PDA

View Full Version : 9/11: What is Bush hiding and why?


pseudobrit
Jul 14, 2003, 05:18 AM
Interesting op/ed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030711/cm_usatoday/5316959) piece.

some relatives -- along with panel members and lawmakers in Congress -- worry that they won't get the whole story because the Bush administration is impeding the investigation...
...the administration's insistence that ''minders'' accompany government workers to interviews has a chilling effect on witnesses.

Anyone else find this really bizarre?

sturm375
Jul 14, 2003, 11:24 AM
I seem to remember another country that provided "minders" whenever somebody wanted to interview one of thier scientists. Oh yah, that was Iraq (Saddam). I guess somebody has to fill those shoes:(

Might as well be the administration that took out the Iraq (Saddam) administration for hiding information. If it weren't so damn horrifieing(sp), the irony is almost funny.

G4scott
Jul 14, 2003, 11:56 AM
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of information that you can't see, and will probably never see. Certain information has to be 'hidden' for the security of our country.

Every president hides things. If everybody knew about everything that went on in the white house and the pentagon, we would have no way of keeping our nation secure.

IJ Reilly
Jul 14, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of information that you can't see, and will probably never see. Certain information has to be 'hidden' for the security of our country.

Every president hides things. If everybody knew about everything that went on in the white house and the pentagon, we would have no way of keeping our nation secure.

Nobody is taking about revealing "everthing that went on it the White House." Further, we're talking about Congress being sandbagged, not the general public. The Bush administration established this pattern of excessively secretive behavior before 9-11, so this is just more of the same.

pseudobrit
Jul 14, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of information that you can't see, and will probably never see. Certain information has to be 'hidden' for the security of our country.

Every president hides things. If everybody knew about everything that went on in the white house and the pentagon, we would have no way of keeping our nation secure.

We're not talking about revealing everything. We're talking about getting to the bottom of 9/11, a national tragedy of epic proportions and consequences.
The investigation to discover the president had recieved oral sex was funded with an exponentially higher amount of money than the WTC collapse investigation has been.

Something is very strange here. The fish stinks, and it stinks from the head.

Perhaps it's a simple as "if everyone knows the truth, we can't paint it to be _____'s fault." Fill in the blanks with al Qaeda/Iraq/whomever else we feel the need to use an excuse to invade. Last week I heard a pundit trying to tie Liberia to al Qaeda. Ridiculous.

macfan
Jul 14, 2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
... we're talking about Congress being sandbagged, not the general public.


LOL. Like there's a difference?

sturm375
Jul 14, 2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by macfan
LOL. Like there's a difference?

Of course there is. They are more educated, nicer, less criminal, truthful, and well behaived. I am talking about the public, not Congress:D

IJ Reilly
Jul 14, 2003, 04:15 PM
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of either of the last two posts. Was any intended?

macfan
Jul 14, 2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of either of the last two posts. Was any intended?

The surest way to put something on the front pages of the newspapers on Monday is to have someone testify about it before a secret congressional committee on Friday.

IJ Reilly
Jul 14, 2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The surest way to put something on the front pages of the newspapers on Monday is to have someone testify about it before a secret congressional committee on Friday.

Not only do I believe you to be entirely incorrect about this as a factual matter (a great deal secret congressional testimony clearly does not make it into the pages of any newspaper), you are also taking a completely cynical view of democracy. It is a view that has gotten this country in trouble time and again.

pseudobrit
Jul 14, 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The surest way to put something on the front pages of the newspapers on Monday is to have someone testify about it before a secret congressional committee on Friday.

Quit being dodgy. Do you think that it is a good move to obfuscate the truth from the public?

macfan
Jul 15, 2003, 11:29 AM
I think you're asking the wrong question. As informed people are already aware, Congress has already investigated the issues arond 9/11, and this commission is a second investigation. While there may be plenty of politics in it from all sides, there are also legitimate national security concerns about what information should be released and what should not be released. These things must be balanced against each other, and it is foolish to whine about the public's right to know this or that without taking into account the need for people not to know this or that. When sensitive information is made public, the wrong people die.

IJ Reilly,
Of course not everything leaks, but enough does to make Congressional testimony a major security risk.

sturm375
Jul 15, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I think you're asking the wrong question. As informed people are already aware, Congress has already investigated the issues arond 9/11, and this commission is a second investigation. While there may be plenty of politics in it from all sides, there are also legitimate national security concerns about what information should be released and what should not be released. These things must be balanced against each other, and it is foolish to whine about the public's right to know this or that without taking into account the need for people not to know this or that. When sensitive information is made public, the wrong people die.

