Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Clinton fired every attorney when he took office. Was that performance based???<<<
Three weeks into this now.....or a month and you still don't have the foggiest idea what it's about. As long as there are talking points available for the fans, why waste time trying to understand........right?
Which means the only proof the WH is willing to provide of their non-involvement in the affair is a closed door meeting with Rove and Meyers. No oath and no transcript. With their credibility, it's hard to think of a better way to waste time than such a hearing.
something heard in passing also......there's a gap in the paper trail they've provided. Who would have thought.......
>>>Let me be clear – while the Democrats have the right to subpoena Rove and Miers, that doesn’t mean they should, either ethically or morally. Theoretically, as congressmen, they have important things to do.<<<
Finding out if US attorneys have been fired for investigating people loyal to Bush is not important? As usual with your kind the bigger picture is completely lost as you trip all over yourselves running to the idiot's defense.
No rocky cliffs here fuagf.......just sand. And no great whites but hammerheads. A 14 1/2 footer was caught 50 miles south of here a year ago.
http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/saltwater/hammerhead
Other than that, I read Rocky's speech and ask myself again what happened to 30% of americans who now disagree with this:
"We see it as our moral and patriotic duty to stand up and fight for our longheld American values. Kidnapping and disappearing people is not an American value. Torture is not an American value. Holding people in prisons without charges is not an American value. The destruction of the right of habeas corpus is not an American value. Attacking and occupying other nations other than in selfdefense, completely in violation of our treaty obligations and international law, is not an American value. Allowing our President and his administration to mislead our Congress and the American people into a disastrous war is not an American value. Allowing government to listen in on people’s conversations without a warrant is not an American value. The assertion by a president of dictatorial power, beyond our Constitution, beyond the Congress, and beyond the courts, is not an American value."
Fear must be more powerful than I recognized. Even mind altering it seems.........at least to some...
Salt Lake City Mayor: Impeach Bush
BLITZER: And joining us now is the mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson.
Mr. Mayor, thanks very much for coming in.
ANDERSON: Hi, Wolf. It's my pleasure.
BLITZER: When I heard your speech on Saturday -- I was watching C-SPAN -- I was pretty shocked to hear that the mayor of Salt Lake City is calling for the impeachment of the president.
Why should this president be impeached?
ANDERSON: Well, this is a unique time in our nation's history.
I think, if impeachment were ever justified, this certainly is the time. This president, by engaging in such incredible abuses of power, breaches of trust with both the Congress and the American people, and misleading us in to this tragic, unbelievable war, the violation of treaties, other international law, our Constitution, our own domestic law, and then his role in heinous human rights abuses, I think all of that, together, calls for impeachment...
BLITZER: All right.
ANDERSON: ... and certainly would communicate to the rest of the world, that is not who we are, as the American people.
BLITZER: Here's what the Constitution says, Article 2, Section 4: "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Let's go through these specifics. I assume you don't believe he -- he engaged in treason?
ANDERSON: No. We're talking about high crimes and misdemeanors. And what the founders and those who engaged in the ratification debate had clearly in mind -- and this was derived from the British -- is that these are political crimes, abuses of power.
During the debate, they even talked about a president lying to Congress would constitute grounds for impeachment. So, what this president has done, in violation of our laws -- they -- they never contemplated it would have to be a violation of the criminal law, but abuses of power injurious to our nation.
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: And we have got it in spades. There's never been a time when impeachment was more appropriate than now.
BLITZER: You say he's lied to the American people; he's lied to Congress.
What are you referring to specifically?
ANDERSON: Well, he misled us into this war. The president...
BLITZER: Well, it's one thing to misled. But it's another thing to say he lied.
ANDERSON: Well, he knew. He had the national intelligence estimates where the State Department's own intelligence agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told him that they completely disagreed, as did his Department of Energy, with this whole notion that those aluminum tubes that Saddam Hussein was acquiring could be used to build a nuclear capability.
