Does this scare anyone?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by simpleman

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.

First you accuse me of bending your words, when, in fact, your beliefs, as much as you think they are not an issue, are the issue. For all your vaunted logic, your beliefs cry out in all that you write, just as mine do in my posts.

Who do you think you're kidding? Do you really thing you can be Mr. Logic and come on this forum and not have those beliefs drawn into question when they hang out all over the place like a red slip under a white dress?

You have been presented with one logical and reasoned statement after another regarding the Hate Crimes Law and simply brush them all aside.

That's pretty absolute.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by Daniel

You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.

First you accuse me of bending your words, when, in fact, your beliefs, as much as you think they are not an issue, are the issue. For all your vaunted logic, your beliefs cry out in all that you write, just as mine do in my posts.

Who do you think you're kidding? Do you really thing you can be Mr. Logic and come on this forum and not have those beliefs drawn into question when they hang out all over the place like a red slip under a white dress?

You have been presented with one logical and reasoned statement after another regarding the Hate Crimes Law and simply brush them all aside.

That's pretty absolute.

Daniel. Back off for a second. Breathe. Now, I want to know what the hell you are talking about, because I have no clue. Are you still talking about Bush planning 9/11? Are you talking about the new decree enhancing the powers of the executive branch during an emergency? Really, I have no idea what you are talking about... please restate your words in the dumbest form for maximum comprehension, because you just seem to be practicing the Art of Being Wrong (Aka, Rhetoric). Please, explicate...

[ladyinred]

Concerning the varying remarks made on this forum about the President:I in all honesty cannot stand behind this president and support what he is doing. It would go against my conscience to do so. I'd read in the Weekly awhile back where they quoted him as saying that the war in Iraq would go on indefinitely no matter how much Iraqi or American blood was shed,until victory was achieved.

That sounded pretty hard hearted and callous and if that is how the man thinks,I think he is sadly mistaken. Our goal in Iraq should be to find a way to get the sectarian violence to stop,(Or at least to get the Iraqi Government and people to do something about it) hopefully to help Iraq to stablize and to get our guys out of there as soon as possible, not advocate endless bloodshed and death.

How many lives does the president think should be sacrificed to ensure him a victory? To me that is all about ego with little concern for the consequences of such policies and the death toll just keeps rising. I would say his views on the war and his policies in the Middle East are creating far more problems than solving them.

My motto has always been never trust anyone who is a little too eager to go to war and shed blood in the name of national interests. Can we always avoid war, I don't know, but before we decide to jump in , we need to think if that is the only course of action available to us with no other way to resolve it.

The Christian tenants on going to war, are that we should only go to war as a matter of self defense and as a last resort when all other options on the table have failed and that we should never attack another country unprovoked, and if there is a clear and present danger.I tend to agree. Nobody should be happy about going to war or putting people's lives on the line.Things need to be carefully thought out before they are instigated.If this president thinks an endless bloodbath and loss of life is the solution than he is delusional ,heartless and cruel.

Now as far as 9/11 is concerned,was there a conspiracy or plot on the president's part,I honestly do not know. But he did lead us into a war on apparently false information and from what I've read had already had plans to invade Iraq.What happened to Bin Laden? My thinking is that the Bush family has too many ties to the Bin Laden family business-wise and wanted to avoid rocking the boat.Can I prove that? No. But it is a known fact that George Bush Jr had business ties with one of the brothers and as far as I can tell from what I've read, the Bush family is on very friendly terms with the Bin Laden family.

