Howard Stern show on 9/11

[MWkc]

http://download.yousendit.com/1B43933876AAA420

 

Found this on my hd, after listing to this it gave me shivers down my spine and reinforced why I supported the war in afganastain/iraq.

 

btw, If you wonder why I care so much about 9/11 when I live in Aus but I lived in Manhatten for a year a couple of blocks away from the trade centers.

[Chris Benvenuto]

And do you realize that the war on Iraq is just for control over the Oil market and that pisses the Insurgents off?

 

Staying there, is not the answer. IMO.

 

Chris

[shepp]

^Well, yeah.

 

Just eliding Aghanistan and Iraq makes me think, "That Aussie boy has no idea of what he's talking about."

 

Saddam, however murderous, was a secularist who had absolutely no ties to 9/11, and the Bushies had their plans to overthrow him in place long before the WTC. (Interestingly, one similarity between the Taliban and Saddam was U.S. support. The U.S. heavily armed what was to become the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, while during the Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam was on the ropes - and after his massacre of the Kurds was known - he received aid and comfort from a U.S. delegation headed by Donald Rumsfeld. Yeah, that Donald Rumsfeld. ) So now we have Osama still on the loose, the opium warlords once again in power in Afghanistan, pro-Iranian Shiites ruling over whatever's left of Iraq, we're still in bed with Saudi Arabia - which, unlike Saddam, did have ties to 9/11 - and we're about to nuke Iran. That'll show them danged Ay-rabs, huh?

 

Of course, Howard Stern himself is a thoroughly outspoken critic of Bush and his trumped-up war, so maybe he's not the best source to quote in support of the invasion of Iraq?

[BelizeIt]

Nice Post MWkc, I listened to the full 74 minutes. It was interesting to hear a live radio broadcast as the events of 9/11 occured. Like most people, I watched that infamous day unfold on TV, rather than hearing it on the radio.

 

Howard Sterns live radio broadcast showed how easily misinformation is disseminated during a crisis situation, with various TV news outlets reporting attacks or bombings that didn't actually occur.

 

Since you were quite young when the attacks occured, you no doubt have a unique perspective on the events that day. I can certainly understand your support for the war, given all that you may have personally witnessed or experienced on that day.

[shepp]

^Yeah, it's just too bad that Iraq had nothing - nothing, nothing, nothing at all - to do with 9/11, huh?

[Blazen_AZN]

^Noone tried to say iraq DID. The only connection would be this...

 

 

9/11 occurs, the US is now much more aware and cautios of terrorism and the need to protect ourselves.

 

We see Iraq -- or atleast Saddam Hussein and his followers-- as a serisous threat to us.

 

We decide to put a stop to what could be.

 

 

They had no connection to 9/11, yet had it not been for 9/11, i doubt the Iraq war would have even started. (or, atleast not so soon/severe).

[Louise]

Just eliding Aghanistan and Iraq makes me think, "That Aussie boy has no idea of what he's talking about."

 

He posted something he thought other people might find interesting. Is it really necessary for every thread to become a heated debate of some kind?

[Chris Benvenuto]

^well, These are difficult and serious times Lou

 

I understand now, I was jumping to conclusions. That clears it up. Thanks. You can believe in what you all want. I 'm fine with it

 

Chris

[BelizeIt]

^^^^Well Shepp, without escalating this thread into the battle of the Political Ideologies, where all Conservatives are Evil, and all Liberals are Naive Morons...Etc... (Lets face it, that's been done to death) I will say that nobody can truely know what allegiances a sadistic and psychopathic person like Saddam would support.

 

Does Saddam fear and hate the United States and its Allies?.....Yes

 

Is it likely that Saddam would be willing to supply finances to support a strike against the U.S. or its allies?.....Yes

 

Is it possible that since the U.S. and its allies were successful in removing Saddam from Kuwait, and then containing him as a virtual prisoner in his own country for a decade, that this might lead this unstable individual to do previously unimaginable things?....Yes

 

Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11? Who really knows other than Saddam, and I don't see him cooperating with anyone anytime soon.