The State Department's own intelligence bureau made clear four months -- this was in an October 1, 2002, national intelligence estimate, said that there is no compelling evidence he's building up a nuclear capability.
BLITZER: But he points out -- he points out, Mr. Mayor, that the then director of the CIA, George Tenet, when he pressed them and said, are you sure that there are weapons ever mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the then CIA director told him, "It's a slam-dunk, Mr. President."
So, if you hear that from the head of the CIA, and you're president, what are you supposed to do?
ANDERSON: Well, what I would do is, if I had the State Department's own intelligence agency telling me just exactly the opposite, and they put it in writing, and they said that they found it highly dubious -- those were their words -- this whole notion that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger, if I had that information, I would feel like I have either got to clear it up and get everybody on board, make sure we have consensus, or you have got to disclose that to Congress and the American people.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Why do you believe the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has taken impeachment off the table?
ANDERSON: I think it has more to do with politics and a very short-term look at what they need to do. And I think that they have got 2008 clearly in view.
I think the Democratic Party, frankly, has been incredibly timid, and I think that there's a lot of culpability certainly with Congress and certainly with many of the Democrats in Congress.
BLITZER: You're really going after not only the president and the vice president, but some of your fellow Democrats. You are basically saying, they don't have the guts to step up and impeach the president.
ANDERSON: Well, I think that's -- I think that's clear beyond anybody's speculations.
It's -- the fact that anybody would say that impeachment is off the table, when we have a president who has been so egregious in his violations of our Constitution, a president who -- who asserts a unitary executive power, that is absolutely chilling.
BLITZER: Rocky Anderson is the mayor of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Mayor, thanks for coming in.
ANDERSON: Thanks, Wolf. Good talking to you.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/19/sitroom.02.html
>>>I dont follow party labels<<<
I know.......but Ron Paul does or he wouldn't run as a republican. That's the problem as I see it.
>>>Ron Paul is not really a republican as we know republicans in the 21st century.<<<
No matter how different he is he will inherit the triple G base which will demand a lot of attention. They always do and he can't ignore 30% of his support. Also........if he's that different, why run as a republican and not as an independent or as the leader of a new party like the moderates or something? Only 45% voted in 2004, many of them holding their nose. Add the 55% who don't bother at all and you got a huge pool of voters waiting for something worth getting out of bed for.
>>>His power would come from the same area's that carried Reagan to victory in 1980.<<<
Wouldn't it come from the you know what 30% also? They'll vote for anything that's against D and as we know, they make a lot of noise that's tough for the party to ignore.
All they care is that their idols must be protected. Bush servants are beyond reproach and if one of them is found guilty of not being perfect it's obviously a mistake or due to dishonesty on someone's part. Valerie Plame had the poor taste of speaking her mind about a couple of them last week and the immediate response was that she obviously perjured herself. Not only were they convinced of that but they also couldn't figure out how someone could be stupid enough to think otherwise.
Odd response to say the least, even by your standards. What's wrong? "The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity" hit too close to home?
You're delusional......plain and simple. You mouth off with garbage you call "logic and conclusions" but when asked to support it with facts and quotes you run for cover and say you can't search old posts.
Bottom line is that my desire to have Bush administration officials busted pales in comparison to your desire to apologize for and justify their behavior. You're one of these eddy. Any and all doubts have been removed:
The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity
And the ultimate expression of faux, empty, masculine courage and power is, of course, the Commander-in-Chief himself -- the Glorious Leader whom John Podhoretz hailed in the title of his worshippful cult book as The First Great Leader of the 21st Century -- with the ranch hats and brush-clearing pants and flight-suit outfits that would make the Village People seethe with jealousy over his costume choices. Just behold this poster which was a much in-demand item at past CPAC events (h/t Digby), which makes as clear as can be how these Bush followers have tried to idealize their Leader:
That laughable absurdity really reveals the heart of this movement. It is a cult of contrived masculinity whereby people dress up as male archtypes like cowboys, ranchers, and tough guys even though they are nothing of the kind -- or prance around as Churchillian warriors because they write from a safe and protected distance about how great war is -- and in the process become triumphant heroes and masculine powerful icons and strong leaders. They and their followers triumph over the weak, effete, humiliated Enemy, and thereby become powerful and exceptional and safe.
