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.
>>>A world free of religion would certainly have no heaven. But there would be plenty of hell<<<
Sounds like you got it exactly backwards. Plenty of hell holes on earth already and they're all religious hell holes.
>>>Clinton had his chances and missed.<<<
John McLaughlin helped run the CIA in both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
"JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: President Clinton did aggressively pursue Osama bin Laden. I give the Clinton administration a lot of credit for the aggressiveness with which they went after al Qaeda and bin Laden."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/24/cnr.04.html
"Clarke told me that in the mid-nineties “the C.I.A. was authorized to mount operations to go into Afghanistan and apprehend bin Laden.” President Clinton, Clarke said, “was really gung-ho” about the scenario. “He had no hesitations,” he said. “But the C.I.A. had hesitations. They didn’t want their own people killed. And they didn’t want their shortcomings exposed. They really didn’t have the paramilitary capability to do it; they could not stage a snatch operation.” Instead of trying to mount the operation themselves, Clarke said, “the C.I.A. basically paid a bunch of local Afghans, who went in and did nothing.”
In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation, Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and said they had “specific, predictive, actionable” intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. “It was a rare occurrence,” Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however—August 20, 1998—nearly coincided with Clinton’s deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of “wagging the dog” in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. “Don’t you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,” Clinton said, according to Clarke. “You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?” Clarke thought it was. “Then fucking do it,” Clinton told him.
The attacks, which cost seventy-nine million dollars and involved some sixty satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles, obliterated two targets—a terrorist training camp outside Khost, in Afghanistan, and a pharmaceutical plant thought to be manufacturing chemical weapons in Khartoum, Sudan—and were notorious failures. “The best post-facto intelligence we had was that bin Laden had left the training camp within an hour of the attack,” Clarke said. What went wrong? “I have reason to believe that a retired head of the I.S.I. was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda that an attack was coming,” he said.
Clarke also blames the military for enabling the Pakistanis to compromise the mission. “The Pentagon did what we asked them not to,” he said. “We asked them not to use surface ships. We asked them to use subs, so they wouldn’t signal the attack. But not only did they use surface ships—they brought additional ones in, because every captain wants to be able to say he fired the cruise missile.”
Asad Hayauddin denies that anyone in Pakistan even had enough knowledge to compromise the mission: “The U.S. didn’t tell us about it until forty-five minutes before the missiles hit.”
After the 1998 fiasco, Clinton secretly approved additional Presidential findings, authorizing the killing not just of bin Laden but also of several of his top lieutenants, and permitting any private planes or helicopters carrying them to be shot down. These directives led to nothing. “The C.I.A. was unable to carry out the mission,” Clarke said. “They hired local Afghans to do it for them again.” The agency also tried to train and equip a Pakistani commando force and some Uzbeks, too. “The point is, they were risk-averse,” he said. Tenet was “eager to kill bin Laden,” Clarke said. “He understood the threat. But the capability of the C.I.A.’s Directorate of Operations was far less than advertised. The Directorate of Operations would like people to think it’s a great James Bond operation, but for years it essentially assigned officers undercover as diplomats to attend cocktail parties. They collected information. But they were not a commando unit that could go into Afghanistan and kill bin Laden.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030804fa_fact
>>>Timmy Kicking more neocon azzzz..<<<
The liberal media has been effective in protecting the public from that guy. Never saw him utter a word on network TV. Never heard of him actually and I don't miss much political news.
I'm on the same side as you dimwit which is why it's so hard to spell it out. Too humiliating....
>>>So whose side are you on, seabass?<<<
I've already asked you to produce anything I ever said here that indicates support for SH or terrorism in general which you failed to do. That doesn't answer your question? Siding with america doesn't mean wholesale approval of every policy. Support is not the same as cheerleading as Bush republicans seem to think. If you have kids, do you tell them how great they are no matter what they do? You think that's supportive?
you're a joke. This is the best the RNC can do for surrogates pimping the Bush doctrine? You got all the right talking points but can't seem to make them all come together in a coherent message. Can't you get someone to help?