 

Would Saddam support any action against the U.S. or its allies? I believe so....

 

This debate can and will go on and on...and nobody will ever be completely satisfied with the eventual outcome.

 

By the way, I am not some die-hard conservative pushing the Bush political agenda....These are just my opinions.

 

But I do believe that to cut and run (Which many people would support) would be a mistake. What would that say to the rest of the world, and more importantly Future threats against the U.S. and its allies? That when the situation becomes difficult, that we should run away from our responsibilities?

 

Anyhow, it may take decades to discover all of the answers, I hope that All of us get the chance to live long enough to find out.

[shepp]

^ Yeah, well, with all due respect to the quagmire...invading a sovereign nation because they hate and fear us, and because they theoretically might do something to us someday is a damn slippery slope (not to mention in contravention of established international law). After all, we hate and fear the Iranian regime, and there's fairly well-documented evidence that we have plans in place to nuke Iran...and, unlike the case of Iraq, there's no doubt we possess WMDs...so wouldn't Iran be justified in declaring war on us???

[BelizeIt]

^Shepp, in response to your quagmire, I would like to add that Iraq did not honor the 1991 cease-fire agreement. That agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nation Weapons Inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, to allow coalition allies to enforce the "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. With the intent of the No-Fly Zones to protect the Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

 

This No-Fly Zone conflict was largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and U.K., even though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on almost a weekly basis. In 1998 Iraq barred UN Inspectors from the country, which lead directly to the bombing campaign "Operation Desert Fox".

 

Saddams continued violations of the terms of this cease-fire agreement, which he agreed to under the terms of the armistice which ended the war over Kuwait in 1991, lead directly to the March 19, 2003 start of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

 

Also, just because the U.S. may have plans in place to "Nuke" Iran, doesn't guarantee that it would occur. The U.S. also has plans in place to nuke Russia and China as well, but that doesn't mean they should declare war on us or initiate a First Strike policy against the U.S. or its allies.

[crispy]

Ahh the eternal Iraq debate, which could go in circles for years, but in the intrest of fairness, lets take a step back

 

 

The original post was regarding the Howard Stern show on 9-11, and it was GREAT to hear it again, it really stirs my soul to remember my feelings on that horrible day, the same feelings we all had

 

I am much less critical of the Bush Administration for one simple reason, he's a Politician, and he did basically what the public wanted

 

Congress DID give him the power to make war with Iraq, so its a shared blame, the whole goverment screwed up, regarding WHY we went to war with Iraq

 

So with regards to what we do, I don't think we should cut and run, but we should be planning very seriously to get the hell out of there.

 

 

As for the conspiracy theory that Bush had this planned all along, well you people need to make a choice regarding Bush, either he is an Evil Genius, or a moron, but not both, I VERY seriously doubt this was heavily pre meditated.

 

 

I am one for dealing with the problem at hand, We all got into this problem with one VERY angry mindset, now lets pick up the pieces, and try to get Iraq functioning, and then GET OUT

[shepp]

I am much less critical of the Bush Administration for one simple reason, he's a Politician, and he did basically what the public wanted

 

Yeah, well - based on the disinformation fed them by the Bush administration, the American Public wanted the US to destroy Saddam's (nonexistent) WMDs, destroy Saddam's (nonexistent) burgeoning nuclear weapons program, and sever his (nonexistent) ties to Al Qaeda. Mission - as they say - accomplished. Too bad there was no real mission to start with.

 

If we're talking about Saddam's diddling with UN sanctions, let's not forget that there were UN weapons inspectors on the ground who said (quite correctly) that they couldn't find WMDs and that to the best of their knowledge the WMDs that had once been there had been destroyed, and asking for a bit more time to complete their work before Bush invaded a sovereign nation. Bush, of course, countered with the smoking gun/mushroom cloud scare tactics (despite evidence from experts countering the yellowcake and centrifuge tubes nonsense) and marched right in, as - it's well-established - was planned by the Bushies long before 9/11.

