Off Topic Messages

Do you agree with what Cindy Sheehan is doing?

I totally agree that she is doing the right thing
13
41%
I understand her grief but she is going about it all wrong
9
28%
I think she's nuts and I'm tired of seeing her face on the news
10
31%
 
Total votes : 32

Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:01 am

genesim wrote: As it stand, when my country calls me, I will serve and not run like the lying lowlife you guys admire.


Who ever said I admired George W. Bush? Now who said that?!

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:38 am

genesim wrote:
What is so good about that one? Not only was it stolen from you puppet Jeff, but it was an idiotic stance to begin with. I am needed by my family and I have responsibilities toward them.


Its not like they won't pay you! They pay really good!

Hey Jeff and Doc...what about yours? Why aren't you down there picketing with Cindy? C'mon true believer's...just how many in your families do you have to support?? hmmmmm I am betting that my obligations are a little more then yours right now. Though just a guess.


I'm not a war protester, but I do think she has a right to protest. Yes, I'm sure your life is worth sooo much more than those real heros over there fighting this pointless war. That you support wholeheartedly.

Funny how you guys always talk of privacy, but you are the first to invade. As it stand, when my country calls me, I will serve and not run like the lying lowlife you guys admire. That is the difference. I carry my selective service card at all times, I await their call to me.


Why not exercise your right to use your card then... some of these men are going back for 2 and 3 tours of duty or more. Who is the lying low life draft dodger I admire? I can't really say I admire GWB, I just don't like some of his policies... but admire. :?

As it stands we are heavily armed with soldiers and despite the supposed dreadfully low amount(f*cking media hype BS) we have more then enough National Guard for even this catastrophe.


There may be enough(in your opinion) but they can always use more!

But you know what the funny part is...it is like saying well if you believe so much in fires being put out then why don't you become a fireman???


Maybe I am a fireman... do you know?

Not only are Doc and Jeff idiots for thinking this way, but ANYONE who have ever uttered the words! My personal decisions are my own and I shouldn't have to justify it to anyone. Doc and Jeff are carbon examples of people that continue to get personal because they have no basis for their views. They run out of ideas so they simply try for low blows.


Why would someone be considered an idiot? For signing up for something that they believe in... or just blowing smoke up everyones a** on an Elvis messageboard?

You support this war on no more of a level than anyone else here... we all support it by our tax dollars. The thing is your such a bigmOuth about it all..... YOU would think you would be up there to sign up first to go and be in there with your fellow Americans. Your just a blow hard nothing more nothing less... well like Doc says also a stump.

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:51 am

Who says you aren't a fireman? Are you really that dim? It is an example, nothing personal. Sometimes you even seem to have trouble with comprehending simple analogies. Anyone can see this looking at your history.

As far as my life not being worth what others are, well that isn't for you to decide is it? Oh wait, is this more of your death threats at bay.

For your information GWB served ACTIVE DUTY. Unlike your hero Clinton who served NOTHING.

Again, are you so dim as to not know the difference between someone who elists and serves vs a draft dodger who goes the further route by lying to a Colonol in respect to a postponed promise to serve?

You really are an ignorant person. Having to explain this is like teaching a child.

I'm not a war protester, but I do think she has a right to protest.


Who said she didn't? I sure as hell never wrote that. But looking at your stance...it still is funny to me that you are not protesting the war. I hear that pays good as well. Seems like you are quite the hyprocrite. Talking crap to me, and not backing up your own words. Where is your stance? At least I back up what I PAY FOR! You don't even have the nerve to go against it. You just keep paying. Instead you attack me personally for showing my support and yet you do NOTHING, like the coward you are. How are those glass houses?

No the facts are that I am a family man and I did not elist because it is past my time. Again, if I am called I will go, and it isn't up to you or Doc or anyone else to decide what I do with my life. That includes standing up for my beliefs. I do not have to fight, to show support for my family members and my friends that are over there right now.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:07 am

likethebike wrote:Quicker action against Hitler would have only possibly sped the end of the war. Hitler had a massive army by the time he invaded annexed Austria. The technical capabilities of the German army were the envy of the world. There'd have been a war it just would have been sooner. This was absolutely positively not even close to that case. Hussein was not an immediate threat to anyone. .