[ladyinred]

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

[ladyinred]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
PBS,frontline

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Daniel

You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/wa...351060&ei=5070
There it is, happy now? I looked through my cache and found it. If I'd had the slightest idea that you would lambast me to the extent that you did,
I would have just done it the first time. You truly are my biggest watchdog
on this site, so I'll be sure never to err again. On to the story...
This story indicates that the Times was trying to expose that Rice had ignored warnings of an impending terrorist attack. Again, most people knew that Bin Laden wanted to attack on American soil. No one, not even Tenet, knew or could possibly know on 7/10/01 that 9/11/01 would be the day, they just knew that an attack was possible in the not-too-distant future. Rice responded to the men that they should take their presentation and evidence to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, Ashcroft himself saying that he never got word from Tenet about any of it. Furthermore, Tenet's information was simply "it looks like they might or might not possibly plan and/or execute an attack against America, and possibly on American soil. It could be soon." There were so many ifs, because no one could possibly dream up a scenario like 9-11 except for maniacal sociopaths like those you find in Al Qaeda. What was she supposed to do? She told them that their information was good and to present it to people above her, presumably so that it could keep going up the ladder, but apparently Tenet did not believe it important enough to take up to Rumsfeld or Ashcroft. Or either he knew that he didn't have quite enough to nail down any specifics. Obviously he didn't, because the Clinton administration had shut down projects, such as Able Danger, from being able to do their jobs. Check into Able Danger, Sandy Berger and Jamie Gorelick's work with that and the FBI, and some of those things. There isn't going to be a smoking gun for 9-11 in anyone's hands but Osama Bin Laden. To tapdancer, I didn't mean to imply that 9-11 was America or any president's fault. I know that blame belongs on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. However, since everyone here wants to blame America (Bush) for it, I thought it would be fair to mention that Clinton, as a President, probably had more to do with it than Bush.

Originally Posted by Daniel

First you accuse me of bending your words, when, in fact, your beliefs, as much as you think they are not an issue, are the issue. For all your vaunted logic, your beliefs cry out in all that you write, just as mine do in my posts.

Who do you think you're kidding? Do you really thing you can be Mr. Logic and come on this forum and not have those beliefs drawn into question when they hang out all over the place like a red slip under a white dress?

You have been presented with one logical and reasoned statement after another regarding the Hate Crimes Law and simply brush them all aside.

That's pretty absolute.

My beliefs on what? Sexuality or government? I never said you bent my words. All I ever said was that, not even specifically you, several people are not judging my argument on the Hate Crimes Bill by anything other than their thinking that my personal, religious beliefs about sexuality are influencing my beliefs on that certain piece of public policy. I'll try to put that into context for you. I don't believe that being black is wrong. I don't believe it is a sin to be black, but I don't agree with hate crimes laws protecting them either. Many would argue that the reason that I am against these hate crimes laws is because I am racist. I would say that my arguments are not being given fair consideration because people think this: "He believes that hate crimes laws protecting black people are bad, that makes him racist. The only reason that he thinks they are wrong is because he is racist." So it becomes circular logic, a logical fallacy.

That's what I'm trying to say. So, what I see here is this: "He believes that hate crimes laws protecting gays are wrong, and that indicates that he has some kind of prejudice against gay people. Because he has a prejudice against gay people, he believes that hate crimes legislation protecting gays is wrong." Making my "beliefs" "the issue" instead of the actual issue "the issue," is my exact problem. I mean, it's understandable, and I'm not upset about it, I just think it would be better for dialogue, and for everybody's sanity to consider it as an argument about a piece of legislation and not to let it become "my beliefs" as the issue.

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Concerning the varying remarks made on this forum about the President:I in all honesty cannot stand behind this president and support what he is doing. It would go against my conscience to do so. I'd read in the Weekly awhile back where they quoted him as saying that the war in Iraq would go on indefinitely no matter how much Iraqi or American blood was shed,until victory was achieved.

I supported the war, because of the troops, but I feared that we lacked a clear exit strategy. I still support our troops, and the war. The problem is, we're dealing with a part of the world that doesn't think politically or culturally the way we do. Reagan realized that, and I don't think it will be long before Bush does as well.

Originally Posted by ladyinred

That sounded pretty hard hearted and callous and if that is how the man thinks,I think he is sadly mistaken. Our goal in Iraq should be to find a way to get the sectarian violence to stop,(Or at least to get the Iraqi Government and people to do something about it) hopefully to help Iraq to stablize and to get our guys out of there as soon as possible, not advocate endless bloodshed and death.