Find a quote of mine where I even remotely show support for SH and then post it here.
>>>They found plenty.<<<
Oh, so in your last post you said Bush had to start the war because the inspectors weren't allowed in and now you say the inspectors who weren't allowed in "found plenty". Don't know that you had much credibility to start with but whatever it amounted to is fading quickly. Maybe less attention to name calling and insults and more attention to facts and common knowledge would help you look less foolish?
Started with nosey who said there's zero evidence of Bush lying us into war. Bush gave the speech with the mushroom cloud crap long after he had received plenty of intelligence to the exact contrary, i.e. no credible nuclear threat and certainly no clear evidence of imminent danger of a nuclear attack.
>>>Well that's a lot different than saying a NUCLEAR detonation is imminent, is it not?<<<
Wouldn't say it's a lot different.
per·il (pĕr'əl)
n.
Imminent danger.
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Translation: Facing clear evidence of imminent danger in the form of what may well be a nuclear bomb. How do you interpret it any other way?
That has nothing to do with your assertion that war could have been avoided if inspectors had been allowed in. They were allowed in and found NOTHING.
>>>From intelligence agencies, seabass. They get briefed just like the president, not from the president.<<<
You missed the point........not surprisingly. Of course they get briefed by intelligence agencies but who do these intelligence agencies answer to ultimately? Lowly senators or the CIC, the VP and the secretary of defense?
"Multiple visits to the CIA by the United States Vice-President, Dick Cheney, created an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments on Iraq fit with Bush Administration policy objectives, intelligence officials said.
They said Mr Cheney and his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, questioned analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda. Mr Cheney took the lead in the Administration last August in advocating military action against Iraq by claiming it had weapons of mass destruction.
The visits "sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here", one agency official said."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/05/1054700335400.html
"By April of last year," he said, "I was beginning to pick up grumblings from friends inside the intelligence community that there had been pressure applied to analysts to come up with certain conclusions. Specifically, I was told that analysts were pressured to find an operational link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. One analyst, in particular, told me they were repeatedly pressured by the most senior officials in the Department of Defense."
Johnson added, "In an e-mail exchange with another friend, I raised the possibility that `the Bush administration had bought into a lie.' My friend, who works within the intelligence community, challenged me on the use of the word, `bought,' and suggested instead that the Bush administration had created the lie."
http://www.fcnp.com/349/comm2.htm
>>>It also needs to be said... and said often it seems, that the Democrats making these statements believed them to be true having been shown highly classified and it turns out, highly "falsified" information.<<<
Good point. The press and the democrats have been ineffective in countering Bush's argument that everyone had the same intelligence to base their decision on.
>>>Edwards came to the conclusion himself on the Senate Intelligence committee.<<<
and the Senate Intelligence committee get their intelligence from where?
>>>That's the thing about liberals, they INVENT crap. BTW, all Saddam had to do to avoid the war was let the UN inspectors in and do their job.<<<
Priceless. You rant about liberals inventing crap and then insist the war could have been avoided if UN weapons inspectors had been allowed into Iraq.
This update on the inspection effort was given on January 28, 2003, 2 months after the inspections began and 7 weeks before Bush told the inspectors to get the hell out of his way so he could start dropping bombs.
"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
In other words, you have it exactly backwards. George Bush could have avoided the war had he allowed the inspectors to stay on the job.
>>>John Edwards said IMMINENT and Weapons of Mass Destruction. He did not specify chemical, biological, or nuclear.<<<
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? Bush was the only one who specifically referred to the threat as a nuclear threat. You think talking about WMD in general terms and warning about imminent mushroom clouds have the same impact on the population? That's basically what you're arguing.
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Fourth time.........show me someone other than Bush who described an imminent threat of a NUCLEAR attack against america. I know you're having problems but i'm patient.
>>>Now has no bearing on the reasons given then.<<<
"Now" will have a different meaning in January when Bush no longer controls both houses. For instance, phase 2 of the pre-war intelligence investigation will see daylight no matter what George Bush tells Pat Roberts to do.