IJ Reilly,
Of course not everything leaks, but enough does to make Congressional testimony a major security risk.

My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the first commission to investigate 9/11, is either not yet complete because the Admin is dragging their feet, or did not get sufficient answers because of "National Security."

I of course am way outside the system, as most of the public is, and I am greatly concerned with the current adminstration's tendency toward secrecy. Even before 9/11, I saw this tendancy, when the Admin refused to release a list of names that helped form the current Energy Protocal. The accusations were that little or no attention was paid to envriomental/conservaton conserns, that many of us have. We, the people, have to take Bush's word that he got the right people to help form this Protocal.

All I am saying is that the current administration scares me like no other political force on earth. I am sure that they mean well, but I don't believe in the end justifying the means. And I believe that the Bush Admin is the opposite. I see this in the "Pre-emptive" strike policy, the National Security policy, Foreign relations, and most importantly, our civil rights.

This is why I for one have, and will continue to question every action/speach/policy that the current adminstration puts forth. And I am happy that Congress is also actively persuing this as well.

macfan
Jul 15, 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the first commission to investigate 9/11, is either not yet complete because the Admin is dragging their feet, or did not get sufficient answers because of "National Security."


According to the linked op/ed on the first post of this thread, a congressional report on these issues was completed last December, making this commission the second investigation, and, it would seem, somewhat redundant.

IJ Reilly
Jul 15, 2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Of course not everything leaks, but enough does to make Congressional testimony a major security risk.

This is a familiar, and tragic, excuse for an imperial presidency. No sale.

macfan
Jul 15, 2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This is a familiar, and tragic, excuse for an imperial presidency. No sale.

And that's why it's a good thing that those who want all information made public are not in charge. These things require balance, and we don't get balance by releasing all information gathered and internal workings of the intelligence services to the public. I seem to recall a court forcing the revalation that the intelligence services of the US were able to listen in to sat phones. Once this was public, those phones were no longer considered secure.

IJ Reilly
Jul 15, 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by macfan
And that's why it's a good thing that those who want all information made public are not in charge. These things require balance, and we don't get balance by releasing all information gathered and internal workings of the intelligence services to the public. I seem to recall a court forcing the revalation that the intelligence services of the US were able to listen in to sat phones. Once this was public, those phones were no longer considered secure.

A straw man argument. Nobody suggested that "all information" be made public. Just so we are clear, you are arguing that vital national security information be withheld from congress.

pseudobrit
Jul 15, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan
it is foolish to whine about the public's right to know this or that without taking into account the need for people not to know this or that. When sensitive information is made public, the wrong people die.

Sounds like an argument from Nixon's lawyer.

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Sounds like an argument from Nixon's lawyer.

Well, I'd rather be Nixon's laywer than Saddam's.
:p


IJReilly,
Just so we are clear, you are arguing that vital national security information be withheld from congress.

That's right, there are times when Congress should not be given certain information. The classic example of this, of course, is the Ultra project during WWII. More to the point in this instance, appropriate caution should be taken to ensure that information that should not be released will not be released. We have already heard about various intelligence failures before 9/11, it's not like this is being ignored by Congress or the administration.

wwworry
Jul 16, 2003, 06:28 AM
Maybe you should ask the families of some of the people who died on 9/11 if they are satisfied with the congressional report.

Right now there is no comprehensive independent report available to the public about 9/11. We have seen how such reports, like the Warren Commision's report on the Kennedy assasination, are necessary to the public well-being. Another lesson learned from the Warren Commision's report is that it is important that the commision be independent and above reproach. Do we really want to live with the conspiracy theories for the next 40 years? What about an Oliver Stone movie about 9/11?

Bush originally appointed Henry Kissenger, the man partly responsible for secret Cambodian bombings, to head the 9/11 commision. What a laughable choice completely revealing the Bush administration's Nixonian like secrecy.

mcrain
Jul 16, 2003, 11:11 AM
Basic constitutional lesson #1.

There are 3 branches to the government.

The executive branch;
The legislative branch; and
The judicial branch.

They are designed to be checks and balances on each other.

To suggest that the executive branch runs things, and is entitled to tell the other branches what information it can see (barring major explained national security issues - which are still disclosed to a select panel), which issues they can investigate, or how they do their jobs is suggesting that this country be run like a dictatorship.

The mere fact that someone here would suggest that is very, very sad.

sturm375
Jul 16, 2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
Basic constitutional lesson #1.

There are 3 branches to the government.

The executive branch;
The legislative branch; and
The judicial branch.