John Dean and Bob Altemeyer have both documented this dynamic as clearly and convincingly as can be. People who feel weak and vulnerable crave strong leaders to protect them and to enable them to feel powerful. And those same people crave being part of a political movement that gives them those sensations of power, strength, triumph and bravery -- and they need a strong, powerful, masculine Leader to enable those feelings. And they will devote absolute loyalty to any political movement which can provide them with that.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/06/cult/index.html
>>>LOL, liberal logic says that multiple trips to the GJ, without an indictment = guilty<<<
Backwards as usual eddy. Multiple trips to the GJ means a person knows something about a case. The point is.........why did we have to find out about Rove's involvement drip by drip over three years when Bush promised - 3 1/2 years ago - he would deal with it internally and get on with business? He had no idea his closest advisor was involved?
This went well beyond Armitage. The trial put Cheney right in the middle of it which is what Libby tried to fix by lying. Then there's Rove - Bush's closest advisor who had to go before the grand jury 4 times to avoid being charged. And you think Bush went all out to get to the bottom of this?
>>>But as we all know Brain, the bottom line is it's Bush's fault.<<<
Three and a half years ago:
"President Bush: “Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.” [Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=253619&
Seriously.......are you impressed with the way Bush got "his" administration staff to cooperate on this? If he were a real leader and had an ounce of integrity he would have gotten the facts out in a matter of weeks and may have spared tax payers a two year long trial.
>>>so armitage tells novak, so libby gets convicted of outing plame?<<<
Libby got busted trying to cover up, not for outing Plame. What I don't get is why Armitage wasn't charged with leaking classified information and why Novak was barely asked why he published the article despite being told by the CIA it would do damage to the agency and one of its agents.
>>>no, i meant armitage then told whom?<<<
Armitage was Novak's original source. Looks like he got the info from a classified report.
"Armitage told newspaper columnist Robert D. Novak in the summer of 2003 that Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war, worked for the CIA, the colleague said. In October of that year, Armitage admitted to senior State Department officials that he had made the remark, which was based on a classified report he had read."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801278.html
>>>but if it also said in who's who that plame worked for cia,<<<
It didn't. Only identified her by name....not by profession
"In that column Novak also claims to have learned Mrs. Wilson's maiden name "Valerie Plame" from his entry in Who's Who In America,[35] though it was her CIA status rather than her maiden name which was a secret."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
>>>do you know the actual detail and timing of the disclosure?<<<
Trader already posted the original disclosure so I'll just add some context:
"Two government officials have told the FBI that conservative columnist Robert Novak was asked specifically not to publish the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his now-famous July 14 newspaper column. The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources."
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/waas-m-02-12.html
>>>everyone knows she worked at the CIA.<<<
Who's "everyone"?
....the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community." (Pat Fitzgerald)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28text-fitz.html?ex=1174363200&en=29bfcebcd65e8f7f&am...
"NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell is claiming that her comments have been deliberately distorted in reports covering a 2003 interview where she said Valerie Plame's identity had been "widely known" before her name appeared in a Robert Novak column.
"The fact is that I did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column," she told radio host Don Imus on Thursday"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/10/91245.shtml
>>>plame was outed. this destoyed the security of the usa far worse than anything saddam had done<<<
Probably not, but then......neither you, nor I or any other civilian on earth will ever know what if any damage was done. But that's completely beside the point which is that a "war president" and his administration who call national security and support for those who serve the nation's # 1 priorities destroyed a covert CIA agent with a key role in the war on terror for purely political reasons. What does that tell you about their real priorities if you can be honest about it?