If Britain and France had blocked Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, when Nazi Germany was still weak, they would never have had to face the decision of whether to go to war in 1939, when Hitler commanded the most powerful armed forces in the world.
We have to recognize that we cannot remain indifferent to conflicts in the distant corners of the world. In the Moslem world, Islamic fundamentalism has replaced communism as the principal instrument of violent change. The revolutionary vision offered by radicals on the fringes of the Moslem world is just as enticing as communism, and just as destructive. The communist revolution appeals to man's material needs. The Moslem revolution appeals to his spiritual needs.
It's also vitally important that we don't allow the extremes of Moslem fundamentalism to blind us to the greatness of of the Moslem heritage. The same religion that produced Qaddafi and Khomeini produced Avicenna and Averroes, two of the greatest philosophers in history.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:35 am

At the risk of being drawn into this conversation (and, really, I'm kind
of in the middle), I have to admit to being quite skeptical
about Ms. Sheehan's media circus, as well as her clearly partisan
background and her MOVEON.ORG funding, etc.

That said, I really don't have a problem with her showing her grief and especially using the media to spotlight the problems of how
this war is going. As was said, it's not their job to parrot the administration
and a little independence, even now, is welcome, at the risk, as they
say, of undermining the troops. If they ignored her story (however
false some of it rings), that should concern anyone who values a free
press.

So let's face it: the Iraq War hardly a smashing success. You don't have
to be anti-war to admit that.

Scatter, Genesim, GG, chris, Pete, etc.: I, too, have a "let's win the war"
attitude and even have the "Patton" DVD on my shelf from the library,
which I look forward to watching this week. I'm a hawk on terrorism,
too.

But to act like President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, etc. have
done a good job with even imagining this invasion seems like a
stretch. I've said this a lot lately here: even conservatives
are questioning this war: its motivation, its execution, etc.

And for anyone to resort to silly and frankly dated stereotypes of
LTB and even DJC as "hippies (does anyone really know them?) is
simply mudslinging and besides the point. And even if I abhored
their views, I respect them as fellow Elvis fans. Let's be civil. "Let's
Be Friends." :D

I'm not saying the peace / leftie crowd doesn't earn its ridicule,
but even here one should be able to sense the intelligence of LTB
and Doc and Jeff as well.

If nothing else, "Cindy" has sparked a long-brewing debate over the
war. Maybe the media is just bored because it is August, but
I like a good debate and hope you'll all continue it.

I'm concerned that Iraq will be left worse than it was before
the invasion, gentlemen. We in many "broke it" and now must
fix and finish it. But will we have a civil war on our hands? Is that
constitution ever going to fly ? Should another American die for this war?
(The spectre of another "failed" US war does in fact bother me...)

Moreover, Bush's repeated attempts to link this war to 9/11 (and yes,
I know the Jihadists are there: we mint them daily with our presence)
rings false given his failure to protect U.S. borders.

Carry on, gents. I truly hope Genesim is right. We must somehow
"win" this war - and then come home. And if we "win," you know
we will want a permanent base military base there.

Like I said, a complete mess. Any student of history knows what
happens to empires. The U.S. as a republic should be wary of
imperialism and empire-building and take heed from the lessons
of ancient Rome. I like to flex my muscles as much as anyone
but to play bully-boy on every foreign affair is to guarentee a
future upset. The American people don't really deserve the backlash
that I fear the President is brewing for us for decades to come.

I pray Genesim is right. :shock:

We need to somehow put Humpty-Dumpty back together again
(and who knows? Given the right resources, in theory, it's actually
possible (see David Brooks column in sunday's NY Times), then come on home.

If nothing else, this is a budget-buster. Is it really worth it,
guys? That's a whole lot of red-ink, and for it to succeed, Iraq
is going to have to become our 51st state, with all the funding
that goes along with that, to say nothing of lives. It's clear
that we've upset the apple cart: we may just have to let
this tribes duke it out themselves. :roll: Some "victory."

Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:32 am

genesim wrote:No the facts are that I am a family man and I did not elist because it is past my time.

Past your time? Are you over 90?

Your statement mirrors the hypocrites running the White House. You talk big, but when it's time to back it up, you disappear.