They are designed to be checks and balances on each other.

To suggest that the executive branch runs things, and is entitled to tell the other branches what information it can see (barring major explained national security issues - which are still disclosed to a select panel), which issues they can investigate, or how they do their jobs is suggesting that this country be run like a dictatorship.

The mere fact that someone here would suggest that is very, very sad.

I think we should all copy this, and email/snail mail/fax to every Senator, Representative, Judicial Apointee, and the entire Executive branch.

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Maybe you should ask the families of some of the people who died on 9/11 if they are satisfied with the congressional report.

Right now there is no comprehensive independent report available to the public about 9/11. We have seen how such reports, like the Warren Commision's report on the Kennedy assasination, are necessary to the public well-being. Another lesson learned from the Warren Commision's report is that it is important that the commision be independent and above reproach. Do we really want to live with the conspiracy theories for the next 40 years? What about an Oliver Stone movie about 9/11?

Bush originally appointed Henry Kissenger, the man partly responsible for secret Cambodian bombings, to head the 9/11 commision. What a laughable choice completely revealing the Bush administration's Nixonian like secrecy.

The Warren Commission really set the record straight for the public on the whole Kennedy assassination thing. After that report, there was not more controversy or debate!

Rather, what we have seen is that it doesn't matter if you have commission after commission, there are going to be conspiracy theories, including those which claim that Jews were warned not to go to work or that there really wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Hell, if there weren't pictures of of the planes at the WTC, there would be people saying that the building was hit by a missile fired from a grassy knoll someplace.

wwworry, no report or commission is going to make the victims and their families feel better.

mcrain,
Stop the histrionics. No one is suggesting that the country be run like a dictatorship. I am just pointing out that there are good reason not to release every little bit of information.

Alte22a
Jul 16, 2003, 02:08 PM
what I might say might offend certain people here but I just want to say it. These are just speculations and looking from a different point of view.

Ok here it goes what if......

The Bush administation is trigger happy...

ok Pre 9/11 remember the US spy crashing into China? the sort of accidentally on purpose thing. Ooops can I have my plane back please or we are going to invade..

What if.... The Bush administation knew about 9/11 but sort of let it slip through, another accidentally on purpose thing. Therefore resulting in the war in Afganistan and Iraq? I mean no terrorist group has ever admitted to 9/11. 9/11 was such a huge statement that who ever did it never really came forward, it was all speculated.

Sorry guys, just thoughts that been sitting with me for a while and wondered what others think? I like to apologise to friends in New York for making such assumptions but something doesnt add up....

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Alte22a
what I might say might offend certain people here but I just want to say it. These are just speculations and looking from a different point of view.

Ok here it goes what if......

The Bush administation is trigger happy...

ok Pre 9/11 remember the US spy crashing into China? the sort of accidentally on purpose thing. Ooops can I have my plane back please or we are going to invade..

What if.... The Bush administation knew about 9/11 but sort of let it slip through, another accidentally on purpose thing. Therefore resulting in the war in Afganistan and Iraq? I mean no terrorist group has ever admitted to 9/11. 9/11 was such a huge statement that who ever did it never really came forward, it was all speculated.

Sorry guys, just thoughts that been sitting with me for a while and wondered what others think? I like to apologise to friends in New York for making such assumptions but something doesnt add up....

Alte22a,
You seem to be ignorant of a nuber of facts, including that fact that the US has flown along the China coast for generations, and includig the fact that Al Qeada was, in fact, shown to be responsible for 9/11 and boasted of it. Your assumptions do not add up. They are based on lies, and your conclusions are likewise unfounded.

Like I said, there's going to be conspiracy theories. These are often offered by people motivated either by political hatred, simple mental imbalance, or both.

sturm375
Jul 16, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Alte22a
what I might say might offend certain people here but I just want to say it. These are just speculations and looking from a different point of view.

Ok here it goes what if......

The Bush administation is trigger happy...

ok Pre 9/11 remember the US spy crashing into China? the sort of accidentally on purpose thing. Ooops can I have my plane back please or we are going to invade..

What if.... The Bush administation knew about 9/11 but sort of let it slip through, another accidentally on purpose thing. Therefore resulting in the war in Afganistan and Iraq? I mean no terrorist group has ever admitted to 9/11. 9/11 was such a huge statement that who ever did it never really came forward, it was all speculated.

Sorry guys, just thoughts that been sitting with me for a while and wondered what others think? I like to apologise to friends in New York for making such assumptions but something doesnt add up....

I gotta say, I don't believe Bush himself would allow such a thing. Factions within his administration might, but not Bush.