 

But hey, since Bush is so responsive to the public will, and since a vast majority of the American Public now wants him to either radically change his policies or get the hell out of the White House...

[crispy]

I am much less critical of the Bush Administration for one simple reason, he's a Politician, and he did basically what the public wanted

 

Yeah, well - based on the disinformation fed them by the Bush administration, the American Public wanted the US to destroy Saddam's (nonexistent) WMDs, destroy Saddam's (nonexistent) burgeoning nuclear weapons program, and sever his (nonexistent) ties to Al Qaeda. Mission - as they say - accomplished. Too bad there was no real mission to start with.

 

If we're talking about Saddam's diddling with UN sanctions, let's not forget that there were UN weapons inspectors on the ground who said (quite correctly) that they couldn't find WMDs and that to the best of their knowledge the WMDs that had once been there had been destroyed, and asking for a bit more time to complete their work before Bush invaded a sovereign nation. Bush, of course, countered with the smoking gun/mushroom cloud scare tactics (despite evidence from experts countering the yellowcake and centrifuge tubes nonsense) and marched right in, as - it's well-established - was planned by the Bushies long before 9/11.

 

But hey, since Bush is so responsive to the public will, and since a vast majority of the American Public now wants him to either radically change his policies or get the hell out of the White House...

 

Again, this can go around and around, obviously you are not a fan of George Bush.

 

That said, Bush did not make up the intelligence, even Bill Clinton, who knew about the intelligence agreed, there was some intresting stuff, and it appeared that certian items were acquired by Saddam that was suspicious, the same intelligence was shown to congress, and they overwelmingly voted to give Bush the power to go to war

 

Shepp, you can believe what you want, and I totally understand being rather upset with Bush, he has not been the best president, but the blame for this needs to be shared, he could not do this without approval, and he overwelmingly got it.

[shepp]

^ I know we can go around on this, but in general - not just re: Iraq - the Bush administration is proving itself the most ideologically blinkered administration in memory. It's all faith-based to them, and whenever the facts are inconvenient, they're ignored. Evolution? The jury is still out, and the Earth might be 5000 years old. Global warming? Pay no attention to that drowning polar bear over there. Medical marijuana? The big scientific study of a few years back is meaningless 'cause the DEA says so. Katrina? Bush said no one expected the flooding...though years before it happened, even I read an article in the New Yorker predicting just such a flood. The morning after pill? Ignore the advice of the scientific panel recommending its approval. Abortion and breast cancer? Post incorrect scare stories on the government Website because Jesus don't like no abortions. Toxic chemcals? Let the chemical companies decide...it's the Miracle of the Market. And on it goes. It's well-known that under Bush, dissident views are ignored, and dissidents purged. On the other hand, the big mucky-mucks in the intel community, who supposedly bumbled this country into war, are still in place or have resigned with honor. After all, they did "a heckuva job."

 

Listen, BEFORE Bush gave the yellowcake speech, there was evidence the whole thing was a hoax. BEFORE Colin Powell waved the aluminum tubes at the UN, experts warned there was no way they would work in uranium centrifuges. BEFORE Bush pointed to the two non-mobile-weapons-labs as the WMD we supposedly found, experts doubted they were any such thing. And BEFORE we went to war, UN weapons inspectors contradicted much of what Bush's chickenhawks were screaming about WMD.

 

I know this has veered OT, and I'm quittin' this thread, but the reason I joined it in the first place is because the OP seemed to me to exemplify what was wrong with Bush's rush to war: emotionalism trumping sober judgment, and an inability to tell the difference between an Islamic fundamentalist movement and a rigorously secular dictator. Not to mention the fact that a 14-year-old Australian boy is as unlikely to see action in Iraq as Jenna Bush.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go feed my pet dinosaur.

[BelizeIt]

^Well Shepp, not to stir the pot to much (and risk having the thread locked again), but are you "quittin' this thread" because several people have given conclusive evidence that directly contradicts your opinions???

