability from a renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer - perhaps the most dangerous man on the planet - who the Bush adminstration has decided in their wisdom will not be procecuted as a terrorist in order to make a deal with President Musharrif of Pakistan that will enlist his help to try to capture Bin Laden, who just escaped in a mile-long tunnel. |
I apoligize for the potshot, but I do believe Iraq was as much a threat as any terrorist group, and if we were to leave today would be a threat again. That is why I believe we are doing the right thing in addressing it. I respect your opinion that you beleive they were not a threat, but I strongly disagree with it. Since I assume you do not work for the CIA or are a Iraqi official, you are in the same boat as me and can only base your opinion on what the media tells us and what we chose to believe.
Also, as much as we went in to Iraq because of the WMD, we also went in because they took shots at our planes enforcing the no fly zone and they refused to cooperate with the terms of the end of the first Gulf war. In my book, shooting at our planes was enough reason to go to war.
I am glad we can agree on North Korea.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 11:28:08 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I do pay attention, louddog, as I believe my prior posts demonstrate. And I don't appreciate you taking a personal potshot. There is no need for that, you know.
I do not agree with you that Iraq weas a threat to us. They had no intention or ability to do us any harm. Saddam knew quite well that to attempt to do so would be madness.
They had only the weakest army in the Mideast at their disposal, no weapons of mass distruction, and the only terrorists they aided were Hamas - who before the invasion only wanted to destroy Israel. Al queda was their enemy, and they had their hands full with the Kurds in the north. Iraq or Saddam was not a problem - it was an excuse for W to flex muscle, avenge Dad, and secure influence in the region.
Unfortunately, because of the incredible arrogance and misguidedness of the administration, they have bumbled nearly every aspect of their post 9/11 "mission", and they are in a mess.
Iraq IS now a breeding ground for terrorists, a fdantastic advertisement for terrorists, and is beginning to come apart at the seams as all factions there, formerly disparate, are now uniting against a common enemy - the occupying U.S. forces and the accompanying U.S businesses which are completely looting the country with official U.S. aegis.
You are right about North Korea.
BTW, if I remember correctly, they got some of their nuclear capability from a renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer - perhaps the most dangerous man on the planet - who the Bush adminstration has decided in their wisdom will not be procecuted as a terrorist in order to make a deal with President Musharrif of Pakistan that will enlist his help to try to capture Bin Laden, who just escaped in a mile-long tunnel. |
I don't understand why George W. Bush chose Condoleeza Rice as his National Security Advisor instead of you. It is obvious that you know a heck of a lot more about Iraq, Saddam, Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Bin Laden, etc. than she does. |
Well, at least 95% of the free world doesn't think that I am a blatant and obviously-proven liar. :D
You know, it's amazing the stuff you can pick up if you stop listening to right-wing radio and TV for a while, and start reading papers from around the world where they actually have investigative journalism, and start visiting sites where they they have a different point of view and provide links to actual respectable news sources.
You will be amazed - I mean really smacked in the head amazed - at how censored our media is in our supposedly free country. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:09:08 PM · #67 |
I think all we're doing in the middle east right now is making the rest of the world resent us even more; when I say we I mean us so called civilized "westerners" (for want of a better descriptor).
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:13:49 PM · #68 |
Do you assume I am right wing? I say again, pay attention.
I'm proud to say I'm independent and would be quite offened to be labeled as right or left because the people on the extreme of both sides disturb me. I disagree with a lot of what George Bush says and does (as I have posted on other threads). I take in all the facts and make my own decision.
Is it impossible to support our president and not be "right wing?"
BTW: Obvious and proven liar = your hero Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman..." or does that not count?
And regarding your post on the other thread: 9/11 was in the planning stages for several years in the US under Bill's watch. If he could have prevented it, why didn't he? |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:28:52 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
...start reading papers from around the world where they actually have investigative journalism...where they they have a different point of view and provide links to actual respectable news sources. |
Oh my god, I almost fell outta my chair laughing, thanks for the comic relief!!! |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:29:19 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Well, at least 95% of the free world doesn't think that I am a blatant and obviously-proven liar. :D
You know, it's amazing the stuff you can pick up if you stop listening to right-wing radio and TV for a while, and start reading papers from around the world where they actually have investigative journalism, and start visiting sites where they they have a different point of view and provide links to actual respectable news sources.
You will be amazed - I mean really smacked in the head amazed - at how censored our media is in our supposedly free country. |
1) Do you mean to imply that 95% of the free world thinks that Dr. Rice is a "blatant and obviously-proven liar"? Or that 95% of the free world thinks that President Bush is a "blatant and obviously-proven liar"?
2) In addition to the so-called "right-wing" radio and TV, I do listen to "middle of the road" radio and TV. I TIRED to listen to Air-America, but found their content to be nothing but the same-old, same-old - no facts, just rhetoric. I may try them again after they settle down. I read extensively and not just the NY Post and the Washington Times. I read the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, the Washington Post, USA Today and ( on the web ) CNN, etc. etc. I also peruse ( though not so often as I should ) web sites for the foreign press, including Asia.