Another thing, I am pretty sure that U.B.L. admitted taking a planning role in the 9/11 attack, I could be wrong though.

Alte22a
Jul 16, 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Alte22a,
You seem to be ignorant of a nuber of facts, including that fact that the US has flown along the China coast for generations, and includig the fact that Al Qeada was, in fact, shown to be responsible for 9/11 and boasted of it. Your assumptions do not add up. They are based on lies, and your conclusions are likewise unfounded.

Like I said, there's going to be conspiracy theories. These are often offered by people motivated either by political hatred, simple mental imbalance, or both.

It something thats been going on in my mind for a while now. Its nice to have some of the gaps filled in. I just wanted to blurt this stuff out of mind cause I didnt know where to put it. But of course I havent followed every bit of information and like I said I am just assuming. Since we do live in a free country and we can say pretty much what we like without being assisinated right. Did Al Qeada admit to 9/11? Sorry guys thats news to me...

Backtothemac
Jul 16, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Maybe you should ask the families of some of the people who died on 9/11 if they are satisfied with the congressional report.

Right now there is no comprehensive independent report available to the public about 9/11. We have seen how such reports, like the Warren Commision's report on the Kennedy assasination, are necessary to the public well-being. Another lesson learned from the Warren Commision's report is that it is important that the commision be independent and above reproach. Do we really want to live with the conspiracy theories for the next 40 years? What about an Oliver Stone movie about 9/11?

Bush originally appointed Henry Kissenger, the man partly responsible for secret Cambodian bombings, to head the 9/11 commision. What a laughable choice completely revealing the Bush administration's Nixonian like secrecy.

Why is it that every time, a congress man, or senator get a hair up their ass, we have hearings to get to the truth? They never result in anything, and only waste tax payer money. Personally, I thought the crap with Clinton was sick. We the tax payers should have never had to foot the bill. There is NO FRIGGIN WAY that the President, or the administration knew the exact intel to stop that attack. Now, do you hear things in the intel community. Yes, but all of the chatter has to be interpreted. Is it possible that intel was overlooked? Yes, but Bush doesn't get that intel to decide what is good. A recent college graduate does. Or a goverment lifer. Point is that the notion that he knew everything and did nothing. Please. If people really believe that, they need some medication and a room with padded walls, and I am glad they don't live anywhere near my family, because they will believe anything, and probably do.

Things go wrong in the world. People should accept it and go on. Period. Hey, someone may have missed chatter. Bad things happened. Could it have been avoided? Yea, Clinton could have take UBL out in one of the three times that the Saudi's tried to give him to us. Or when he was on the Frieghtor and the Seals were in choppers hovering over the ship, but Clinton would not give the go.

THIS IS EVERYONES FAULT. NOT ONE MAN, AND NOT ONE ADMINISTRATION.

mcrain
Jul 16, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Like I said, there's going to be conspiracy theories. These are often offered by people motivated either by political hatred, simple mental imbalance, or both.

There are also going to be people who blindly support Bush Jr.. Those people will often be motiviated by political hatred, simple mental imbalance or both. It goes both ways.

mcrain
Jul 16, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
NOT ONE MAN, AND NOT ONE ADMINISTRATION.

Actually, presidents love to take credit for things that go good under their watch... so... naturally, they take the blame for things that go bad under their watch. Bush Jr. happened to be president on 9/11, so if there were any failings, they are his, and no one elses. The buck stops here.

wwworry
Jul 16, 2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
THIS IS EVERYONES FAULT. NOT ONE MAN, AND NOT ONE ADMINISTRATION.

Normally I would agree with you but this is kind of a special case. 3000 people died in a few minutes. They deserve a little extra-special treatment. Also, I'm sure it is not just Bush's fault. The problem has been growing for the last 30 years.

What is going to be the definitve source of information about this tragety? Some ABC tv documentary or a commision with real power to get to the bottom of the whole thing?

I also think that mistakes happen and nothing is 100% foolproof and that we have to live with that sort of thing. But I would hardly call an investigation into 9/11 a waste of money.

Backtothemac
Jul 16, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Normally I would agree with you but this is kind of a special case. 3000 people died in a few minutes. They deserve a little extra-special treatment. Also, I'm sure it is not just Bush's fault. The problem has been growing for the last 30 years.

What is going to be the definitve source of information about this tragety? Some ABC tv documentary or a commision with real power to get to the bottom of the whole thing?

I also think that mistakes happen and nothing is 100% foolproof and that we have to live with that sort of thing. But I would hardly call an investigation into 9/11 a waste of money.