 

I imagine your real irritation is against the Republican Party in general. You said that the Presidents rush to war was "emotionalism trumping sober judgement", that's interesting because that quote could also discribe your post on this thread. You've taken a thread about Terrorism, and listed all the things you dislike about the Republican leadership (Global Warming, Medical Marijuana, Katrina, The Morning After Pill, Abortion Etc..)

 

As for Jenna Bush seeing "Action in Iraq", you seem to have forgotten that the U.S. has an all-volunteer military force, and that there are zero conscripts servings in the U.S. military. If Jenna chose the path of a military career, I'm certain she would be honored to serve in Iraq.

 

I'm just Thankful to live in a Free Country, where we have the ability to agree or disagree and openly debate our positions (like on this forum). These freedoms, that many take for granted, would never have existed in a country like Iraq. The battle against Terrorism will be a long and difficult one, but in the end we can and will succeed.

[MWkc]

Hmmm, after I re-read this thread I come to conclusion that I shouldent of put Iraq in the original post.

 

. Not to mention the fact that a 14-year-old Australian boy is as unlikely to see action in Iraq as Jenna Bush.

How does this have anything to do with the thread? Other then a low blow/personal attack! As a matter of a fact I might, as I am a army Cadet if John Howard is still in office in about 4 years and I decide to continue a army carer (sp?) I could see some time in Iraq.

 

I think if I hadnt of put Iraq in the orignal post shepp wouldent of gotten his hernia's in a knot.

 

Its allmost certain that Saddam had WMMD, hes a smart man. As soon as he suspected Bush was comming in to office he would of gotten rid of them.

 

BelizeIt mentioned before about how I was young at the time and my perspective of what happened would be uniqe. It definatly was, I thought that people did it randomly and it spooked me for quite a while thinking that someone could just do something so destructive so easily.

 

Thanks BelizeIt for backing me up, I thought this thread had died

[shepp]

^Well Shepp, not to stir the pot to much (and risk having the thread locked again), but are you "quittin' this thread" because several people have given conclusive evidence that directly contradicts your opinions???

 

No...actually, I was just getting tired in participating in what other posters accurately described as the endless around-and-around...but since you asked, I'll graciously respond.

 

First, I'd be interested in the "conclusive evidence" that Saddam possessed WMDs, that he'd reconstituted a nuclear program, or that he was connected to 9/11. If any of that was posted here, I must have missed it. Please do point it out for me, ok?

 

Second, lest I be accused of unsupported ranting, let me merely supply an example or four.

 

WMDs? The International Atomic Energy Agency report of 3/7/03 stated, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

 

Nine days later, Cheney said on Meet the Press, "We believe (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

 

Yellowcake? In early 2002, Joe Wilson told the CIA the allegtions were "bogus and unrealistic." A year later, after Bush repeated the BS in the notorious "16 words" in his State of the Union address, the IAEA - finally granted access to the supposedly incriminating documents - announced they were obvious forgeries. Cheney's response? The IAEA was "frankly, wrong."

The centrifuge tubes? There was something of a valid internal debate pon that, but the State Department's internal intel agency and the Department of Energy believed that they were inappropriate for nuclear programs. "In INR's view, Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR...accepts the judgment of technical experts at the Department of Energy that the tubes Iraq seeks to aquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose."

 

Several months later, though, Bush categorically stated, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

 

Al Qaeda? According to Bob Woodward's book, four days after 9/11, Colin Powell said that nobody could look at Iraq and say Iraq was responsible. "Keep the Iraqi options open if you get the linkages...but I doubt you'll get the linkages."

 

In that famous aircraft carrier speech, though, Bush crowed, "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda," though all the supposed evidence had proven utterly unreliable. Like the Atta-in-Prague story. Long before the war, the Czech President told the White House that Czech intelligence said there was no such evidence of such a meeting, but after trumpeting the story, the Bushies kept falling back on what turned out to be baloney. And there is still no reliable evidence of a Saddam/al Qaeda link.

