| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2004 08:42:46 PM · #1026 |
Originally posted by achiral:
most likely just a run of the mill politician like everyone else on both sides |
here's the thing for me at least. ok so bush really dropped the ball in my opinion in terms of not firing a bunch of people over pre war intelligence and also not firing people over the latest uprising in iraq, because as i understand it some high ranking generals really dropped the ball on fallujah.
in hindsight, it definitely appears that iraq got rid of their weapons before the war. why they wouldn't let inspectors view them destroy the weapons i don't know, but regardless it looks like the intelligence community of the whole world screwed up big time, with the US leading the charge. did we need to go to war? in hindsight, no. but what's done is done. the world needs to move on. the reality of the situation is that even if kerry is selected in november for president, nothing will change in iraq. we're in it for the long haul. our job now is to convince the world to help us turn iraq into the place we talked about idealistically before the war.
Message edited by author 2004-04-18 20:51:38.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2004 10:14:51 PM · #1027 |
Has anyone read the article that GingerBaker posted yesterday?
It's some interesting reading! and may explain what's happening in Iraq now. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 10:25:35 PM · #1028 |
man i just read it...what a laugher, that's way more of a stretch than bush's reason for there being wmds already. no author, not one identifiable source, news agency based in iran...few red flags for me
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 09:52:22 AM · #1029 |
Originally posted by achiral:
but regardless it looks like the intelligence community of the whole world screwed up big time, with the US leading the charge. |
I think that is a really good point you make there, achiral, about the U.S. leading the charge. Because as i understand it, The U.S. was giving everybody ELSE the scoop on Iraq, not the other way around. ( As if we would listen to any other country's intel over ours anyway). Most nations spend less than what we spend on military latrine urinal deoderant cakes for their entire defense budget - which includes intel! :D
About the only other source of decent intel is Israel, who blew it big time, and admits it. On the other hand, an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam has got to be a good thing for Israel, so no big harm done over that intel "boo-boo".
And just to shock RonB, Chris, Louddog, etc, I would like to take the time and trouble to admit front and center that I actually supported the invasion of Iraq. At the beginning.
You see, I am Jewish, and thought it a good thing for Israel.
And also, I was foolish enough to believe the complete sack of dingo kidneys the Bush administration and their self-serving lackies were unloading as truthful intel, as they built their case for invasion on a filthy skein of lies.
Umm.... I guess you you see where I stand on that issue now? :D |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:15:13 AM · #1030 |
Originally posted by achiral:
the reality of the situation is that even if kerry is selected in november for president, nothing will change in iraq. |
Well, to use your phrase, now there is a LAUGHER!
Everything will change when Kerry is elected - simply because he is not Bush. And everybody on the planet knows there is a huge difference between Kerry and the unelected fraud, with the exception of some Naderites in the U.S., and those who want to negate the political benefits of regime change here at home! :D ( dig, dig)
We have an enormous problem in Iraq because of the policies of Bush and company. They have slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians, denied democratic elections, puts tens of thousands of people, including teachers out of jobs, allowed looting everywhere, shut down at least one newspaper, etc.
Most importantly, they have sold off the natural resources, utilities, and strategic companies of Iraq to private U.S. corporations - all Bush political contributors, bigtime - for pennies on the dollar. Yes = they have LOOTED the country in defiance of international law.
And the Iraqi's know who is to blame. They know it is BUSH, not the U.S. people. Just like 90% of the people around the world who protest U.S. policies. If you look, you will see that they protest Bush, not the American people.
When Kerry gets elected and starts new policies, the whole place will settle down immediately. At least for a while, the Iraqis will have patience.
They certainly have been patient so far = they waited out a year of complete bullsh1t before going revolutionary.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:58:22 PM · #1031 |
Cuba ends Guantanamo inquiry call
Though mainly it was a defensive thing against a similar US accusation towards Cuba
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3628435.stm
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 15:02:03.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 11:07:26 AM · #1032 |
The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).
|
|
|
|
04/28/2004 07:35:55 PM · #1033 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).
|
oh man thats scary.. and embarrassing |
|
|
|
04/28/2004 08:35:33 PM · #1034 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).
|
Not surprising. But then again in a recent article about the attempted poison gas attack in Jordan, as reported in Newsmax
At least one of the al-Qaida plotters arrested in Jordan earlier this month as part of a weapons of mass destruction plot that Jordanian officials say could have killed 80,000 people revealed on Monday that he was trained in Iraq before the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
In a confession broadcast on Jordanian television, the unnamed WMD conspirator revealed: "In Iraq, I started training in explosives and poisons. I gave my complete obedience to [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," the al-Qaida WMD specialist whose base of operations was in Iraq.