You want an investigation, here it is.

We have pissed off a bunch of waco nut jobs in the world. They communicate a lot through Sat phones, cell phones, email, and the interent. They are highly advanced in their cryptology. They have the ability to blend into our open society and live amoung us. They are radical religious freaks that choose death and martyardom to living a normal life.

They talked about 9/11 for over 2 years while living in our country. They met with Iraqi intel twice. They have some high dollar wacos funding them. The goverment caught chatter, but never enough info to catch them in the act. They carried out their plan. Now we are killing them one at a time. Until we make them realize that we will come after them, and if they want war, we will bring it.

There, that just save the US taxpayer over 100 million dollars. For about the same result.

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 06:56 PM
LOL. As long as you add: "Bush is responsible, impeach him now," that would probably do nicely for some posters.

wwworry
Jul 16, 2003, 07:35 PM
What do we spend in Iraq every month?

For what?

How much did that photo-op cost on the aircraft carrier?

Hasn't government spending gone up the fastest since 1985? Who was president then?

Would you rather have a president whose uses executive privilage to cover up his mistakes and the mistakes of his father or a president who tells the truth?

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
What do we spend in Iraq every month?

For what?

How much did that photo-op cost on the aircraft carrier?

Hasn't government spending gone up the fastest since 1985? Who was president then?

Would you rather have a president whose uses executive privilage to cover up his mistakes and the mistakes of his father or a president who tells the truth?

If that's all you've got to offer, you're going to be complaining about President Bush until January of 2009. By then, Hillary should be ready to run!

Sayhey
Jul 16, 2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by macfan
LOL. As long as you add: "Bush is responsible, impeach him now," that would probably do nicely for some posters.

I don't think Bush was responsible. It may seem obvious, but some times it bares repeating - the responsibility lies with those who hijacked the planes and their leaders in Al-Qaeda. That doesn't mean an inquiry into lapses in intelligence gathering isn't warranted. Do you want Congress to make laws and pass budgets based on assumptions or on carefully considered assessments? The problem is that some of the folks involved in this horrendous crime have connections that are embarrassing to others. There is an aspect of "blowback" in these attacks. We financed and trained some of these fundamentalists in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and it has come back to haunt us. The same could be said of our former relationship to Saddam or our current relationship to the Saudi regime. I don't think this administration wants us to draw those links.

pseudobrit
Jul 16, 2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You want an investigation, here it is.

We have pissed off a bunch of waco nut jobs in the world. They communicate a lot through Sat phones, cell phones, email, and the interent. They are highly advanced in their cryptology. They have the ability to blend into our open society and live amoung us. They are radical religious freaks that choose death and martyardom to living a normal life.

They talked about 9/11 for over 2 years while living in our country. They met with Iraqi intel twice. They have some high dollar wacos funding them. The goverment caught chatter, but never enough info to catch them in the act. They carried out their plan. Now we are killing them one at a time. Until we make them realize that we will come after them, and if they want war, we will bring it.

There, that just save the US taxpayer over 100 million dollars. For about the same result.

Sat phones, advanced cryptology, social camoflage, intel meetings, high dollar funding...

...not too shabby for a bunch of guys who killed 3000 people with BOX CUTTERS.

3rdpath
Jul 17, 2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by macfan
If that's all you've got to offer, you're going to be complaining about President Bush until January of 2009. By then, Hillary should be ready to run!

i miss your debates macfan. your pointless comments don't substantiate anything...except maybe that you really don't have an arguement.

Backtothemac
Jul 17, 2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Sat phones, advanced cryptology, social camoflage, intel meetings, high dollar funding...

...not too shabby for a bunch of guys who killed 3000 people with BOX CUTTERS.

And your point? I know Navy Seals that can kill people with their thumb. 20 different ways.

wwworry
Jul 17, 2003, 06:35 AM
My point was that an independent investigation into 9/11 is not a waste of money. That aircraft carrier photo op was a waste of money.

Why investigate anything that has already happened? It already happened. It's not going to change anything. Why not, in the case of a murder/suicide, to not even bother showing up? Why not tell historians their job is pointless? Let's leave all fact-finding up to Eyewitness News and People Magazine.

sturm375
Jul 17, 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

They talked about 9/11 for over 2 years while living in our country. They met with Iraqi intel twice. They have some high dollar wacos funding them. The goverment caught chatter, but never enough info to catch them in the act. They carried out their plan. Now we are killing them one at a time. Until we make them realize that we will come after them, and if they want war, we will bring it.