As expected.

DJC

Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:37 am

Good post, Greg! We live in a country where everyone can voice his/her own opinions. We should be able to do this without the general animosity that some of us are showing here. I think that Mrs. Sheehan has every right to mourn her son in any way she wishes. I was living when the Viet Nam war was being fought. I had some cousins and a brother who were eligible for the draft. My brother enlisted in the navy. It would have torn my heart out if he had been killed. I would not have gotten over it to this day. He came home safely, Thank God. I also had some uncles who were killed or injured in WWII. I can remember to this day, the grief of my father when his brother came home in a casket. I had never seen him crying in such anguish. I remember it even if I was only a toddler. My uncle was returned quite awhile after the war was over. We are talking about DEATH. The guys in the field who die in the Middle East will never be able to have a family depend upon them.

I also think that our country, being less than two and one-half centuries old, has gotten very arrogant because we have had such power. That power is being diminished, sometimes by our own folly, and sometimes because other countries are being craftier. We really should think twice, maybe one hundred times before we commit ourselves to actions which cannot be taken back. I love my country more than you can know, but sometimes we are wrong. A lot of the times we are right.

Some of your posts are a little unclear to me: GG says:


and Pearl Harbor was bombed by Asian-Americans
.

So, some of our Americans of Asian descent sneaked over to Japan, stole their Zeros, and proceeded to bomb Pearl Harbor? Now I get why the others were put into relocation camps! They were probably going to do the same thing!

Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:42 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
genesim wrote:No the facts are that I am a family man and I did not elist because it is past my time.

Past your time? Are you over 90?

Your statement mirrors the hypocrites running the White House. You talk big, but when it's time to back it up, you disappear.

As expected.

DJC


You hear that Doc....sheeeewww that was my last post breezing right over you head.

Where are you sitting? Do you have a family to support? Why aren't you at the Protest George Bush Jr. front lines?

It was an assinine view the first time you repeated it from your brother Jeff and it is now as well.

Lets get one thing straight, I never once said that Cindy didn't have a right to protest. Does this mean I have no right to criticize her for doing it? What about my freedom? It seems that all to many want to take that away because I don't "back it up" by going out on the front lines???? Funny coming from people that supported Bill Clinton to begin with. :lol: :lol:

Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:22 am

Graceland Gardener wrote:and Pearl Harbor was bombed by Asian-Americans

silver wrote:So, some of our Americans of Asian descent sneaked over to Japan, stole their Zeros, and proceeded to bomb Pearl Harbor? Now I get why the others were put into relocation camps! They were probably going to do the same thing!

Ouch!

Such cogent observations from this guy are nothing new, Sue.

DJC

Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:09 am

No one is saying we should be indifferent to happenings in the Middle East just that it was a mistake to enter this conflict.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:30 am

genesim wrote:
This lady should be arrested for stalking.


Yea, you say you never said she didn't have a right protest... BUT she should be arrested for stalking? :roll: moron... you probably think she's stalking you.

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:36 am

genesim wrote: Funny coming from people that supported Bill Clinton to begin with. :lol: :lol:


Clinton & Bush got out of going to a war they didn't believe in... why someone wouldn't sign up for a war they so wholeheartedly believed in is beyond me.... oh yea you have a family to support... like those guys over there don't either! Or could it be because they are just another internet blowhard.

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:01 am

Isn't it about time we retired this idea that the invasion of Iraq was even remotely connected to any great humanitarian purpose? The liberation of Iraq and the spread of democracy only became justifications after weapons of mass destruction were not found. And weapons of mass destruction were the prod Bush and co. used to push us into this war. If the Iraqis are better off, something that remains to be seen although it could happen, it's a happy accident. If we really cared about spreading democracy and human rights we would be invading places like North Korea and the Sudan and dozens but we're not. If you want to grab on to that as a potential at least, I'm fine with that but don't turn into some noble quest.

I think what you're seeing in this thread is the problem with the Bush machine. If something goes wrong or you make a mistake you simply ignore it. You can see it with the Sunni hold out on the constitution. It's a major stumbling block but the president acts like it's not even there just like no WMD, no connection to 9/11 etc. The theme song for this administration should be the Raspberries' "Let's Pretend."

Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:25 pm

"If we really cared about spreading democracy and human rights we would be invading places like North Korea", likethebike.

America did invade North Korea and paid the cost. China intervened.

Nuke the Chinese said the Patriots!

Now they want to trade with them:-) History teaches us to laugh, and wince.

The Iraq war is a disgraceful use of sheer power. For the control of Oil.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:37 pm

Jeff I explained my stance and I have my reasons for not joining. I do not need to justify them to you. Of course you will keep repeating like an android....

As far as me saying she should be arrested for stalking, well that was a joke. Though I do feel that her actions are borderline. There is nothing wrong with peaceful protesting, but her call to make Bush keep seeing her is a little childish. He has met with her twice and that is more then any president should to take the time for.

But as far as the comment to me...JERRY why would I think that? :wink: And you call me a bully. :lol:

Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:44 pm

It's a major stumbling block but the president acts like it's not even there just like no WMD, no connection to 9/11 etc.


Actually this is not true and Bush has commented on many of these things. He stated that the intelligence COULD have been mistaken. Also the no connection to 9/11 is a joke because we have Al Queda operatives to this day still threatening us from Iraq! The connections were clear and it is simply left propaganda that started the lie.

Sadam Hussein's anger to us was no doubt propagated by the several bombs dropped by the Clinton administration. Unlike Bill and his "diversions", G.W. Bush has many times stated his reasons for the invasion. First being to take Hussein out of power because he chose to ignore are warnings and continued to violate the U.N. and secondly our intelligence pointed to WMD or at least the capacity to build. There is no doubt in my mind the will was there and when you have country that we have formally been to war with who are still not complying....that is a huge problem. You see that is the difference....that and the fact there is a valuable resource that we all know. So many like to conveniently ignore this fact, as if it were nothing.

silver wrote:So, some of our Americans of Asian descent sneaked over to Japan, stole their Zeros, and proceeded to bomb Pearl Harbor? Now I get why the others were put into relocation camps! They were probably going to do the same thing!


First of all, why do you write in bold? Its just an observation, though highlighting is fine, but many would have to agree that putting constant whole posts like that is a little annoying.

Anyway, as far as the asians involved. There were spies and I would hope that is the asians that GG is referring to. During those times there were no doubt the profiling, but we had to be safe. Considering that there was an immediate threat, this is understandable.

I disagree with you completely about our countries power diminishing. Matter of fact our stance is getting stronger. Though sometimes to gain, you have to lead. This is not Vietnam, this is one of the most important wars ever to be fought by us...though Iran may be next.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:47 pm

The "Left wing propaganda" that established there was no connection between Hussein and and September 11 was the 9/11 commission a bi-partisan commission appointed by a Republican controlled congress. So stop.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:14 pm

The commission report had many flaws and in the end the information didn't matter anyway. I don't care who controlled it, the propaganda was there from the beginning.

There were and still are Al Queda ties and the Iraq war was just. Sadaam Hussein is better out of power. I am glad we didn't wait around for another Hitler. Here is a nice cut and paste from quando.net concerning the commision report. In reading up on Richard Clarke it seems that his views have flip flopped quite a bit.

While certainly not conclusive evidence of extensive collaboration, the 9/11 report seems to give a great deal of weight to the charges that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It also rains on the parades of one Mr. Clarke, who had claimed Iraq was a diversion, that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever". In fact, it is quite devastating on that point, using Clarke's own words. We'll get to it.

I've compiled all the (notable*) Iraq references in the report....

Page 58 - Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq.



Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad con federation. In Sudan, he established an “Islamic Army Shura” that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea.

Page 61 - Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq.



Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

Page 61 - Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam may have supported, or at least tolerated, Ansar al-Islam.



To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

Page 61 - Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance. No evidence of an Iraqi response. This was not the last attempt.



With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Page 66 - Iraq took the initiative to contact Al Qaeda.



In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Page 125 - Clarke points out that Iraq had discussed hosting Bin Laden.



Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi.

Page 128 - Clarke suggests that a chemical factory is probably the result of an Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement. Chemical evidence backs that up.



The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110 This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.