I really think it's a stretch to interpret him as saying he wants a bloodbath. I do believe that he wants to stop the sectarian violence, and the Sunni uprising, and all of that, but the answer to that question is nearly impossible, particularly now that Iran is slipping support under the table to Sunni insurgents in Iraq. He wants to win this thing as much as anyone else, but we're in a serious military catch-22 over there. We can't muscle up and try to re-do what we've already done in putting together their government and take over until we crush all insurgents, and we can't pull out because then Iraq would probably collapse under it's own weight and Iran could conceivably begin pulling strings and making movements to re-establish radical, violent Sunni leadership in Iraq. It's a bad situation.

Originally Posted by ladyinred

How many lives does the president think should be sacrificed to ensure him a victory? To me that is all about ego with little concern for the consequences of such policies and the death toll just keeps rising. I would say his views on the war and his policies in the Middle East are creating far more problems than solving them.

The loss of American life in Iraq is nowhere near the counts for Nam, WWI, WWII or even the Civil War. That doesn't mean that the 3000 who have lost their lives bravely are devalued, it's just saying that there has been relatively very little loss of American life, and even Iraqi life in this conflict. The problem the Middle East has with us stretches way back to well before Bush was president. We supported, and still support the State of Israel, so the rest of the Muslim world in the Middle East despises us. Bush's policies are obviously going to make them mad, but not really any more mad than they already were.

Originally Posted by ladyinred

My motto has always been never trust anyone who is a little too eager to go to war and shed blood in the name of national interests. Can we always avoid war, I don't know, but before we decide to jump in , we need to think if that is the only course of action available to us with no other way to resolve it.
The Christian tenants on going to war, are that we should only go to war as a matter of self defense and as a last resort when all other options on the table have failed and that we should never attack another country unprovoked, and if there is a clear and present danger.I tend to agree. Nobody should be happy about going to war or putting people's lives on the line.Things need to be carefully thought out before they are instigated.If this president thinks an endless bloodbath and loss of life is the solution than he is delusional ,heartless and cruel.

I don't think we had many options with Saddam Hussein. The man was not going to budge one inch, or give up one bit of power. Diplomacy is generally lost on dictators. Even so, he wasn't just any dictator, he was a dictator that was looking to gain more power and military might. He was also executing Kurds by the thousands in gas chambers.

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Now as far as 9/11 is concerned,was there a conspiracy or plot on the president's part,I honestly do not know. But he did lead us into a war on apparently false information and from what I've read had already had plans to invade Iraq.What happened to Bin Laden? My thinking is that the Bush family has too many ties to the Bin Laden family business-wise and wanted to avoid rocking the boat.Can I prove that? No. But it is a known fact that George Bush Jr had business ties with one of the brothers and as far as I can tell from what I've read, the Bush family is on very friendly terms with the Bin Laden family.

There isn't one. Muslim terrorists flew planes into buildings.

I don't know what you mean by "false information" but if you are referring to Bush's reference to British intelligence and uranium from Niger, and how Joseph Wilson tried to say that Bush lied about it, then all I can say is that Wilson has been proven a fraud. His wife, a CIA agent whose position wasn't classified, recommended him for an unpaid trip to Niger to meet with dignitaries. Once there, he asked them if they had sold any uranium to Hussein. Of course their leaders would deny this, because they don't want the US and UN crawling up their behind either. Wilson comes back and tries to con America into believing that his report was ignored and that Bush had been lying about the WMD's all along, when his "report" had never reached anyone important's desk (such as Cheney, which he claimed that it had). Furthermore, his report was nothing more than what he gleaned from the aforementioned conversations with Nigerian leaders. And British intelligence also confirmed that they had indeed collected evidence that Niger had sold uranium to Hussein. I'm sure there are other claims of false information, but this is the most-reported one. If there is any other "false information" I'd be glad to take a look at it.

Hope that clears up a few of those "I don't knows".