Sometimes you and I are on the same wavelength. This is not one of those times. I am all for bringing the perps to justice, not vengance. Eye for an eye doesn't do it for me. Nor did it do it for Christ (I believe you have stated you are a Christian in other posts). We are supposed to be better than that. We are supposed to be the good guys. I want the perps to stand trial for what they did to my fellow citizens. I want them to be inprisioned forever. So they can meditate on what they did, and pray for forgiveness from their god.

Violence begets violence. The only way to truly win this "war" is to fight it with justice, truth, and kindness. We will not win this war with falsehoods, revenge motives, bullying, and politics. Our true enemy in this war is a philosofical difference. We can't win it with the biggest gun, only the biggest hearts.

We haven't done too well in Afghanistan(sp?), as we used our might to clean out the visibile threats, but we are loosing the war there. The warloards are winning back the people.

In Iraq, we started by proclaiming it a matter of national security (Pre-emptive strike). Only later did we say that it was also for humanitarian aid. We have already more than varified that Saddam and his regiem were truely evil to their people. Reason enough in my book to have gotten rid in them. The sad part is I think the Administriation only used the humanitarian aid when they couldn't get enough support for their Pre-Emptive/national security argument. I find this attitude callaus, and borderline evil.

</ramble>

Backtothemac
Jul 17, 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by sturm375
Sometimes you and I are on the same wavelength. This is not one of those times. I am all for bringing the perps to justice, not vengance. Eye for an eye doesn't do it for me. Nor did it do it for Christ (I believe you have stated you are a Christian in other posts). We are supposed to be better than that. We are supposed to be the good guys. I want the perps to stand trial for what they did to my fellow citizens. I want them to be inprisioned forever. So they can meditate on what they did, and pray for forgiveness from their god.

Violence begets violence. The only way to truly win this "war" is to fight it with justice, truth, and kindness. We will not win this war with falsehoods, revenge motives, bullying, and politics. Our true enemy in this war is a philosofical difference. We can't win it with the biggest gun, only the biggest hearts.

We haven't done too well in Afghanistan(sp?), as we used our might to clean out the visibile threats, but we are loosing the war there. The warloards are winning back the people.

In Iraq, we started by proclaiming it a matter of national security (Pre-emptive strike). Only later did we say that it was also for humanitarian aid. We have already more than varified that Saddam and his regiem were truely evil to their people. Reason enough in my book to have gotten rid in them. The sad part is I think the Administriation only used the humanitarian aid when they couldn't get enough support for their Pre-Emptive/national security argument. I find this attitude callaus, and borderline evil.

</ramble>

I am a Christian. But if it is me or them, then it is them. Sorry, may be wrong, but that is what I believe. We need to hurry up and get some McDonalds over there. That would solve all the problems.

Sadly, there are some people in this world that if you don't kill them first then they will kill you.

sturm375
Jul 17, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I am a Christian. But if it is me or them, then it is them. Sorry, may be wrong, but that is what I believe. We need to hurry up and get some McDonalds over there. That would solve all the problems.

Sadly, there are some people in this world that if you don't kill them first then they will kill you.

I do see where you are coming from, and if I had somebody pointing a gun at me, and I had a gun, I don't know if my pricipals would win out, or my desire to live would win out. I've never been faced with that situation. I can only follow my beliefes.

So you remember my McDonalds theory:D

Great now I'm hungry, and it's 45 min. till lunch.

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
i miss your debates macfan. your pointless comments don't substantiate anything...except maybe that you really don't have an arguement.

If all wwworry has to offer is criticism of Bush for things like spending money in Iraq or flying to a carrier, that's not going to be nearly enough to vote him out in the next election. The people who complain about that were not going to vote for him anyway, and the majority who support him are not going to be swayed by petty arguments such as those. Understand?

zimv20
Jul 18, 2003, 09:03 AM
the washington post is carrying this op/ed piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8908-2003Jul17?language=printer):


Something to Hide?

By David Ignatius

Friday, July 18, 2003; Page A19

As political crises mount in Washington and London over evidence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, it would be especially useful to have the testimony of a leading expert on the subject, Saddam Hussein's science adviser, Amir Saadi.

Saadi (the seven of diamonds in the coalition's deck of cards) surrendered voluntarily to U.S. authorities in Baghdad on April 12. He was the first senior Iraqi official to do so. Because he had never been a member of the Baath Party, U.S. officials were hopeful that he would provide honest information.

TV addicts will remember Saadi as the articulate, cleanshaven English speaker who tried (never entirely convincingly, to this viewer) to explain Iraq's dealings with U.N. weapons inspectors. He was educated in Britain and Germany and married a foreigner, who was never allowed to live with him in Baghdad. Although he served as minister of petroleum and industries at various points, he was never particularly close to Hussein.