>>>Darth Cheney, who has all the charisma of a toad, all the character of a jackal, and all the intelligence of an amoeba, still has an approval rating of 34%. Something wrong here.<<<
A bunch of weaklings and cowards looking for protection in all the wrong places.......that's what's wrong.
The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity
And the ultimate expression of faux, empty, masculine courage and power is, of course, the Commander-in-Chief himself -- the Glorious Leader whom John Podhoretz hailed in the title of his worshippful cult book as The First Great Leader of the 21st Century -- with the ranch hats and brush-clearing pants and flight-suit outfits that would make the Village People seethe with jealousy over his costume choices. Just behold this poster which was a much in-demand item at past CPAC events (h/t Digby), which makes as clear as can be how these Bush followers have tried to idealize their Leader:
That laughable absurdity really reveals the heart of this movement. It is a cult of contrived masculinity whereby people dress up as male archtypes like cowboys, ranchers, and tough guys even though they are nothing of the kind -- or prance around as Churchillian warriors because they write from a safe and protected distance about how great war is -- and in the process become triumphant heroes and masculine powerful icons and strong leaders. They and their followers triumph over the weak, effete, humiliated Enemy, and thereby become powerful and exceptional and safe.
John Dean and Bob Altemeyer have both documented this dynamic as clearly and convincingly as can be. People who feel weak and vulnerable crave strong leaders to protect them and to enable them to feel powerful. And those same people crave being part of a political movement that gives them those sensations of power, strength, triumph and bravery -- and they need a strong, powerful, masculine Leader to enable those feelings. And they will devote absolute loyalty to any political movement which can provide them with that.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/06/cult/index.html
>>>She knows, and the dems know that the CIA is not about to release that information.<<<
Reading your excuses for the Bush mob really brings fanaticism to new levels. Now that your main talking point about Plame has been crushed, all that's left is to insist she naturally committed perjury in front of congress.
You can't seriously believe that WH lawyers couldn't get confirmation from the CIA on whether Plame served overseas at any time during the 5 years preceding the outing? They wouldn't have to reveal where she was or what she was doing, only confirm that she spent time overseas in covert capacity. But you're still convinced she lied about it under oath so she can sell books? What good would book sales do her if she sat in a prison cell after lying to congress, and what extra sales would that lie bring? She has a good story with or without it.
Shouting........language? I thought I was pretty restrained considering the idiocy I was replying to. And deep down you seem to agree with me since your only objection was about volume and choice of words.
>>>Rove still holds a security clearance<<<
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday he welcomes a Justice Department investigation into who revealed the classified identity of a CIA operative.
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
>>>when she repeated (and repeated) "not covert under the law and I drafted the law"<<<
Toensing's a vindictive, rightwing gasbag that was front and center of the Clinton impeachment. She's in the business of destroying lives of people who get in the way of american fascism and what's tastier than a female blond who not only opposes the Bush doctrine but also makes Toensing look like an old mule in comparison? All this bitch has been pinning her hopes on is Plame's lack of overseas duty during the 5 years prior to the outing but even that was thrown back in her face today.
Cheer up hap. The good news is that the Bush WH has so many scandals working now that they can actually use some to distract from others and just keep cycling depending on where the heat is. How many presidents can brag about that kind of a political apparatus?
>>>How naive that you would think that just because an interested party in an investigation makes an oath, that the matter should be settled based on that.<<<
Hard to believe you wrote that without feeling foolish but I guess you're just plain tapped out of excuses now except that. What a great theory. A career CIA agent goes in front of congress and live TV cameras, takes her oath a then tells bald faced lies about issues her former employer can confirm or deny in minutes.
>>>Yep, she was deep undercover while she punched in daily in Virginia<<<
So to Bush loyalists a CIA agent can be just a little bit or a little more undercover depending on where on planet earth they are located at the moment? If he's on a park bench in Russia reading a newspaper with see through holes he's big time undercover but when he returns to headquarters to write his report at his desk he's not really that much undercover anymore. I understand....