3) You are right about me being amazed. The U.S. Press, though not highly censored by government, IS highly censored by its own management - for example: CNN reporters cannot use the word 'liberal' to describe anyone, but are encouraged to use the word 'conservative' wherever possible. They cannot say "Illegal Alien" only "Undocumented worker". They cannot say "pro-life", they can only say "anti abortion". They can't refer to Saddam Hussein as the "former dictator" only the "deposed president". etc. etc.
4) If YOU don't listen to or read right-wing dispatches, then you are EXACTLY what the left-wing loves. Someone who is willing to remain misinformed.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:32:57 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Do you assume I am right wing? I say again, pay attention.
I'm proud to say I'm independent and would be quite offened to be labeled as right or left because the people on the extreme of both sides disturb me. I disagree with a lot of what George Bush says and does (as I have posted on other threads). I take in all the facts and make my own decision.
Is it impossible to support our president and not be "right wing?"
BTW: Obvious and proven liar = your hero Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman..." or does that not count?
And regarding your post on the other thread: 9/11 was in the planning stages for several years in the US under Bill's watch. If he could have prevented it, why didn't he? |
Which leads one to wonder why Dubya and Dick agreed to testify only under these conditions: 1. it would be in private 2. they would not be under oath. Can you say "impeach" boys and girls?
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:53:48 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Which leads one to wonder why Dubya and Dick agreed to testify only under these conditions: 1. it would be in private 2. they would not be under oath. Can you say "impeach" boys and girls? |
Or maybe they forseen what Kerry did to Rice and didn't want that to be nationally televised? Not only did he call her Dr Clark, more then once, he also used part of his time to berate the Bush policy on Iraq. I'm sorry, but a commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11 is not the place to spew your political agenda. Call a meeting with her if you want to tell her what you think.
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 14:54:04. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:57:10 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Which leads one to wonder why Dubya and Dick agreed to testify only under these conditions: 1. it would be in private 2. they would not be under oath. Can you say "impeach" boys and girls? |
You may wonder, but I don't. NO sitting President or Vice-president has ever been required to testify under oath except in a legal proceeding where he was facing criminal charges. Neither Bush nor Cheney are facing such charges.
I can say "impeach", but the Constitution does not make provision for impeaching an EX-president.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 04:39:21 PM · #74 |
I for one am not suprised that the rest of the world is against the US on most everything. A recent poll for the European Commission asked which counrtries pose a threat for world peace. The US was tied for second with North Korea and Iran (#1 was Isreal).
There are numerous sites out there showing this poll. Here's just a random one Poll
It's just part of being the dominate country in the world. The US didn't get to where it is today by being a nation of followers. On a side note, it also shows that there are still seeds of hatred toward Isreal in Europe among the average person.
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 16:40:28. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 04:50:10 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Do you assume I am right wing? I say again, pay attention.
Terribly sorry not to have followed your missives religiously at all times - I come here only seldomly - which is why I used the question mark. Again, you insist on being personal with the "pay attention" swipe.
I'm proud to say I'm independent and would be quite offened to be labeled as right or left because the people on the extreme of both sides disturb me. I disagree with a lot of what George Bush says and does (as I have posted on other threads). I take in all the facts and make my own decision.
Is it impossible to support our president and not be "right wing?"
No.
It's just when I hear the the same arguments from you that I hear on right-wing AM radio I guess I made the unforgivable mistake of thinking you were right wing.
BTW: Obvious and proven liar = your hero Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman..." or does that not count?
Just what does it count for? It is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about 9/11.
On the other hand, if that statement justifies impeachment, do you think George W should be impeached for lying to Congress about the WMD in Iraq to justify invasion - where thousand and thousands of people died?
And regarding your post on the other thread: 9/11 was in the planning stages for several years in the US under Bill's watch. If he could have prevented it, why didn't he? |
If you investigate what was done under Clinton's watch in regard to antiterrorism, it was actually quite impressive, and frankly puts the Bush regime to shame by comparison.
"Al Queda" wasn't even a word in the early nineties, yet there was a huge amount of intel amassed under Clinton's years, with massive boosts in antiterror funding. Because he DID "shake the trees" as the saying goes lately, no homeland American lives were lost to Al Queda and many plots were foiled and arrests made. Basically all starting from scratch.
Compare that record to Bush, who had huge amounts of dire warnings from every corner, and did just about zero, cut antiterror funding, had a hands-off policy on the taliban and the Saudi's etc, etc.
My opinion and speculation, obviously - if Gore was in office, 9/11 would never have happened. We would have nailed those guys way before they ever got near any planes.
Efforts to point ones finger back at Clinton in order to somehow bolster Bush are way, way off the mark.
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 16:56:05. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 03:39:53 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 03:39:53 PM EDT.
|