"He wanted to make himself available to the coalition forces for questioning and cooperation," said Saadi's German-born wife, Helma, in an e-mail message this week. One of Saadi's American supporters agrees: "He has everything to gain by being honest, and absolutely nothing to gain from continued deception."

So where has Saadi been for the past three months? His family believes he has been imprisoned at the Baghdad airport along with other Iraqi captives. His wife said that she has been communicating through the Red Cross and that in his last communication, on June 15, he told her he was "being treated correctly," was "allowed to shower once a week" and was passing the time reading and writing.

Saadi's friends say there has been quiet discussion about his case with the Coalition Provisional Authority headed by L. Paul Bremer. Believing that Saadi is "clean," some officials of the authority have recommended three times to higher officials at the Pentagon that he be released, according to Saadi's friends. Each of these requests has been rejected, they say.

But why muzzle Saadi? At a time when there are political firestorms in America and Britain over Iraq's WMD program, why not let one of Iraq's leading scientists answer questions? For example: When (if ever) were banned weapons destroyed? If they were destroyed, why didn't Iraq make a full disclosure, as demanded by the United Nations? Was Hussein afraid that if he admitted he had destroyed his WMD stockpile, he would lose a deterrent against attack by Kurdish and Shiite enemies of his regime? These are precisely the questions Saadi could help clarify.

Saadi's silence, I suspect, is evidence that the Pentagon and the White House have concluded that any public release of his testimony would undercut their position. After all, this White House is so desperate to protect President Bush on WMD issues that it is prepared to sacrifice CIA Director George Tenet. If Saadi's testimony could help the president, surely we would have heard it by now.

I have the same question about another man who voluntarily surrendered to the coalition, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He turned himself in April 24 after several days of negotiation involving an Iraqi American intermediary in the United States.

Aziz in his later years was not an intimate of Hussein -- that's why he was only the eight of spades in the coalition's deck. But he knows things that would be relevant to the British and American publics. Like Saadi, he has little incentive at this point to lie. His family even wants him to publish his memoirs.

I spoke with his son, Ziad Aziz, yesterday from Amman. He said his only official contact from his father was a June 14 letter via the Red Cross saying he was in good health. The younger Aziz recalled that when he said goodbye in Baghdad, his father seemed ready to cooperate fully. He, too, might be able to tell the world important information, were he free to do so.

What's bothersome about these cases is that they reinforce the impression that the Bush administration has something to hide. Why not disclose the testimony of people the coalition worked so hard to catch? The only convincing explanation, argues a former CIA official, is that their accounts would "directly refute the Bush administration's insistence that WMD still exist somewhere -- an assertion that we all know is growing more questionable every day."

The solid rationale for this war was liberating Iraq from Hussein's brutal regime, rather than the shakier WMD evidence. How bizarre that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to play a weak hand and that they now keep doubling their bets as its weakness becomes more apparent.

mcrain
Jul 18, 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And your point? I know Navy Seals that can kill people with their thumb. 20 different ways.

Yeah, well, I don't quite get your point. I can pleasure myself 20 ways with my left hand, does that make me a seal? :D

pseudobrit
Jul 18, 2003, 11:50 PM
I didn't know the Navy kept seals, especially seals with thumbs. I remember the mine sniffing dolphins though, but I'm pretty sure there were no thumbs there either.

mactastic
Jul 19, 2003, 10:08 AM
Come on Alta... are you a conspiracy kind of person? Do you think we staged the moon landing on a sound stage in Hollywood? Or that the Holocaust never happened? Cause saying GWB had info on 9-11 and let it come for some reason is on par with those kinds of claims. This is how the political debates get out of hand. Argue rationally or don't do it. Get some facts before you come in here saying things like that. Focus your efforts on finding out if there was an intelligence breakdown or something that might be embarrasing to the president. This whole "Bush likes to kill people" thing is not a productive argument.

mcrain
Jul 19, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Cause saying GWB had info on 9-11 and let it come for some reason is on par with those kinds of claims. This is how the political debates get out of hand. Argue rationally or don't do it. Get some facts before you come in here saying things like that. Focus your efforts on finding out if there was an intelligence breakdown or something that might be embarrasing to the president. This whole "Bush likes to kill people" thing is not a productive argument.