"The committee has released two of its five so-called "Phase II" investigations that delve more deeply into issues regarding pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Still to come is the most potentially explosive: Comparing the pre-war statements of government officials with the intelligence available at the time."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16133751.htm
"Why is it taking the Senate intelligence committee forty times longer to examine how the Bush administration used--or misused--the prewar intelligence on Iraq and WMDs than it took for the United States military to topple Saddam Hussein?
But the intelligence committee, led by Republican Senator Pat Roberts, has dilly-dallied for two-and-a-half years when it has come to reviewing how George W. Bush and his top aides represented--or misrepresented--the WMD intelligence as they led (or misled) the nation to war."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=106967
For the third time.........imminent NUCLEAR threat. Nobody but Bush went that far. Instead of repeating the same worthless argument, show me a quote by anyone but Bush that describes an imminent nuclear threat. This is not a mere technicality but something that changed a lot of votes in congress and got the war resolution passed. Or in plain english.........Bush lied to congress (and the american people) in order to get his war resolution.
>>>Look at Ted Kennedy's and Bill Clinton's quotes.<<<
I did and neither one describes an imminent threat of an Iraqi nuclear attack on america. Bush knew he needed more than just biological type WMD to get the war resolution so he took it one step further with a pack of lies. Lies that have been documented endlessly for the past 4 years so I don't know what you're arguing about.
>>>Anyone that states that Dubya lied about Iraq
after reading this link:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
is someone that either enjoys being ignorantor loves telling lies about people because he/she is full of blind hate.<<<
You're wrong....as usual. All the quotes in that link have one thing in common: They DON'T talk about "clear evidence of peril" from Iraqi nuclear weapons. That was the big lie that got this war started whether you have the brass to accept it or not.
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
per·il (pĕr'əl)
n.
Imminent danger.
As if Iraq had imminent access to a nuclear bomb and the capability to deliver it to the US continent. Given little choice, both houses passed the war resolution days later.
the Bush war slogan memorial...
>>>Every superpower is hated.<<<
Not on sep. 11, 2001. The whole world stood behind america and every country with a soldier to spare fought with us in Afghanistan. Goodwill like that is tough to come by and tough to lose but not for some people with special gifts....
Images From Around the World Mourning the Loss of Life Following the September 11, 2001 Attack on America.
http://www.september11news.com/InternationalImages.htm
"People in European and Muslim countries see US policy in Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear programme, a survey has shown."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm
>>>Maybe you should blame the enemy<<<
I blame the enemy for a lot of things but not for screwing up the war on terror and for shredding the constitution in the process. Face it........you're rooting for a loser with a losing strategy which should have been obvious for the past 5 years to all but the terminally stupid or those with more pride than guts.
Amazing how many people still prefer to make fools of themselves by making excuses for this fiasco and the clown in charge of the fiasco rather than admitting an error in judgement.
>>>My aim is correct, you're aim is blame America first.<<<
Rightwing bullshit at its best. I'm blaming the stupid morons that are in charge of the country - not the country itself. And if I hated america as much as you suggest, why would I care about Bush pissing on the constitution and giving anyone who complains the middle finger?
President Bush once again shows his true colors, saluting Americans before the passage of CAFTA.
>>>I'm not comparing the American gov't to Nazi Germany<<<
I wasn't either. I was comparing propaganda used by both governments. Judging by your comments here it works just as good in 2006 as it did in 1940. You haven't noticed yet that everything Bush told you about the terrorist threat post 9/11 have been fear inducing exaggerations at best and bald faced lies at worst? Like......"Al Qaeda is out to destroy our way of life". Right, except George Bush will take your bass boat and your sixpack of bud before Bin Laden gets it.
>>>There are going to be mass casualties just like WWII if the Muslim extremists set off a dirty bomb.<<<
Familiar with this quote?
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, In Politics/Nazism
So to get to the point..........the final solution to winning the w.o.t. is the elimination of one billion muslims? A slow systematic slaughter while the rest of the world just watches from the sidelines without objection?