>>>I guess you probably missed the testimony of Toensing- who actually WROTE the statute in question- who testified that there was no way in hell an outing occured<<<
Toensing is an ultra partisan rightwing lawyer with an ax to grind. It's also a fact that she can't possibly have access to all details regarding Plame's CIA personal file since it's classified. Pretty astonishing but not really surprising that you would take her word over the agent's own testimony under oath regarding her own covert status.
>>>How naive that you would think that just because an interested party in an investigation makes an oath, that the matter should be settled based on that.<<<
If testimony under oath in front of congress doesn't settle it, then what will?
>>>The chart - taken from the "Scooter" Libby trial - showing how many times WH operatives Cheney, Rove, Libby, etc. systematically revealed VP's identity was chilling<<<
Another thing she confirmed - under oath - was the she played a key role in the war on terror - gathering intelligence on WMD proliferation. Which begs the question: why would a WH that's made the w.o.t. it's banner issue destroy - with total indifference - an entire intelligence network central to a war they say we're fighting for our survival? Sure looks like they see the war more as a political instrument than an operation to make us safer.
As Bush Sr. put it:
"We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. (Applause)
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html
"The most insidious of traitors" and Bush Jr's WH is littered with them.
In case you weren't watching eddy........Valerie Plame just testified in congress - under oath - to the fact that she WAS a covert agent at the time of the outing and that she WAS assigned to overseas covert duty within 5 years of being outed.
Under normal circumstances this should be the end of such a story but since we're dealing with rightwing wackjobs here I'm sure you can find someone who'll still insist she was just a Washington secretary.
>>>Patriotism is not the issue.<<<
Of course not........except when you accuse people left and right of wanting america to lose you're also accusing them of rooting for the enemy which is what traitors do. Treason is not unpatriotic?
GOP strategist: "Gonzales finished"
"More Republicans called for his ouster, and one Republican strategist close to the White House told CBS News that Gonzales is "finished."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/politics/main2572891.shtml
>>>but you have never stated your strategy for victory<<<
Nobody has a sure strategy for victory. At this point it's a matter of recognizing that what's been going on for 4 years isn't working so it's time for something different.
>>>you clearly don't want the United States to suceed in the war against violent Islam. Why???<<<
Every Bush republican posting here keep repeating that line but nobody can back it up. Quote me on anything I said since I registered here 4 1/2 years ago that suggests I want america to lose.
>>>What I don't understand is why you want the United States to lose.<<<
The reason you don't understand that is because it's a rightwing talking point with no basis in fact. I'll try to explain:
You.......support a military operation that's been going on for longer than WW II and is still losing against a third world country that owns neither an armored vehicle or a military aircraft.
Me........support a different strategy that may offer some hope for progress to begin with and maybe victory however that's defined in this case.
Why is my position less patriotic than yours?
>>>Trader77... good post!//<<<
Part of what you liked so much:
"You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters... to continue the fight."
So attempting a different strategy in Iraq after 4 years of miserable failure will lead to everyone else involved in the war on terror around the world to quit? You thought that was a good point made by Cheney?
>>>Tenet said they informed Pakistan a few hours in advance, Clinton said it was only minutes. Whatever time it was, it was enough for Bin Laden & co. to escape. That was the incompetent part.<<<
It's my understanding that they had no choice but to inform Pakistan since US missiles targeting Afghanistan could have been mistaken for Indian missiles targeting Pakistan. Not sure you can call an attempt to prevent war between two nuclear powers incompetence. I think a better question is: What kind of an ally in the war on terror is Pakistan if their top government officials have a hotline to bin Laden's cave and keep him up to date on US intelligence?