The whole point of wanting an open and honest investigation is not to see if GWB was sitting in his office one day and consciously decided to allow a bunch of Americans to die, but rather to see whether the choices that were made leading up to 9/11 were faulty (there are questions about how the Bush Jr. administration may or may not have ignored warnings from the Clinton administration). In addition, when something goes terribly wrong with your car and it dies on the interstate, you don't blindly accept some mechanic's statement that it is going to cost you $5000 to fix (without any explanation as to what went wrong). You have someone else look at it and provide you with a detailed explanation of what happened so you can make an informed decision (or in this case, so you know what if anything needs to be changed in the future to avoid the same type of catastrophe).

Every time a democrat says that an investigation should be held, republicans always make it out like they are accusing the president of making a conscious choice to allow those people to die on 9/11. That is not what is being suggested, and that sort of rhetoric in response to a request for an investigation is just as silly as the suggestion that Bush Jr. intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen.

Backtothemac
Jul 19, 2003, 01:25 PM
But mcrain, the problem is that some democrats say that he DID now and let it happen. That congresswoman from Georgia. I will say that I think there were serious faults. But they lie in the intelligence agencies, and the way in which the agencies talk to one another.

Also, the way Clinton changed the rules for the intelligence agencies was really a massive part of the problem. Jef, can attest to the cutbacks at the CIA.

Not putting the blame on one president, but I think that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, all bear some of the responsiblity for terrorism in the world.

3rdpath
Jul 19, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Not putting the blame on one president, but I think that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, all bear some of the responsiblity for terrorism in the world.

i agree, except we could probably go back at least 8 more administrations...at least to truman. the post ww2 strategies have really come back to haunt us.

Backtothemac
Jul 19, 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
i agree, except we could probably go back at least 8 more administrations...at least to truman. the post ww2 strategies have really come back to haunt us.

To some degree that is true, but I think is the formation of Israel that has caused 90% of the hatred towards the US.

mactastic
Jul 20, 2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
To some degree that is true, but I think is the formation of Israel that has caused 90% of the hatred towards the US.

I'm not sure it was necessarily the formation of Israel, but rather our one-sided support since then of Israel over the Palestinians. Probably some of both, but weren't several other countries involved in creating Israel? Now it seems like we are the only ones taking it on the chin for supporting them though.

macfan
Jul 20, 2003, 03:36 PM
I don't think the US support of the formation of Israel has as much to do with whatever hatred of the US there is around the world--and it is not entirely clear that people "hate" the US, there's a lot of ambivalence out there--as the US failure to take a different approach to the Cold War. Instead of merely facing down the Soviet Union, which had to be done, the US should have been more agressively promoting democratic governments and free market values around the world. Soviet propaganda was quite prevalent in many third world countries, and there was also a tendency of local governments to blame the United States for their own failures.

Many countries were involved in creating Israel. It was a UN mandate.

pseudobrit
Jul 20, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I don't think the US support of the formation of Israel...

Let's stop this right here.

The US wasn't involved with Israeli issues until well after she was able to fend for herself.

IJ Reilly
Jul 20, 2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Let's stop this right here.

The US wasn't involved with Israeli issues until well after she was able to fend for herself.

That's correct. The seeds of the nation of Israel were planted in the 1920s and 1930s by Great Britain, which gained colonial dominion over Palestine after WWI. It wasn't until well into the Cold War that the US saw the value of using Israel as a hedge against the Soviet Union's allies in the Middle East, Egypt and Syria.

Sayhey
Jul 20, 2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Let's stop this right here.

The US wasn't involved with Israeli issues until well after she was able to fend for herself.

I think you can start to see an marked increase of US involvement with Israel after the Suez crisis in the 50s. Certainly that is after the first war immediately following the creation of Israel in 1948. Also Israelis would not describe their nation as a creation of Britain. Far from it. The armed militant groups of Jewish immigrants to Palestine fought with the British forces during the time of the mandate. One of the Israeli Prime Ministers, Begin, was wanted by the British for the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The Brits thought of him as a terrorist.

But, back to the point of the cause of terrorism. I think it is short sighted to look at one cause for terrorism. Al-Qaeda developed its hatred and focus on the US after the stationing of US troops in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia. It had little to do with US support of Israel. Many Palestinians look askance at the late arrival of "pro-Palestinian" rhetoric from Osama bin Laden. At any rate, terrorism also has a lot to do with the cultural clashes between traditional cultures that see themselves and their way of life overwhelmed by American power and culture. It also has to be looked at from the point of view of each nation's history. For example, the support of Iran for many groups that have been labeled terrorists stems from the hatreds generated from the days of the US backed Shah regime. It is too simplistic to blame terrorism on US support of Israel.