 

The one countervailing argument I agree with is that the craven Democrats in Congress, fed slanted pseudoevidence, almost universally caved in to Bush. But, as my father never tired of telling me, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

OK, hindsight is 20/20, but we all know haow things turned out, don't we, it would appear that the Bushies' foresight was consistently, lamentably wrong. Sorry to go on at length, but since I was accused of flouncing out because I was "conclusively" proven wrong, I figured I'd back up my statements...

[shepp]

 

I think if I hadnt of put Iraq in the orignal post shepp wouldent of gotten his hernia's in a knot.

 

Its allmost certain that Saddam had WMMD, hes a smart man. As soon as he suspected Bush was comming in to office he would of gotten rid of them.

/quote]

 

Yeah, indeed, if you had merely said, "That's why I supported the overthrow of the Taliban," I would never have bothered to reply. And I guess I shouldn't have been so assertive with you.

 

But...um..."Almost certain?"

 

Is there any evidence you can point to that backs that up? If he was so smart and ruthless, wouldn't have Saddam used WMD - or at least threatened to use them - when he was in his last throes, had he possessed them? So why did he, in your version, destroy them? (For which, not so incidentally, not a single feeble shred of evidence, not a single statement from the grunts or scientists who presuambly would have had to do the job. And believe me, the Bushies would have loved to trumpet that sort of confession.) Was he suddenly concerned about his image? Or did he destroy them so the Bush administration wouldn't overthrow him? Well, hell, according to all available evidence, he already did that. Sure, before the FIRST Gulf War, Saddam has usuable WMDs. But they got destroyed or simply lost potency. Before the US invasion, UN inspectors couldn't find viable WMDs. Afterwards, American inspectors couldn't find any, either. So we're back to faith-based statements, aren't we? It's "almost certain" because you want it to be, despite no evidence at all?

 

And as far as my crack about your serving in Iraq...what I meant was I thought your support of the war was another cost-free example of "Let's you and him fight." It's a notorious fact that the Bush chickenhawks, almost to a man, avoided service in Vietnam, while supporting that war. As far as I know, none of the Bushies have immediate family on the ground in Iraq. And Cheney and Rumsfeld - though lamentably, consistently wrong about Iraq in ways that suggest they are either liars or fools, have kept their jobs - letting others do the dying in service of their imperial ambitions. The U.S. deficit is at an all-time high, and social services are being cut to the bone, while Cheney drew down nearly 9 million dollars in income last year. If Bush is so convinced he's saving the world, couldn't he persuade his daughters to put down their cocktails and help out?

 

Speaking of which...if you are indeed willing to sacrifice for the Iraqi War, here's your big opportunity. Since a sizable chunk of the taxes I just paid went to this misbegotten war, I'd be happy for you to reimburse me...just so you can feel you've done your part. Hell, I'll even set up a PayPal account to make it easier...

 

Man, I really have got to quit this thread...for real.

[chavslayer]

Id just like to say i agree with shepp on this one.

[BelizeIt]

Shepp, you don't really want to quit this thread??? You obviously like to state your opinions, as do I.

 

There were several significant developments that lead to the war in Iraq.

 

1st. Saddams continued violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, No-Fly Zones Etc...(This I covered in an earlier posting)

 

2nd. Since the start of 2002, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi-Annan had been trying to persuade Iraqi officals to let weapons inspectors back into Iraq. In May, Annan gave up, realizing his efforts were futile. Annans failure dealt a serious blow to those --chiefly Colin Powell's State Department-- who were advocating diplomatic pressure against Saddam.

 

3rd. On June 1st 2002, President Bush delivered a speech at West Point, declaring a new U.S. doctrine of "Pre-emptive action" against "Unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction"

 

If Saddam hadn't been to obstinate and miscalculating and had agreed to Annan's request to re-admit U.N. Inspectors, the war may have been prevented outright. This was in fact Saddam's chance to prove conclusively to the world that he didn't possess WMD's, if Saddam didn't possess WMD's (Which might now be buried in the Iraqi desert somewhere, or shipped off to a country like Syria, never to be found) then why not let the U.N. Inspectors in? Saddam alone chose this clearly provactive action which lead to his eventual downfall.