>>>maybe then we'll be ready to play without gloves.<<<
Heard a lot about the kick-ass strategy but never heard a good explanation to how it will reduce the threat. Assuming playing without gloves means killing more muslims, how do you keep the survivors from turning on you like they already are? For each muslim you slaughter in occupied territory you create litters of muslims that want to slaughter americans. There's one BILLION of them out there with an estimated 10% being of radical grade. Unless you think killing them all is a viable plan, how do you see a military solution to this?
>>>the liberal media has repetitively told us that the war on terrorism is not worth winning.<<<
Never heard anything of the sort but if you did it was probably after Bush declared that the war on terror CAN'T be won.
"In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show, Mr. Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.
Asked "Can we win?" Mr. Mr. Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/31/politics/main639709.shtml
>>>Please list the part of the constitution that mandated economic equality<<<
Who said economic equality?
US Constitution - preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
How do you insure domestic tranquility and promote general welfare by systematically screwing the middle class in favor of billionaires? If you accept that the federal budget is a zero sum game, then whatever tax break you give Exxon will have to be made up somewhere else and that somewhere else has been the middle class for a long while now. And if you also accept that consumer consumption is the main driver of the economy, how do you make the case that flogging the average consumer is good policy?
I give him credit for snapping out of the trance though and admitting he got snarled. Many of them can't or won't do either.
>>>Gee, imagine that. Sounds SOOOOO oddly familiar.<<<
Good indication of how extreme things got and how painful the backlash is when some of the loudest shills are confessing in public.
Chris Matthews then:
"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842
Chris Matthews 12/12/06:
"MATTHEWS: You‘re a student of American life. You‘re very in active in politics, very successful. Do you think that it‘s scary that a president of the United States of limited ability was able to take this country and create a firestorm of almost messianic nuttiness about the fact of the French are no good, we‘re going to have freedom fries. The Dixie Chicks are no good. He created a national attitude of you have to be for me, or you‘re bad. Did that scare you a little?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16186985/
>>>Anybody who would like to talk to big bad brig. he's over here.<<<
with rawnoc.......naturally.
http://plsthx.com/Crazy_videos/1381_They_messed_with_the_wrong_guy.html
>>>One-liners are the result of desperation for those that can't face reality and discuss facts.<<<
exactly...
>>>Bush to Call for 20K MORE Troops to Iraq<<<
>>>how much international politics is involved in running a household???....<<<
You rave here about the Bush presidency. By YOUR definition, a president doesn't get much better than GW Bush which also means that by YOUR definition, successful international politics is NOT part of a successful presidency. Unless of course, the entire Washington conservative establishment has it wrong and you got it right.
Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy
"At a moment when his conservative coalition is already under strain over domestic policy, President Bush is facing a new and swiftly building backlash on the right over his handling of foreign affairs.
"It is Topic A of every single conversation," said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. "I don't have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801373_pf.html
William buckley Jr, grandfather of american conservatism says:
"And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."
Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml
>>>"deep violet" .. yummy .. umm nothing in violet ..<<<
actually that's a poor description by that critic. more like pouring black ink from a bottle........black ink with 15 % alcohol.
>>>Why were the sublevel basements blasted? Cars strewn everywhere, emergency doors blasted off their hinges, powerstation rooms destroyed. There is video of that. Just doesn't add up...<<<
Haven't seen those videos or read those reports but even if I had i would ask the same question as I asked last night that nobody had an answer to. If the government was involved in the attack, why would they risk exposing themselves by planting explosives throughout the towers? The attacks themselves gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted - not the fact that the towers collapsed. I've read more credible explanations to why the towers crumbled than I have to why so little was done to prevent the attacks despite a laundry list of warnings available to the Bush WH that something really big was imminent.
or chooks? bought a lot of this lately and really like it. Heard of it or is it spoils the americans can have?
http://www.b-21.com/prodinfo.asp?number=ABLCSH05AE