 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush's Farewell Speech...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 09 - 08:30 PM Well, well, well... 14 minutes long anf 14 mentions of liberty and 7 of freedom??? Hmmmmmm??? I just wonder what those terms mean to a man who has put down anyone who has bothered to become educated??? BTW, Georgie... Don't let the door hit you on the way out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM Fuck Off. Baby bush! I turned it off before it started in honor of the dead - American, Iraqui, Afghani, and ... Damn! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 09 - 08:57 PM Wish I had, too, Sins... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Rapparee Date: 15 Jan 09 - 08:58 PM Didn't bother. Ate supper while talking to my wife. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:01 PM I had to take a crap......about the same thing............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: 3refs Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:15 PM I did. I guess the fact that he's not my President made it a little easier. Listening to Babbles, trying his best to be humble, when you know, that he knows, that most of the inhabitants of the planet want him to just leave, go out to the wood shed and hit his dick with an axe, kind of makes you weepy. Not sure why, just wet! I welcome President Elect Obama, and wish for all, that he can do some of what he knows needs doin! I'm also honourd to know that his first official visit will be to Canada. If he goes anywhere between Ottawa and Toronto(have I said I hate Toronto before), I'll go and see him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM Yo, Spawz.... Bush is goin' so from here out it's "leavin' a crap"... We took way too many since 2000... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM I'm just gettin' the little turd outta' here anyway it happens...... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: katlaughing Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM I didn't hear him once say thank you for the "sacrifice" of all the people who've died in Iraq because of him, people from ALL sides. He is still a smarmy bastard and I hope he goes to jail, along with Cheney and the rest of them. Spaw, maybe ya need some chewing gum to Swallow! That oughta help! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:38 PM 3refs, the powers that be in Toronto have gotten wind of how you feel. "He hates Toronto!" they all say, shaking their heads in wonder and with rising annoyance. I have heard through the grapevine that you will soon be officially declared "persona non grata" within the Metro Toronto boundaries by a special ordinance. Toronto cops will then be empowered to sieze you on sight, beat you up, and violently eject you from their city. If I were you, I would stay north of Major McKenzie from now on. I haven't seen Bush's speech, but I'll watch it later on YouTube. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: 3refs Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:59 PM I have to go as far south as the #404 and 14th St to attend meetings the Ontario Minor Hockey Assc head office. Anywhere south of that, it's lock and load, and they have nothing to do with the car! Did you ever hear of Nicolucci and Barbetta? Two of Metro's finest that I hope I never, weather in heaven or hell, draw their attention! I have quite a bit of interaction with the O.P.P and a few R.C.M.P and more often than not, a mutually good time has been had by all. Metro guys make me nervous! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Alice Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:04 PM oh, yeah That was tonight. Totally forgot about it until I saw the thread title. Because he is someone I want to COMPLETELY FORGET. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM They made me nervous when I was there too, 3refs. I guess it's a "big city" thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: 3refs Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:22 PM I've lived in Wpg, Cal, Edm, Van and down there briefly. Bad cops everywhere. But I'll tell ya tho, the baddest cops on the planet are in Sudbury. They patch up your wounds just so they can beat you some more! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:02 PM I watched the whole bleedin' thing. With all due respect, that man doesn't have a clue! It was a fairly cohesive speech (wonder of wonders!), but it didn't seem to relate to the real world. It's as if, for the past eight years, he's been living on another planet. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: GUEST,Peace Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:48 PM FUCK BUSH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Neil D Date: 17 Jan 09 - 06:05 AM No way Peace. That would require being in the same room with snivelling little punk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:40 AM Obama to visit Canada first.... I knew Garge was gonna be trouble when one of the first things he said after becoming Pres was that he was looking forward to meeting with the Mexican Pres ASAP because Mexico was the largest trading partner of the US. Of course, I didn't know just how much. Hmmm.... Garge Troublya Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: 3refs Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM Pres Bush listened intently as his aid told him that there had been a terrorist bombing and several Brazilians had been killed. He quietly turned to Mrs Bush and asked "How many in a Brazilian? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Jan 09 - 10:47 AM Well, at least he's gone! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Jan 09 - 11:55 AM Also didn't bother. How many ways CAN a lame duck say "quack." ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 17 Jan 09 - 12:17 PM Never forget him. If you do, there'll be another one along soon. Tell your children, and your children's children.