[Emproph]

My Pet Goat

[ladyinred]

Simpleman, you obviously do not know anything about the cultures or the Middle East. A) Iran is predominately shiite and would most likely not support a sunni uprising since they have been their enemies in the past.b) They however would support the shiite population, if they were even involved. c) the Iraqis do not want us over there, they see the United States as an occupation whose welcome is outworn.D) The Iranians don't have the capability to manufacture nukes, yet, but right now Russia is breathing down our back and do have.So does China, who has also made threats in the past of using them.Why the focus on Iran when larger threats possibly loom,(Of course America is not going to pick on Russia or China ,they know better than threaten them with a nuke, they'll just send one back our way) I'd ask the question why are we making so many enemies?

You also mentioned that the Moslem countries despise us because of our unilateral support of Israel, I'm certainly not against Israel, but what they may see as offensive is that we support Israel no matter what , right or wrong and unfairly take sides in many cases.We've also supported dictatorships like the shaah of Iran who murdered and tortured his people,among others, and was considered a propped up puppet of the United States.It has also been argued that the US helped Saddam's rise to power in the first place and remember he was once an ally of the US.
Somebody wisely said, if you don't want to deal with "monsters" ,don't help create them in the first place. Here are two articles , one says the CIA helped Saddam Husseins rise to powe the other refutes it but states how Saddam was supported and even helped by the US to build his arsenal:http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.1...wk.us.iraq.htm,
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

[ladyinred]

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot....audi-role.html

[ladyinred]

Would I trust the Bush administration on Iran,hell no. The American people only supported this war because they thought the Bush adminstration had told them the truth, if they had known that Cheney was hell-bent on a war with Iraq before the "evidence" was in, would they have supported it, I seriously doubt it.The American people still have principles,even though our government doesn't.And we don't like being lied to either.

Is Cheney a liar and a crook? Overcharged the taxpayer for services in Iraq to our troops.I don't think that sounds like an honest man ,when he deliberately tries to screw the American taxpayer. The company that the President keeps is dubious and what is with all the corruption? As Jesus said , "By their fruits ye shall know them". Should I trust the President , I don't believe so. Just because the religious right call him a Christian doesn't make him so by the label. And what you call "logic" I see as convoluted. at last estimate , from what I've heard , over 650,000 Iraqis have died and over 3000 troops.Supporting our troops is one thing, but supporting what is considered an illegal war by many is another.

[nmwolfboy]

Originally Posted by simpleman

<snip>I don't know what you mean by "false information" but if you are referring to Bush's reference to British intelligence and uranium from Niger, and how Joseph Wilson tried to say that Bush lied about it, then all I can say is that Wilson has been proven a fraud. His wife, a CIA agent whose position wasn't classified, recommended him for an unpaid trip to Niger to meet with dignitaries. <snip>

Widely reported in the past week, in print as well as television media, was a filing in the Libby case by Fitzgerald which states that Ms. Plame most certainly was a covert operator. Here's Newsweek's take, for example. Please note that the info in Fitzgerald's court filing about Ms. Plame's status was cleared through the CIA. Pretty much shows up the lies of the right-wing spin machine about Ms. Plame.

Pax

scott

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by simpleman

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise.

That is the difference between us. You're approaching LGBT issues (including the Hate Crimes Bill) as an interesting argument about the legal issues surrounding hate crimes legislation.

Most of us on the board are potential targets of a hate crime on the basis of our sexual orientation. Many of us know people who have been targeted. I just received an email from Sean Kennedy's mom about her heartbreak over the loss of her son to a hate crime on May 16th. This is serious business for us, not some abstract academic exercise in the law.

I am not naive enough to believe that the S 1105 is going to completely stop hate crimes against LGBT people, but the law is a step in the right direction. At a minimum, it says something about our national commitment to prevent hate crimes against anyone based on any characteristic of their being.

How can this be a bad thing, especially since it includes everyone?