Page 134 - Clarke discusses the possibility--even likelihood--that Bin Laden would move to Baghdad, if attacked in Afghanistan, and cooperate with Saddam.



[Clarke] wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.

Page 334 - Clarke's report found anecdotal evidence of an Iraqi link to Al Qaeda, but no compelling case that Iraq was involved in 9/11.



Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

Page 335 - The Camp David discussions....



According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during “this round” of the war on terrorism.

Page 335 - DoD presents the three priorities: al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraq



A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.

Page 335 - Bush did not accept that Iraq was an immediate priority.



Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz—not Rumsfeld—argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.66 Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. “Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,” Powell told us.“And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.” Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.”67 Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.

Page 335 - Bush decides Iraq is off the table, barring new information.



President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan.69 Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Page 335 - A WoT Phase Two could include Iraq, if necessary.



At the September 17 NSC meeting, there was some further discussion of “phase two” of the war on terrorism.71 President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq if Baghdad acted against U.S. interests, with plans to include possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.

Page 335 - Wolfowitz continues to push for Iraq.



Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq.Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined “Preventing More Events,” he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum pri ority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were “far more” than 1 in 10, citing Saddam’s praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.73 The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef ’s co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis’ involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a “failure of imagination” and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities.

Page 336 - Blair asks about Iraq; Bush tells him Iraq is not the immediate problem.



On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead.When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.

Page 336 - CENTCOM/General Franks wanted to plan for possible movement against Iraq. Bush rejected it.




Franks told us that he was pushing independently to do more robust plan ning on military responses in Iraq during the summer before 9/11—a request President Bush denied, arguing that the time was not right. (CENTCOM also began dusting off plans for a full invasion of Iraq during this period, Franks said.) The CENTCOM commander told us he renewed his appeal for further military planning to respond to Iraqi moves shortly after 9/11, both because he personally felt that Iraq and al Qaeda might be engaged in some form of collusion and because he worried that Saddam might take advantage of the attacks to move against his internal enemies in the northern or southern parts of Iraq, where the United States was flying regular missions to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. Franks said that President Bush again turned down the request.

Page 502 - Iraqi Fedayeen member not involved with 9/11 plot.



We now know that two other al Qaeda operatives flew to Bangkok to meet Khallad to pass him money. See chapter 8.That was not known at the time. Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect.They were based on a confusion of Shakir’s identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.

Page 559 - Clarke and Bush dispute versions of post-9/11 meeting. Clarke's secretary claims they did meet, but Bush's manner was not "intimidating".



President Bush told us that Clarke had mischaracterized this exchange. On the evening of September 12, the President was at the Pentagon and then went to the White House residence. He dismissed the idea that he had been wandering around the Situation Room alone, saying,“I don’t do that.” He said that he did not think that any president would roam around looking for something to do.While Clarke said he had found the President’s tone “very intimidating,” (“Clarke’s Take on Terror,” CBSnews.com, Mar. 21, 2004, online at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2004/03/19/60minutes/printable607356.shtml), President Bush doubted that anyone would have found his manner intimidating. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). Roger Cressey, Clarke’s deputy, recalls this exchange with the President and Clarke concerning Iraq shortly after 9/11, but did not believe the President’s manner was intimidating.

Page 559 - No credible evidence of Iraqi involvement in 1993 WTC bombing.



DOD memo, Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, “Preventing More Events,” Sept. 17, 2001. We review contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in chapter 2.We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories.

* "Notable"=non-tangential mentions.

UPDATE: I should mention what I'm taking away from this...