Let's see. Acknowledged al-Qaeda plotter trained in POISONS in IRAQ BEFORE the war? But there were no ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Or were there?
Ron
|
|
|
|
04/28/2004 10:43:00 PM · #1035 |
Sigh.
So, everyone in the C.I.A. and F.B.I. who knows anything about Al queda and has been saying for years that there never has been a connection with Saddam is wrong, based on the alleged word of one dirt bag?
Al Queda and Saddam were enemies.
Newsmax is a radical right-wing site.
Even if what the alleged terrorist says is the gospel truth, it does NOT mean that there was any state sponsorship of Al Queda by Saddam.
Most likely, this guy has been tortured for the past month and will say whatever he is being asked to say anyway.
"Training in explosives AND poisons" - HMMM..seems pretty fishy to me. Training where, on whom? You need a lot of resources, a lot of freedom, a training base. Nothing like that existed outside of Afghanistan.
Why do people continue to disbelieve that the Bush administration are inveterate liars, despite overwhelming evidence of their widespread dishonesty? |
|
|
|
04/28/2004 11:02:56 PM · #1036 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Why do people continue to disbelieve that the Bush administration are inveterate liars, despite overwhelming evidence of their widespread dishonesty? |
because that would be being unpatriotic wouldnt it? |
|
|
|
04/28/2004 11:54:15 PM · #1037 |
they continue to believe bush because kerry gives them nothing to believe in.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 12:17:24 AM · #1038 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Al Queda and Saddam were enemies. |
Wasn't Saddam paying the families of homicide-bombers $20,000 each to murder innocent men, women, and children at one time? I'm sure some these families had/have ties to Al Queda.
Common, the guy just looks guilty to me.... Didn't you notice the doctors having to pick lice out of his hair on TV after they captured him? Guilty as charged. ;)
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 10:44:35 AM · #1039 |
| The president will be testifying in front of the 9/11 commission today and with him will be Dick Cheney and two attorneys. He will not be under oath, nor will there be a transcript made...only one commissioner will be allowed to take notes. Why did the 9/11 commissioners agree to something like this? Why does the president need to have the vice president and two council with him (lest they be fearful that their stories wouldn't coincide when compared)? |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 11:02:56 AM · #1040 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Why do people continue to disbelieve that the Bush administration are inveterate liars, despite overwhelming evidence of their widespread dishonesty? |
Well, I, for one, continue to disbelieve it because, to date, NO ONE has produced evidence showing that anyone in the Bush administration LIED. A LIE, remember, is a statement that was known to be false when it was made.
I have asked in this forum and others on SEVERAL occasions for such evidence, and NO ONE has yet produced it. You have the distinct opportunity to be THE ONE.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 12:12:19 PM · #1041 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The president will be testifying in front of the 9/11 commission today and with him will be Dick Cheney and two attorneys. He will not be under oath, nor will there be a transcript made...only one commissioner will be allowed to take notes. Why did the 9/11 commissioners agree to something like this? Why does the president need to have the vice president and two council with him (lest they be fearful that their stories wouldn't coincide when compared)? |
1) To the best of my knowledge, when former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice-President Al Gore appeared before the 9/11 commission, they also appeared in private, were not under oath, and no transcript was made. Perhaps that's why the commission agreed to this AGAIN for a sitting President and Vice-President.
2) I don't know that the president NEEDS to have the vice president with him. But it probably will speed up the process of investigation, since each can answer questions that they individually have knowledge of with less overlap ( of questions, not answers ). It also permits instant corroboration / clarification to occur. They probably do need to have council to advise them as to what are/are not the type of questions that would not be valid even in a more "legal" venue. Remember, this is not a "court of law" and neither has been charged with a crime.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 12:13:10 PM · #1042 |
Sibel Edmonds (former FBI translator) says that the they are lying. She can name names and dates, as well as, documents. And, she says many things aren't coming out about what they (Bush admin) knew about the 9/11 attacks prior to the attack that leave this country still very vulnerable to attack.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Why do people continue to disbelieve that the Bush administration are inveterate liars, despite overwhelming evidence of their widespread dishonesty? |
Well, I, for one, continue to disbelieve it because, to date, NO ONE has produced evidence showing that anyone in the Bush administration LIED. A LIE, remember, is a statement that was known to be false when it was made.