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

Antony, I don't really know if you have an answer to this next question or not, you probably do, but I'm gonna ask it all the same. If the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn't a Boeing 747, what happened to the people on the plane that was a Boeing 747 that was supposed to have crashed? If this is a smaller plane, a plane that wasn't one of the four hijacked ones, then we are missing a plane, are we not? If the plane that his the Pentagon was indeed some smaller plane, what happened to the big one?

Really... I want to know what you have to say about this. I'd really like to know.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

Really... I want to know what you have to say about this. I'd really like to know.

For the record, I'm skeptical about the conspiracy theories. But I'm open to questioning. And there are some big unanswered questions.

[tpdncr4christ]

I have never witnessed such blatant hypocrisy before on this forum. You talk about argument versus experience, when you cannot formulate a worthwhile argument yourself. How can you point out small tidbits of missing information from our arguments and ignore huge missing pieces of information from your own.

I have been intrigued, honestly curious and worried about this 9/11 conspiracy theory and I have been investigating it, giving your arguments and points due time and trying to understand your point of view. I was terrified of the fact that perhaps our President did do something so horrible as do nothing to prevent, even plan the slaughter of thousands of his own innocent people. I cannot believe you actually think you have an argument.

If there is one thing I hate in this world it is hypocrisy. If this discussion is just going to lead to you saying you have holes in your argument I don't see the point. I was sincerely concerned about my safety and my well being in this country because the man you portrayed as our president seems capable of anything. He is not, and he cannot be such an evil man. I am ashamed I actually believed you. I'm gonna try and take a hiatus from this particular thread for a while so I can breathe and calm down, but when I come back I'd really like to know why and how you can believe such filth.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

I have never witnessed such blatant hypocrisy before on this forum. You talk about argument versus experience, when you cannot formulate a worthwhile argument yourself. How can you point out small tidbits of missing information from our arguments and ignore huge missing pieces of information from your own.

I have been intrigued, honestly curious and worried about this 9/11 conspiracy theory and I have been investigating it, giving your arguments and points due time and trying to understand your point of view. I was terrified of the fact that perhaps our President did do something so horrible as do nothing to prevent, even plan the slaughter of thousands of his own innocent people. I cannot believe you actually think you have an argument.

If there is one thing I hate in this world it is hypocrisy. If this discussion is just going to lead to you saying you have holes in your argument I don't see the point. I was sincerely concerned about my safety and my well being in this country because the man you portrayed as our president seems capable of anything. He is not, and he cannot be such an evil man. I am ashamed I actually believed you. I'm gonna try and take a hiatus from this particular thread for a while so I can breathe and calm down, but when I come back I'd really like to know why and how you can believe such filth.

I'm not an expert in Physics nor do I have the time to sort out the details of the government vs. the conspiracy theories. That is why I provided you with this page so that you can do your own research:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...8&postcount=33

and this:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...4&postcount=27

Your question is a good one so I suggest you read the experts above.

The only argument that I am willing to make is that there are some big unanswered questions. I will not argue beyond that statement

If you had actually read my posts you would realize that I simply presented the conspiracy theories without taking a position on them. I presented them because they are very influential and relate to people's fears about this presidential directive.

And if you actually read this post you'd realize that I don't even fear this presidential directive:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...3&postcount=14

Given what I know about disaster recovery, the presidential directive is necessary.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by simpleman

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/wa...351060&ei=5070
There it is, happy now? I looked through my cache and found it. If I'd had the slightest idea that you would lambast me to the extent that you did, I would have just done it the first time. You truly are my biggest watchdog on this site, so I'll be sure never to err again. On to the story...
This story indicates that the Times was trying to expose that Rice had ignored warnings of an impending terrorist attack.

Nope. Not happy one bit.

Why? Because the article you cite does absolutely nothing for the argument you made in the following post. In fact, it proves my case.

Originally Posted by simpleman

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Heeded warnings? Several plans?

I guess you haven't read the 9/11 Commission's report or the Congressional Record for that matter.

The article from the NYTimes, in point of fact, shows how Ms. Rice has a habit of covering her ass.

Originally Posted by NYTImes

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

She says she remembers meeting with Tenet but did not remember a specific meeting and has the gall to say that she finds it "incomprehensible" that she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11th attacks.