It appears that Mr Clarke was not being completely forthright--or, at least, spinning very hard--when he claimed the President and Rumsfeld were focused on Iraq and had pressured him about to conclude otherwise, and that there had been no connections between the two.
Iraq made overtures to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda made overtures to Iraq. And we--including Richard Clarke--concluded that Bin Laden may seek Baghdad as a safe harbor and partner if pressured elsewhere. That seems....important.
There is some circumstantial evidence--and Clarke's speculation--that a chemical factory could be a result of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Bush assertively rejected the "Iraq/9.11" scenario advanced by some of the NeoCon faction.
Paul Wolfowitz comes out of this looking very poorly. In fact, while many in our government had a "failure of imagination", it seems Wolfowitz had too active an imagination.
The "Iraqi Fedayeen/9.11" story turned out to be nothing, as do claims that Iraq was behind the 93 WTC bombing. This seems to back up Tenet's previous assertion that Iraq was stopping short of cooperating in attacks against the West.
UPDATE II: I should note that neither I nor the 9/11 Report are claiming that Iraq and Al Qaeda were engaged in an ongoing collaborative relationship. I merely point out that there was quite a history of mutual overtures, an apparent willingness to work together, and possible historic cooperation on chemical production/training.
I neither suggest, believe, nor consider it relevant to the prewar calculation, that Iraq was in an ongoing cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda. As Bush said, the danger from that relationship laid in the future.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:13 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Nice "cut and paste" job there, Scatter.

:lol: Yup.....I type with two fingers. That post would have taken me forever!!!!! However, I'm certain you have the honesty to admit, My cut-n-paste posts are very minimal......as opposed to some :wink: .


And on TWO different threads!

Relevant in both spots.....

Admit it, you hate it when I'm correct, as above.

Nope.....I don't admit it at all......it's not true. You're right quite often. Just not in political threads. Does it make you the least bit uncomfortable seeing who Cindy hangs with??


DJC

Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:35 am

Scatter wrote:However, I'm certain you have the honesty to admit, My cut-n-paste posts are very minimal ...

Do you have the minimal honesty to admit to being a hypocrite?

DJC

Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:20 am

Rumors, most of them fabricated, fly around the intelligence community all the time and it's the job of people like Clarke to determine which are credible and which are not and in Clarke's opinion, expressed extremely clearly in his book, the connections between Iraq and Al Queda did not exist.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:10 pm

genesim wrote:The commission report had many flaws and in the end the information didn't matter anyway. I don't care who controlled it, the propaganda was there from the beginning.....


My comments since edited, in respects to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. :wink:

Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:53 pm

Greg and Likethebike,

G.W. Bush did not lie. How can you possibly prove this? He went with his intelligence at the time, and he even said that it could have been flawed but that wasn't the only reason why he went to war and he he has said so.

I go with FACTS. Did you not read what I just pasted? It is coming straight from the commission report!!

It is kind of like saying...There are tracks...there was a crossing lights...there was a whistle...there was the trudging sound...there was a red caboose...

but in conclusion, NOPE there wasn't a train that passed through here.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:56 pm

genesim wrote:Greg,

G.W. Bush did not lie. How can you possibly prove this? He went with his intelligence at the time, and he even said that it could have been flawed but that wasn't the only reason why he went to war and he he has said so.

I go with FACTS. Did you not read what I just pasted? It is coming straight from the commission report!!

It is kind of like saying...There are tracks...there was a crossing lights...there was a whistle...there was the trudging sound...there was a red caboose...

but in conclusion, NOPE there wasn't a train that passed through here.



I'll leave it to the diehards like DJC to point to the materials that
say he did, but really, I'm surprised at your religious-like devotion
to the guy.

Where's your basic American skepticism?

What's with all the absolute faith?

I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and still sort of do
in that I don't actually "oppose" the war. Can you fathom
that he might have lied?

He is after all just a politician, not God.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:02 pm

Greg, please tell what was the lie? Can you explain the comments in the actual commission report that concludes there are no ties!!!!

He stated that he believed there was WMD and that he has violated U.N. rules and sent the inspecters out at gunpoint. He refused the ultimatum and actually stated that he would welcome war. G.W. Bush stated many times that he believed Sadaam to be a threat to the U.S. and on top of that there were believed to be Al Queda operatives(and I still believe this is so).

Do I believe that all this is a lie? HELL NO. Do I believe that he savored the thought of invading Iraq and finishing the job. Of course. Sadaam should have been finished off before, and I am glad that it is happening now.

Can I fathom that a person would lie. Yes, but you see unlike others, I go with evidence as opposed to saying it just because it sounds good.

I'll leave it to the diehards like DJC to point to the materials that
say he did, but really, I'm surprised at your religious-like devotion
to the guy.


Fat chance. When has Doc ever paid attention to EVIDENCE. His only response will be a name call. As far as it being Religion...no, my conclusion is not based on faith, but FACT!