I have asked in this forum and others on SEVERAL occasions for such evidence, and NO ONE has yet produced it. You have the distinct opportunity to be THE ONE.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 12:19:39 PM · #1043 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sibel Edmonds (former FBI translator) says that the they are lying. She can name names and dates, as well as, documents. And, she says many things aren't coming out about what they (Bush admin) knew about the 9/11 attacks prior to the attack that leave this country still very vulnerable to attack. |
So, all you have to do is provide that evidence, with corroboration, an YOU will be THE ONE.
Remember, part of what Sibel says is that the FBI's Arabic translators deliberately mis-translated and stalled in translating messages and documents to thwart FBI investigations, and even celebrated the attacks on the WTC. Now if THOSE are the lies ( that is, the mis-translations ) that she is referring to I would NOT hang those lies on "the administration".
Ron |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 12:40:57 PM · #1044 |
I think that the WH should let Sibel speak her mind and not put a gag order on her. Let's find out all she's got to say. She has gone to different agencies in the government but says they aren't helping. In addition, she says the Bush administration has put out an additional gag order on her to prevent her from speaking what she's already spoken of in public.
This additional gag order is to stop her from testifying as a key witness in a law suit brought about by the 9/11 families against various banks and two members of the Saudi royal family, who the 9/11 families say aided al Qaeda by contributing money to them.
What's even more interesting is that James Baker...let me repeat this...JAMES BAKER (former secretary of state under Bush I and who's helped the current Bush get into office, as well as, other republican presidents) is representing the Saudis in this law suit!!!
That's pretty unbelieveable in my eyes.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sibel Edmonds (former FBI translator) says that the they are lying. She can name names and dates, as well as, documents. And, she says many things aren't coming out about what they (Bush admin) knew about the 9/11 attacks prior to the attack that leave this country still very vulnerable to attack. |
So, all you have to do is provide that evidence, with corroboration, an YOU will be THE ONE.
Remember, part of what Sibel says is that the FBI's Arabic translators deliberately mis-translated and stalled in translating messages and documents to thwart FBI investigations, and even celebrated the attacks on the WTC. Now if THOSE are the lies ( that is, the mis-translations ) that she is referring to I would NOT hang those lies on "the administration".
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 01:12:16 PM · #1045 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think that the WH should let Sibel speak her mind and not put a gag order on her. Let's find out all she's got to say. She has gone to different agencies in the government but says they aren't helping. In addition, she says the Bush administration has put out an additional gag order on her to prevent her from speaking what she's already spoken of in public.
This additional gag order is to stop her from testifying as a key witness in a law suit brought about by the 9/11 families against various banks and two members of the Saudi royal family, who the 9/11 families say aided al Qaeda by contributing money to them.
What's even more interesting is that James Baker...let me repeat this...JAMES BAKER (former secretary of state under Bush I and who's helped the current Bush get into office, as well as, other republican presidents) is representing the Saudis in this law suit!!!
That's pretty unbelieveable in my eyes. |
The DOJ gag-order against Sibel Edmonds is for PUBLIC testimony under provisions of the "State Secrets Privilege", citing that disclosure of her evidence 'would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States'.
The Bush administration has, in fact, permitted Sibel Edmonds to testify in PRIVATE to those agencies that have been cleared to hear such testimony, INCLUDING the 9/11 commission.
Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee Ref HERE
I do not believe that "us" should be privy to "all she's got to say".
Ron |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 02:48:05 PM · #1046 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The president will be testifying in front of the 9/11 commission today and with him will be Dick Cheney and two attorneys. He will not be under oath, nor will there be a transcript made...only one commissioner will be allowed to take notes. Why did the 9/11 commissioners agree to something like this? Why does the president need to have the vice president and two council with him (lest they be fearful that their stories wouldn't coincide when compared)? |
President is always under OATH,when he takes "oath of office",by the constitution articlw 2 I think.