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 17 Jan 09 - 12:25 PM Hey, I just got an email from Barack's team, so I thought I'd pass it on, although I expect you all got one too: The Change We Need :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Bill D Date: 17 Jan 09 - 12:43 PM If you didn't hear Keith Olbermann's "Eight Years in Eight Minutes" recitation of the history of the Bush years...go find it! It is no doubt on MSNBC site...and probably on YouTube by now. I have said for a couple years now that there were so many egregious flaws and scandals that it's hard to remember then all....but Keith manages to encapsulate it! It will be a record to replay in 20 years when someone asks "Why do you hate this guy so much?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: katlaughing Date: 17 Jan 09 - 01:06 PM Keith's piece was brilliant, BillD! Folks can watch it at MSNBC, as you said. Don, I thought it sounded like an award acceptance speech. I kept waiting for him to say, "And, I'd like to thank the Academy!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Donuel Date: 17 Jan 09 - 01:11 PM It took Richard Nixon to open America up to China. It took George Bush to open America's eyes to the advantage of Barak Obama. While it has been a standard Republican procedure to leave an incoming Democratic administration with NO MONEY to implement policies and programs for the people, this time they took the entire treasury for the next 20 years. This will keep the ruling class in enough treasure so that when a Republican regieme comes around again in 20 years, they can do it all over again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 09 - 01:17 PM BTW... I did watch the speech. I even taped it. I hung on every word and I tried to look into the man's eyes. It was a great speech, from him and from his point of view. I detest much of what he did and I have no love for him. I have said many times that I think he was poorly qualified and surprisingly ignorant. He clearly and certainly was not a President of the USA. But, was that the intention? I will say again that, despite how he got the job, he did the job that he intended to do and the job for which he was chosen to do by those who choose. He was the front man, with a personal interest in killing Saddam Hussein, at any cost. Did Saddam actually attempt the assassination of his father? History will be written as history is written. But, fact is, I am sure, in his mind, he got Job Number One done. Justification? No. Acceptable? No. Understandable? Yes. After all, he's just a good old boy from Texas. When you fuck with them lads, you are in a World of hurt. That's my take, brief and sketchy as it is. Maybe I am wrong. History and time may never tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: DougR Date: 17 Jan 09 - 01:51 PM Sticks and stones. I could mention that Saddam killed millions of his own people, but he was a good guy, right? He's not around to kill anybody else is he? Iraq has had free democratic elections, has a functioning government, and the people are free to come and go as they please. And the oil Bush was going to steal, must not forget that ...it is STILL under the control of the Iraqi government, the great oil theft threat championed by Bobert and others ...well, it just didn't happen. I won't mention that because you don't give a s--t! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: GUEST,Bill D Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:09 PM Doug...**IF** the world, and us in particular, felt like we had to do 'something' about Saddam & his evil regime, it should have been done totally separately from invented lies & garbled 'intelligence' about his WMDs or connections to Al-Quaida! What was done did NOTHING to help stop terrorism or find Bin Laden. If you have mosquito hovering near you and someone whacks it with a hammer right on your head and then tells you as you bleed from the hammer "That mosquito 'might' have carried Typhus, and it sure won't bother you any more!", will you thank them? Yeah, I know...it's a weak metaphor...but sheesh! What we did in & to Iraq did nothing to really help, and MORE Iraquis have died since we 'helped' than would have died under Saddam!...and there is all this rubble where there used to be buildings. Doing stupid things for bad reasons...then justifying it with lame, awkward rationalizations is the mark of a seriously flawed concept of leadership............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:19 PM Dougie! Calm down lad. Just about everybody does give a shit. Yes, Saddam did kill a whack of people... with the weapons that the US and others supplied to him for that purpose. What's your point... we didn't charge him enough for the weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:24 PM BTW... that was great deal, eh? Sell him the weapons, use them as an excuse to invade, take them back by force, sit on them for future use. Nice work if you can get it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Peter T. Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:29 PM in the name of all that is holy, GO!! (And lest we forget, a brief toast to Natalie Maines is in order) yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:50 PM Eight Years in Eight Minutes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: pdq Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM One more time (in case anybody is listening): less than 3% of Saddam Hussein's weapons were of US manufacture, and it is doubtful that even one item that found its way to Iraq was authorized. Illegal arms dealers and a few questionable transactons from Argentina (and even Israel) put a few items in Saddam's arsenal. As much as 95% came from the Soviet Union. Also, the idea that George W. Bush linked al-Qaeda to the Sept. 11 atrocity was (drum roll) The New York Times. When asked what al-Qaeda had to do with that event Bush said: "nothing!". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Apply that to most of the above posts and heated arguments in this (or any other political thread), and you will be one step closer to wisdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM Indeed. gnightgnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 09 - 03:37 PM PDQ: Over and over and over again George Bush made statements implying that the terrorism of 9-11 was linked to Iraq. He did not dare come out and make such a statement explicitly. But you would have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to believe that he did not push the association multiple times. The NY Times reported his statements and their implications. "False Pretenses FOLLOWING 9/11, PRESIDENT BUSH AND SEVEN TOP OFFICIALS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION WAGED A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED CAMPAIGN OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ. By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith January 23, 2008 President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses. On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it. In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric." (From here. "Bush administration officials were soon publicly linking the two. For example, on September 25, 2002, in response to a reporter's question, President Bush said: "They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."" (Ibid) "Paul [Kurtz] was the most open-minded person on the staff, so I asked him to lead the special project to get the departments and agencies to once again look for a bin Laden link to Saddam Hussein. He chaired a meeting the next day [September 13] to develop an official position on the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. All agencies and departments agreed, there was no cooperation between the two. A memorandum to that effect was sent up to the president, but there was never any indication that it reached him." SOURCE: Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), page 33. It is difficult to know whether the tone and substance of this week's administration statements reflect genuine doubt, based on investigative evidence, about Iraqi involvement in either the September 11 attacks or anthrax, or are primarily a reflection of concern about the anxiety the Iraq speculation is causing. Senior officials have been increasingly close-mouthed about whatever plans they may have for Baghdad, even as many outside the administration have become more vocal in their insistence that Iraq is the ultimate culprit and must be stopped. Chief among the latter has been former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, who has insisted there are proven links between bin Laden and Iraq dating at least to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. As to the September 11 perpetrators, Woolsey said in a speech Monday night, "There are too many things, too many examples of stolen identities, of cleverly crafted documentation, of coordination across continents and between states . . . to stray very far from the conclusion that a state, and a very well-run intelligence service, is involved here." SOURCE: Karen DeYoung and Rick Weiss, "U.S. Seems To Ease Rhetoric On Iraq; Officials Urge Wait and See on Anthrax," The Washington Post, October 24, 2001. James Woolsey: One question that was stated was: Should we use the war against terrorism to get Saddam? To my mind, this is something parallel to asking: Should we, as of December 7, 1941, use the war against fascism to get Hitler? We have here, for all practical purposes, what is a declared war on the United States, some portions of it silently and some portions of it openly, particularly now, after the bin Laden tape of today, a sort of combination of Hitlers and Torquemadas, who have moved against Western civilization, against civilization period, and against the United States. And there are various facets and aspects of this question. But the first and, I think, most important point is: The way you ask the question is going to determine the answer. If you ask the question, could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Iraq was behind and directing the attacks of September 11th or the anthrax, then the answer is likely to be no. And if that is your decision criterion, if thats the question you ask, you may decide that you dont think we need to anything with Iraq. If you ask a different question, is it clearly demonstrable to any reasonable person that Iraq has been substantially engaged in terrorism against the West, and the United States in particular, over the course of the last decade, that there is a reasonable chance that they were involved in September 11th and the anthrax, that they are developing weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological and nuclear in order to terrorize their neighbors, I would submit the answer to that question is a clear yes. And there is probably not much dispute about it. So the answer you get is going to depend, in part, on the question you ask. Now, lets go through a couple of these one at a time. http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/011213et.pdf SOURCE: Cato Institute Policy Forum, "Should the United States Go to War With Iraq?," December 13, 2001. MARCH 18, 2002 Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory; Guerrillas Linked to bin Laden Camps A new report in The New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence has been in close touch with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group for years, and that the two run a jointly-operated terrorist organization in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. A hawkish faction within the Bush administration that favors military action against Iraq, centered mostly in the top ranks of the Defense Department, has scoured the world for such Hussein–Al Qaeda connections. Yesterday some people in this camp hailed The New Yorker article as significant new evidence for their viewpoint. SOURCE: John Mintz, "Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory; Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps," The Washington Post, final edition, page A12. Question: We can go back to that in a minute. I have another question. Yesterday in the briefing, you said that the information you have has said Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about linkages between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein this morning. He said very definitively that, yes, he believes there are. And then the president