President George W. Bush welcomes Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to the Oval Office, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006. White House photo by Kimberlee Hewitt
>>>It would be funny if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee. I might actually vote republican.<<<
Had a little talk with cimi about this a couple of weeks ago. I like Paul too but how do you ignore his affiliation with a party that over the past decade has made a mockery of the entire US political system and played a major role in getting a bogus war started and supported? Since Paul seems to have no qualms about maintaining his republican label you have to think he's for the most part ok with how his party has been operating or his conscience would force him to switch parties or turn independent. I know what he says but the fact that he's still a republican means something.
No politician operates in a vacuum regardless of party. For a president, you may in a best case scenario get 50% of the individual's personal agenda but the second half inevitably goes to the party backing him. And that's why I won't cast a vote for anybody "R" until a top to bottom cleansing of the party is complete.
>>>Clinton was the catalyst. I however don't blame America, so I don't fault Clinton for the bombings, only for the incompetent way they were carried out.<<<
Sounds like you think Clinton had the right idea attacking Afghanistan but was let down by poor execution which in turn may have emboldened Al Qaeda. So who do you blame for a poorly executed attack or the lack of outright war with Afghanistan? The CIC, the CIA, politics or public opinion?
"But Democrats and Republicans alike told a bipartisan commission Tuesday that neither U.S. nor world opinion would have stood for such aggression before the fall of 2001. It was only after the Sept. 11 attacks that public opinion here and abroad changed enough to make an invasion politically possible.
U.S. popular opinion would not have supported an Afghan war. Clinton had been harshly criticized for sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan after al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. The strikes came soon after Clinton's admission that he had lied about his relationship with a White House intern, and political opponents accused him of trying to divert public attention from the scandal. Clinton faced similar charges in December 1998 when the United States bombed Iraq and was also criticized for the air war against Serbia in 1999 that was intended to stop ethnic killings in the province of Kosovo."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-war-analysis_x.htm
>>>Given that, do you now think the bombings had anything to do with it?<<<
Like i said......everything points to the planning starting well before the Clinton bombings but I guess you have to assume that Al Qaeda types have at least this much in common with regular folks: Drop bombs on them and it will piss 'em off.
>>>Why hasn't al Qaeda ever attacked Israel?<<<
How do you know they haven't?
>>>What specific U.S. policies do you think were critical in al Qaeda's decision to attack us on 9/11?<<<
You like to quote Bin Laden but for some reason you don't seem to like this quote of his even though he's addressing your question.
"He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
>>>Do you think Clinton's bombing campaign was a catalyst?<<<
No I don't for the simple reason that plans for the attack were already well underway in August 1998.
1992 - Mohammed Atta arrives in Germany.
1994 - Planning on Operation Bojinka begins in the Philippines.
1995 - Operation Bojinka foiled, Said Bahaji and Ramzi Binalshibh arrive in Germany.
1996 - Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah arrive in Germany.
1997 - Zakariyah Essabar arrives in Germany.
1998 - Recruitment of terrorists in Germany starts.
1999 - Hamburg cell is fully formed.
2000 - 2000 al-Qaeda Summit in Malaysia, pilots head to the United States and train in flying schools.
2001 - Remaining hijackers go to the United States, Zacarias Moussaoui comes to the United States and is arrested, other cell members flee Germany.
2001 - Financial Support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks
>>>The reason this converesation is going nowhere is because we've gotten way off topic.<<<
I disagree. It's about motivation and I don't buy your idea that america just happened to get in the middle of a worldwide cleansing of infidels. If that's what it is, why don't they get on with it? France, Denmark and Sweden for example have huge muslim and christian populations but no problems with terrorism. Instead......all public statements by Al Qaeda clearly focus on the US but you see no pattern other than worldwide jihad against non-muslims?
>>>Which policies in particular do you think led to us getting attacked?<<<
Let's just say that the love story with Israel probably hasn't helped. Bin Laden said as much himself. He also said Al Qaeda doesn't mess with countries who don't mess with muslim interests and that seems to be true.
>>>Why do you dismiss all quotes that don't fit your hypothesis?<<<
You're wrong about that. I keep using one of your quotes repeatedly. The one where he expresses hate for christians.