All the public speeches ,testimonies and State of the Union adresses, everything for everything he says can be held responsible! |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 04:12:10 PM · #1047 |
From an interview I heard with Sibel Edmonds and journalist Amy Goodman this morning, Ms. Edmonds says that we are still extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack and that the agencies you've cited below of which she's testified to are not acting on her information (meaning they are not delving into it more and just sweeping it under the rug). For example, knowing what the 9/11 commission knew about her testimony, they did not ask certain questions of Condileezza Rice that would have been very pertinent.
But what do you make of the fact that James Baker is defending the Saudis in a case brough against them by the 9/11 families? That is very curious! Can you believe that a former gov't official and contributer to Bush election campaign, not to mention very good friends with the entire Bush family, is going to go up against 9/11 family members in their law suit!!! Your jaw just has to drop about that.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think that the WH should let Sibel speak her mind and not put a gag order on her. Let's find out all she's got to say. She has gone to different agencies in the government but says they aren't helping. In addition, she says the Bush administration has put out an additional gag order on her to prevent her from speaking what she's already spoken of in public.
This additional gag order is to stop her from testifying as a key witness in a law suit brought about by the 9/11 families against various banks and two members of the Saudi royal family, who the 9/11 families say aided al Qaeda by contributing money to them.
What's even more interesting is that James Baker...let me repeat this...JAMES BAKER (former secretary of state under Bush I and who's helped the current Bush get into office, as well as, other republican presidents) is representing the Saudis in this law suit!!!
That's pretty unbelieveable in my eyes. |
The DOJ gag-order against Sibel Edmonds is for PUBLIC testimony under provisions of the "State Secrets Privilege", citing that disclosure of her evidence 'would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States'.
The Bush administration has, in fact, permitted Sibel Edmonds to testify in PRIVATE to those agencies that have been cleared to hear such testimony, INCLUDING the 9/11 commission.
Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee Ref HERE
I do not believe that "us" should be privy to "all she's got to say".
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 04:17:26 PM · #1048 |
Unfortunately, even if that's true, Kosta, there won't be a transcript to see or study and nothing will ever get out about what he, Cheney or his lawyers said.
And why did the 9/11 commission agree to terms such as they did where no other members of the WH can testify ever again?
I fear, that the only thing that will result of these hearings will be a state run by the military and intelligence communities in the name of security.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The president will be testifying in front of the 9/11 commission today and with him will be Dick Cheney and two attorneys. He will not be under oath, nor will there be a transcript made...only one commissioner will be allowed to take notes. Why did the 9/11 commissioners agree to something like this? Why does the president need to have the vice president and two council with him (lest they be fearful that their stories wouldn't coincide when compared)? |
President is always under OATH,when he takes "oath of office",by the constitution articlw 2 I think.
All the public speeches ,testimonies and State of the Union adresses, everything for everything he says can be held responsible! |
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 04:45:29 PM · #1049 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But what do you make of the fact that James Baker is defending the Saudis in a case brough against them by the 9/11 families? That is very curious! Can you believe that a former gov't official and contributer to Bush election campaign, not to mention very good friends with the entire Bush family, is going to go up against 9/11 family members in their law suit!!! Your jaw just has to drop about that. |
While Baker's law firm, Baker Botts, is, indeed, defending ONE Saudi prince ( not THE Saudis ), I don't see any evidence that James Baker III is personally involved in the defense. And even if he were, two points come to mind:
1) the prince is entitled to counsel by our Constitution, and
2) unless James Baker or his law partners know with certainty that Prince Sultan bin Fahad had foreknowledge that the money he was giving to charities was being used to fund the 9/11 terrorists, then I see no conflict in their taking on the task of defending the prince.
Do you disagree?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 05:53:30 PM · #1050 |
Bush 9/11 commission CNN article
and to those who have saying that Clinton and Gore testified privatly so why shouldnt Bush and Cheney?
Per that article:
"Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also met with the commission. Their sessions were also private and, like Bush and Cheney, they were not under oath. However, Clinton and Gore appeared separately before the panel, and their sessions were recorded."
seperate and taped. so why cant we tape Bush and Cheney? they are testifying arent they? why not tape it? for records sake.. and why not be seperate? if for no other reason, to shut up everyone saying they need to testify together so they can get there stories straight.. right?
hmm..
"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."
so if there is nothing to hide, head all the comments and testify seperatly. and if there is nothing to hide, why be scared to have your testimony recorded? |
|