said, talking about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the danger is that they work in concert. Is the president saying that they are working in concert, that there is a relationship? Do you have evidence that supports that? Mr. Fleischer: No, the president is saying that's the danger. The president has repeatedly said that the worst thing that could happen is for people—the world's worst dictators with the world's worst weapons of mass destruction to work in concert with terrorists such as Al Qaeda, who have shown an ability to attack the United States. And that's what the president has said. Question: So why—when Rumsfeld was saying, yes, there is a linkage between the two, what is he talking about? Mr. Fleischer: Clearly, Al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late. And we've seen that in the past. And so the risk is that Al Qaeda operating in Iraq does present a security threat, and it's cause for concern. And I think it's very understandably so. If you're searching, Campbell, again, for the smoking gun, again I say what Secretary Rumsfeld said—the problem with smoking guns is they only smoke after they're fired. Question: I'm not looking for a smoking gun. I'm just trying to figure out how you make that conclusion, because the British, the Russians, people on the Hill that you all have briefed about all this stuff, say that there isn't a linkage, that they don't believe that Al Qaeda is there working in conjunction in any way with Saddam Hussein. And there is a mountain of comments, both public and private statements that Osama bin Laden has made about Saddam, calling him a bad Muslim, suggesting that there would be no way that the two would ever connect. So I just—if there's something, if you have some evidence that supports this, I'm just wondering why— Mr. Fleischer: What supports what I just said is that the president fears that the two can get together. That's what the president has said, and that's one of the reasons that he feels so strongly about the importance of fighting the war on terror. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-3.html SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, press briefing by Ari Fleischer, September 25, 2002. EPTEMBER 27, 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: Link Between Iraq and Al Qaeda "Not Debatable" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this morning the link between Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq is "accurate and not debatable." Rumsfeld traveled here to discuss the ongoing war on terrorism and the threat Iraq poses to the United States and its allies. The secretary declined to give more details on the ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. He said he does not want to give away intelligence information that may help the enemy. Rumsfeld said he is not here to sell war with Iraq to the American people, noting that President Bush has made no decision on possible military action. However, Rumsfeld said in interviews with local television stations, the president is pushing ahead with Congress on a resolution on Iraq. In addition, the president and Secretary of State Colin Powell are working with the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution that calls on Iraq to disarm and live up to 16 U.N. resolutions in place after the Persian Gulf War. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43413 SOURCE: Jim Garamone, "Rumsfeld Says Link Between Iraq, Al Qaeda 'Not Debatable'" American Forces Press Service, September 27, 2002. OCTOBER 24, 2002 A CIA Rival: Pentagon Sets Up Intelligence Unit Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his senior advisers have assigned a small intelligence unit to search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists that the nation's spy agencies may have overlooked, Pentagon officials said today. Some officials say the creation of the team reflects frustration on the part of Mr. Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and other senior officials that they are not receiving undiluted information on the capacities of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and his suspected ties to terrorist organizations. But officials who disagree say the top civilian policy makers are intent on politicizing intelligence to fit their hawkish views on Iraq. In particular, many in the intelligence agencies disagree that Mr. Hussein can be directly linked to Osama bin Laden and his network, Al Qaeda, or that the two are likely to make common cause against the United States. In addition, the view among even some senior intelligence analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency is that Mr. Hussein is contained and is unlikely to unleash weapons of mass destruction unless he is attacked. But Mr. Rumsfeld's inner circle of advisers view Mr. Hussein's record, which includes aggression against Kuwait and the use of poison gas against his people, as much more alarming, and they are not willing to risk leaving him in power. They cite numerous intelligence findings indicating links between the Iraq and senior Al Qaeda leaders. The four-–to five–person intelligence team was established by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and another strong advocate for military action against Mr. Hussein. It was formed not long after the Sept. 11 attacks to take on special assignments in the global war on terror. The team's specialty is using powerful computers and new software to scan and sort documents and reports from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. The team's current task, described by one official as "data mining," is to glean individual details that may collectively point to Iraq's wider connections to terrorism, but which may have been obscured by formal assessments that play down the overall Iraqi threat. SOURCE: Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, "Threats And Responses: A CIA Rival; Pentagon Sets Up Intelligence Unit," The New York Times, October 24, 2002. FEBRUARY 1, 2003 Split at CIA and FBI on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda The Bush administration's efforts to build a case for war against Iraq using intelligence to link it to Al Qaeda and the development of prohibited weapons has created friction within United States intelligence agencies, government officials said. Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said. At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said. The tension within the intelligence agencies comes as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is poised to go before the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday to present evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism and its continuing efforts to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. A senior administration official said discussions in preparation for Mr. Powell's presentation were intense, but not rancorous, and said there was little dissension among President Bush's top advisers about the fundamental nature of President Saddam Hussein's government. "I haven't detected anyone who thinks this a not compelling case," the official said. Mr. Bush asserted in his State of the Union address this week that Iraq was protecting and aiding Qaeda operatives, but American intelligence and law enforcement officials said the evidence was fragmentary and inconclusive. "It's more than just skepticism," said one official, describing the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies. "I think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is obviously being politicized." In demonstrating that there are links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Mr. Powell is expected to focus on intelligence about possible connections between Mr. Hussein, an Islamic militant group that may have produced poisons in a remote region of northern Iraq and a Qaeda terrorist leader, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. Much of the intelligence has been publicly known for months. SOURCE: James Risen and David Johnston, "Threats and Responses: Terror Links; Split At CIA and FBI on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda," The New York Times, February 2, 2003, late edition, page 13. "ut what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants....raqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly. [text omitted] Last year, two suspected Al Qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. [text omitted] We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. " The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda 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. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, address by Colin Powell, February 5, 2003. Question: Ari, given—on this bin Laden message—and to some extent we understand that it will deal with some comments or an address he would make to the Iraqi people about their condition, if that's correct, what does the president conclude about that? Mr. Fleischer: Well, based on what Secretary Powell has said, it gives rise to concern about the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. [text omitted] Question: Yes, on that same point, on the bin Laden tape, if I remember correctly, Secretary Powell said—made a reference to the fact that the tape, according to his information, was going to say from this person who purports to be bin Laden that he is in partnership with Iraq. If, indeed, that is the phrase that this individual uses, what does the U.S. make of such a statement? And how is that likely to play into the U.N. debate? Mr. Fleischer: Just as I indicated earlier, it gives great concern about the fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda are working together. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030211-3.html SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, press briefing by Ari Fleischer, February 11, 2003. Mr. Chairman, last year—in the wake of the September 11 attack on our country—I focused my remarks on the clear and present danger posed by terrorists who seek to destroy who we are and what we stand for. The national security environment that exists today is significantly more complex than that of a year ago. . . . Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of Osama bin Laden. We know Zarqawi's network was behind the poison plots in Europe that I discussed earlier as well as the assassination of a U.S. State Department employee in Jordan. Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to Al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two Al Qaeda associates; one of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources. And it is consistent with the pattern of denial and deception exhibited by Saddam Hussein over the past 12 years. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/12/se.02.html SOURCE: George Tenet, address to the Senate Armed Service Committee, CNN, February 12, 2003. uestion: One on Iraq and one on North Korea. The German government today said that it finds the tape of bin Laden disturbing and sobering, but it says there's absolutely no proof in that tape of any connection between bin Laden and the government of Iraq, just statements of support for the Iraqi people if there's a war. Is that proof that you have a tough sell still? Mr. Fleischer: Well, I think it just shows that Germany, which is unalterably opposed to the use of force, will still be in denial about Osama bin Laden's links to Iraq. Given the fact, especially as Secretary Powell demonstrated that we know that there are operatives of Al Qaeda operating inside Baghdad, and now we have an exhortation from Osama bin Laden on this tape to people inside Iraq—as he calls them, the Mujahideen brotherhood, or brothers—this is more proof that not only are there ties at the operational level, but now if you are operating inside Iraq and you hear Osama bin Laden exhorting you onward, your message is, as Osama bin Laden said in the tape, himself, Mujahideen brothers, he said, so it is the duty of all Muslims, particularly in Iraq, to roll up their sleeves and prepare for Jihad. And he said, it will not hurt under these circumstances if the interests of Muslims will meet with the socialists in fighting the crusaders. The socialist he refers to is Saddam Hussein. So it's incomprehensible in its denial for anybody to interpret the phrase, it will not hurt under these circumstances if the interests of the Muslims will meet with the socialists in fighting the crusaders. The interests of the Muslims meet with Saddam Hussein, that is linkage. ... This is only some of the available evidence. Do the rest of your homework yourself. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: goatfell Date: 17 Jan 09 - 03:48 PM we here in Britan didn't have to listen to his shite, but then we didn't vote for him either |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:02 PM "Mr. Russert: Another rationale provided by the administration for action against Saddam is his connection to Al Qaeda. Tom Friedman, in The New York Times, wrote this: "I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden, or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it, I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution from the Vietnam times. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie." Secretary Powell: I don't think it's a lie. I think there is information and evidence that there are connections. We have talked about Mr. [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi and some of the people who are in Baghdad who are linked with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and who were there with the certain knowledge of the Iraqi regime. We have seen connections and we are continuing to pursue those connections. We are not resting our whole case on this linkage. We are resting our case for the necessity perhaps of going to war on the fact that Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction, has them in his possession, and for 12 years he has violated the will of the international community. It is the international community that has been violated here, not Saddam Hussein. He is the one who has stuck his finger in the eye of the international community. He is the one who has been deceiving and telling the lies all these years. And the fact that there is also an Al Qaeda connection, I think certainly adds to the case, but we are not resting the whole case on that connection. " (Powell interview with Tim Russert) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM Brings new meaning to "pathological liar", doesn't it Amos??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Donuel Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:45 PM The truth is that Saddam wanted Iran to believe that he had nuclear and nerve weapons. He did allow the UN to inspect for any nuke production which turned up no nukes. From then on the administration needed to create their own version of an Iraq nuclear threat. Thier creation was preposterous yet the press failed our nation and the world. This is why I do not consider GWB the single point of evil in this horrendous charade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:09 AM Good point Donuel - And when credible evidence was presented to question the contrived Bush scenario, the press seemed to go out of their way to quash that as well. That brings up the question: Who within the American press wanted the country to go to war in Iraq? When we answer that, we might know who the real enemy is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: kendall Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:18 PM I tried to watch him, but when he got to his list of disappointments he included "No WMDs". Pathetic Moron! He claimed that he has kept us safe for the last 8 years; that witch, Ann Colter said it too, and they both forgot that 9/11 happened on his watch! Will history be kind to him? Maybe, if they forget 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and the total collapse of the US economy. Oh sure, they would like to blame it all on the democrats, those idiots who listen to that fat headed windbag, Rush Limbaugh, but anyone with a teaspoon full of brains knows who is responsible. Pat Buchanan and Allen Greenspan, both card carrying republicans said Bush is responsible for the collapse of the economy. I choose to believe them, not Rush Limburger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:12 PM The thing about "W kept us safe" is that it's kinda like the guy on Times Square who was waving his handkerchief up and down over and claimed he was keeping away the elephants. Someone pointed out that aside from the zoo there were no elephants for thousands of miles, and he said "Seee???!!" A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: gnu Date: 18 Jan 09 - 04:11 PM Kendall... I still have hope for the economy. 9/11 is too unreal to fathom. Iraq, I said my piece. But, Katrina? Well, that is beyond unreal. For that alone, his stay in office is forever tarnished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM I love that thing about the guy who was keeping the elephants away, Amos. LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: kendall Date: 18 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM The Bin Laden gang has told us they are planning a major offensive against us here, so they are just not ready yet. According to a report I saw, there has only been one credible plot to do real damage. Hell, even the FBI can handle one plot! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM "Pat Buchanan and Allen Greenspan, both card carrying republicans said Bush is responsible for the collapse of the economy." Isn't it a bit of a stretch for Allen Greenspan to be accusing Bush as being responisble for the collapse of the economy. I'm not one to defend Bush, but it seems to me that Greenspan had a lot more to do with the crash of the economy than Bush did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Alice Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:20 PM The point is, HE DIDN'T keep us safe. 9/11 happened even though there were warnings. Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Farewell Speech... From: Greg F. Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM Iraq has ... a functioning government, and the people are free to come and go as they please. This must be either meant as a bad joke, or the author is seriously reality-challenged. |