Ms. Rice not only blew off Tenet, but she blew off Richard Clarke.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Originally Posted by Congressional Record

Testimony of Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism coordinator:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

I guess national security, which Ms. Rice was in charge of at the time, wasn't that great a priority. It was a big enough priority to be sidelined into a sub-cabinet level. Gee. That's really taking a terrorist threat seriously, isn't it? And I guess you've forgotten that fact that the Bush administration stonewalled the 9/11 commission for over a year. They didn't want them to find out just how little they actually did- which amounted to zippo.

Originally Posted by Rice

MS. RICE: The fact is that what we were presented on January the 25th was a set of ideas -- and a paper, most of which was about what the Clinton administration had done, and something called the Delenda plan, which had been considered in 1998 and never adopted.

We decided to take a different track. We decided to put together a strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the problem wasn't that you didn't have a good counterterrorism person. The problem was you didn't have approach against al Qaeda because you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan, and you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan because you didn't have an approach against Pakistan. And until we could get that right, we didn't have a policy.

In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th, he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them. And the FBI was pursuing them. And usually when things come to me it's because I'm supposed to do something about it, and there was no indication that the FBI was not adequately pursuing the sleeper cells.

Rice called the plan by Clark a set of ideas, which, in and of itself, telegraphs loud and clear that the Bush administration decided that anything the Clinton administration presented was not to be listened to. But that's not thw whole story.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/20...ents_0926.html
A disputed history

The documents have been a source of controversy before. Rice contended in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post piece that "no al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Two days later, Clarke insisted to the 9/11 Commission that the plan had in fact been turned over. "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options, but all of the things we recommended back in January," he told the commission, "were done after September 11th."

A close reading of the Congressional Record shows that her assertion that the Bush administration decided to take a "strategic approach" is a flat out lie. She did nothing but sideline Clarke and the warning by Tenet. She might as well had said 'my dog ate my homework', because she has nothing to show but lies and obfuscation.

And what was the reward for her performance? El Presidente made her Secretary of State.

Simpleman- To put it simply: you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the assertion that Ms. Rice put into motion "several plans". She did nothing of the sort.

To put things a bit more bluntly:

Simpleman: you're full of crap!

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by simpleman

The loss of American life in Iraq is nowhere near the counts for Nam, WWI, WWII or even the Civil War. That doesn't mean that the 3000 who have lost their lives bravely are devalued, it's just saying that there has been relatively very little loss of American life, and even Iraqi life in this conflict. The problem the Middle East has with us stretches way back to well before Bush was president. We supported, and still support the State of Israel, so the rest of the Muslim world in the Middle East despises us. Bush's policies are obviously going to make them mad, but not really any more mad than they already were.

So Simple, how do you feel about the well over 600,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost?

I believe the modern conflict with the middle east was, if not started, then exacerbated by Daddy Bush. Jr is just carrying out Daddy's wishes.

Bush likely had nothing to do with the planning of 9-11, but gross negligence, especially in light of personal gains made during this war, is nothing less than evil. Just MHO. To understand that evil definitely lurks in DC politics is a smart form of self-preservation.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by tdogg

So Simple, how do you feel about the well over 600,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost?

I hear they're being blown up in car bombs and other such 'worst ways to die' to the tune of 100 a day.
And how many more are physically maimed for life and will NEVER have access to even a fraction of the health care that our wounded soldiers enjoy? And how many more are pschologically crippled for life because they LITERALLY had to pick up the pieces of their loved ones? All for oil.

Of course they didn't/don't have an exit strategy. That would be like expecting them to have an "exit" strategy for heaven. Infinite oil = infinite energy = infinite money = infinite power over everyone else's money.

~~

I think this site below provides confirmed confirmed reports of deaths. The type that the larger estimates are based on. Even still, they report over 64,000 civilian deaths minimum.

Divide that by 3000, and that's 21.3 9/11's that we are responsible for inflicting upon Iraq.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Minimum