 

Let's face it, Iraq is a large country, with countless places to hide WMD's, and WMD's doesn't just include Nuclear type weapons, but also Biological, which Saddam has already shown a propensity to use.

 

As for Saddam's possible involvement with Al Qaeda, I wasn't aware that you had personally spoken to Saddam himself, and found out that he wasn't involved with this fanatical group of terrorists. Also, just because Saddam hasn't admitted he would be willing to assist Al Queda doesn't mean he hasn't. Let's be honest here, both Saddam and Al Qaeda share similar thoughts, (an intense hatred of the United States and all that it represents) with either one of them being more than willing to do anything to bring about its destruction.

[ScOtT k]

Anyone read the Al franken book? It talks about how bush misled us into a war by using 9/11. Then how he lied about kerry, and put fear into the public's mind just to win the election. Quite a leader huh?

 

Hello people. We have a $trillion dollar deficit. Lat time I checked, you don't lower taxes during wartime.

[shepp]

Shepp, you don't really want to quit this thread??? You obviously like to state your opinions, as do I.

 

2nd. Since the start of 2002, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi-Annan had been trying to persuade Iraqi officals to let weapons inspectors back into Iraq. In May, Annan gave up, realizing his efforts were futile. Annans failure dealt a serious blow to those --chiefly Colin Powell's State Department-- who were advocating diplomatic pressure against Saddam.

 

3rd. On June 1st 2002, President Bush delivered a speech at West Point, declaring a new U.S. doctrine of "Pre-emptive action" against "Unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction"

 

If Saddam hadn't been to obstinate and miscalculating and had agreed to Annan's request to re-admit U.N. Inspectors, the war may have been prevented outright. This was in fact Saddam's chance to prove conclusively to the world that he didn't possess WMD's, if Saddam didn't possess WMD's (Which might now be buried in the Iraqi desert somewhere, or shipped off to a country like Syria, never to be found) then why not let the U.N. Inspectors in? Saddam alone chose this clearly provactive action which lead to his eventual downfall.

 

Let's face it, Iraq is a large country, with countless places to hide WMD's, and WMD's doesn't just include Nuclear type weapons, but also Biological, which Saddam has already shown a propensity to use.

 

As for Saddam's possible involvement with Al Qaeda, I wasn't aware that you had personally spoken to Saddam himself, and found out that he wasn't involved with this fanatical group of terrorists. Also, just because Saddam hasn't admitted he would be willing to assist Al Queda doesn't mean he hasn't. Let's be honest here, both Saddam and Al Qaeda share similar thoughts, (an intense hatred of the United States and all that it represents) with either one of them being more than willing to do anything to bring about its destruction.

 

Wow, I don't know where to begin.

 

Yes, in early 2002 Saddam was still refusing to admit UN inspectors. But by November of that year, he allowed inspections without conditions.

 

By January of '03, chief inspector Hans Blix stated "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....In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before."

 

And in March, just before the U.S. invasion, he enumerated unanswered questions but then said, "How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? It would not take years, nor weeks, but months." Those months he would not have, of course. The U.S. warned the many inspectors in Iraq to leave because of our immanent invasion. But since Saddam had allowed inspectors in his country for months before the invasion, don't you think that your skipping merrily from 5/02 to 3/03 and implying that inspectors were never allowed back into Iraq is just a wee bit...disingenuous?

 

After the war, Blix stated: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions." And if the UN-cooperation figleaf is so important, how come the U.S. refused to let a single UN inspector into postwar Iraq?

 

As for the rest...I'm gobsmacked.

 

The absence of WMDs does not, sure thing, demonstrate the obvious - that they don't exist. It just proves how wily Saddam was in burying them or shipping them to Syria or lending them to Valdemort or whatever. Of course, considering the magnitude of the task, one might have expected at least an inkling of an iota of the truth to leak out...at least squealing by one disgruntled warhead-burying soldier? No? No problem...it still must be true BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE.

 

No proven ties with Al Qaeda, and the Prague story proven to be a steaming pile of lies? No problem...we know what Saddam is thinking, and so he must personally have cooperated with Al Qaeda. No evidence? No problem...IT COULD BE TRUE.

 

OK, the Sept 11 Commission said that 1996 contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." But they were all bamboozled, right? Saddam after all, hated the U.S, right? Despite our cooperation with him during the Iran/Iraq War? Despite meeting with the US Ambassador before invading Kuwait and assuming she gave the go-ahead? Sure, Saddam may have been a secularist, technocratic megalomaniac, while Al Qaeda is a bunch of anti-modernist religious fanatics (with proven ties to Bush-friendly Saudi Arabia, BTW), but when Halliburton's fortunes are at stake, the hell with the small distinctions. After all, the Taliban and Saddam had at least one thing in common...they were both supported by Republican administrations.

 

After all...anything could be true. And Saddam was the sort of leader who'd invade a foreign country on trumped-up charges. So let's start a war.

[crispy]

WOW!!

 

you can read Al Frankins book, or Rush Limbaugh's, I wouldn't believe either

 

 

I believe Shepp is obviously not a Bush supporter, Shepp,you live in a country where you can hate the presidents guts, enjoy it

 

As for me, I don't hate him, but I'm not going to sing his praises either, I like to look at the whole picture, and try to see what is going on

 

I feel religion has no place in goverment, leave it alone, let people worship, and let the goverment rule by law

 

I actually applaud Bush promoting alternative fuels, like e85, VERY diffrent for an oil man, now I'm waiting to see what action is taken.

 

 

There are disagreements regarding Iraq,obviously, but in the end, I feel we need to look foward, and try to relize, now that we have done this, what is the best course of action to get Iraq to be a viable country again

 

 

anti Bush people say and believe almost anything anti Bush

 

Hardcore republicans say and believe anything pro-Bush

 

the truth is in the middle, Al Frankin loves Bush about as much as Rush Limbaugh loves Clinton, I'm not going to believe anything written by Frankin on Bush, just as I wouldn't read a book by Satan on Jesus, it doesn't make sense, why read a book on someone by someone who not only hates, but disagree's with everything that person believes or stands for

 

Wait for the facts, they will come, and not now either, it can be very difficult to weed out retoric

 

from what I see, here is what I believe on Iraq

 

WMD's, uh, probably not ever there, although, we did get some craptacular intelligence from our buds there in England, that didn't help

 

Saddam, well, I doubt he's missed as a leader, and even if we were wrong, if we can get things done, and get out of there, and I mean ALL THE WAY OUT, Iraq will eventually be alot better off

 

Bush, Obviously he and his associates pushed for the war, wrong or right, were in it up to our knees, was the intelligence faked by Bush, I doubt it, was it streatched a bit, I don't doubt that, but I feel it had more to do with raw emotions than anything else, a poor choice made in anger, everyone has done it, but it usually dosn't have this type of cost associated with it

 

 

Are we on the Right Path?, I am certainly not the one to answer that, and niether is CNN or the Democrats, or anyone else for that matter, I can tell you that I am personally frustrated at the pace of reconstruction, but there are few people with the intamite knowledge that can honestly answer that question

 

 

I am obviously in the middle, I try to keep a level head and pay attention

 

I work for Trauma one in New Mexico, so we deal with the news media ALOT when people get injured or killed, and I cannot express to you how inaccurate they really are, take EVERYTHING said by the news media with a HUGE grain of salt.

 

OK, I'm done with this thread now, I believ I have tried to express my feeling, and done so.

 

Chris

 

i

[SharkTums]

Politics are a dangerous discussion, especially online.

 

Thanks for keeping it relatively civil for so long!