'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

[zimv20]

link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514)


'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

02 April 2004

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

The issue what the administration knew and when is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission * 90 per cent of it related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.

[Sun Baked]

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.So the FBI had wiretaps/intercepts months before 9/11 that they hadn't analyzed yet, so she began translating these days AFTER the attack.

Sine the FBI had the evidence in their possession they "knew" about the attack beforehand.

This is like saying that the FBI knew who the Uni-Bomber was years ago, because they had the evidence to convict him in their possession the entire time.

I think this is another person capable of failing a criminal logic course.

[mactastic]

I think this is another person capable of failing a criminal logic course.

Or more evidence of an FBI that didn't have the translation resources that it sorely needed.

Question is, why is the WH so eager to quash these kinds of statements? They've got no problem leaking classified info when it suits them, so why the reticence when it comes to the facts surrounding 9/11?

[PalmHarborTchr]

The article says the information was there before the 9-11 attacks

but no one bothered to translate it until it was too late and this person

was hired. Bush and team has been asleep at the wheel on so many

issues its hard to understand why anyone but an idiot or a Fascist

would consider voting for this fool in November 2004 :confused:

[diamond geezer]

So the FBI had wiretaps/intercepts months before 9/11 that they hadn't analyzed yet, so she began translating these days AFTER the attack.

Sine the FBI had the evidence in their possession they "knew" about the attack beforehand.

This is like saying that the FBI knew who the Uni-Bomber was years ago, because they had the evidence to convict him in their possession the entire time.

I think this is another person capable of failing a criminal logic course.

Actually, this woman's 2002 complaints centered on the translation service purposefully not translating documents, so they could get more budget the following year.

Check this out from an earlier thread.

Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency - that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year.

“We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,” says Edmonds. “And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.”

Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she'd left work for the day.

“The next day I would come to work, turn on my computer and the work would be gone. The translation would be gone,” she says. “Then I had to start all over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and he said, ‘Consider it a lesson and don't talk about it to anybody else and don't mention it.’”


Edmonds put her concerns about the FBI's language department in writing to her immediate superiors and to a top official at the FBI. For months, she said she received no response. Then, she turned for help to the Justice Department's Inspector General and to Sen. Charles Grassley, whose committee, the Judiciary Committee, has direct oversight of the FBI.

“She's credible,” says Sen. Grassley. “And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.”

[kgarner]

Seems to me it is more a failing of the FBI. If they had asked Bush for more translators and were turned down, that would be one thing, but this article doesn't say anything to that effect.

[Dale Sorel]

I just love all these experts who have perfect 20/20 hindsight :rolleyes:

Oh please, put the spotlight on me for a minute...I know something new... :rolleyes:

What a joke :rolleyes:

What's even funnier is watching people lap it up :rolleyes:

[3rdpath]

I just love all these experts who have perfect 20/20 hindsight :rolleyes:

ignored foresight eventually turns into hindsight...

[cr2sh]

I just love all these experts who have perfect 20/20 hindsight :rolleyes:

And they run around trying to blame each other like "Why did you let this happen?" This was a terrorist attack, that sad fact is, there is very little we can do stop them. And to have hearings and paint headlines, as if the Bush administration handed them the keys to the plane... you're right, they lap it up. A few of them even come on chat forums and call other members fascist idiots. :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

And they run around trying to blame each other like "Why did you let this happen?" This was a terrorist attack, that sad fact is, there is very little we can do stop them. And to have hearings and paint headlines, as if the Bush administration handed them the keys to the plane... you're right, they lap it up. A few of them even come on chat forums and call other members fascist idiots. :rolleyes:

Oh get off it. Where did such an unprovoked exchange happen?

I agree there's very little you can do to stop a determined, professional organised terrorist attack, especially if the attackers are suicidal. But even if that's the case, don't you think we ought to do something?

It seems the Bush administration mightn't have done anything and perhaps ignored specific threats because they were focused on Iraq.

[Dale Sorel]

And to have hearings and paint headlines, as if the Bush administration handed them the keys to the plane... you're right, they lap it up. A few of them even come on chat forums and call other members fascist idiots. :rolleyes:

You mean like this guy...


It seems the Bush administration mightn't have done anything and perhaps ignored specific threats because they were focused on Iraq.

:rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

You mean like this guy...




:rolleyes:

Way to add to the discussion. Why don't you work on another personal insult aimed at me again? You bring so much to the table.

[zimv20]

You mean like this guy...

are you seriously equating "Bush administration [...] perhaps ignored specific threats" w/ calling a fellow poster a "fascist idiot?"

[toontra]

You mean like this guy...




:rolleyes:

This seems to me like a personal attack which, as you may know, is not permitted here. Having checked back on some of your other posts in this forum, I notice they have been in threads which have been locked for similar reasons. This forum can only work if people stick to arguing the issues.

[Dale Sorel]

This seems to me like a personal attack which, as you may know, is not permitted here. Having checked back on some of your other posts in this forum, I notice they have been in threads which have been locked for similar reasons. This forum can only work if people stick to arguing the issues.

Oops, my bad. I'll try not to attack the other posters here.

Peace :)

edit: Is the title of this thread just a little ludicrous?

[Sun Baked]

edit: Is the title of this thread just a little ludicrous?Yes it is, almost sounds like Bush got a fax memo months before from al-Qa'ida at the White House telling him all about it...

[zimv20]

edit: Is the title of this thread just a little ludicrous?
the thread title is the same as the article headline

[wwworry]

The problem is Bush is running like he has the only answer to the terrorist problem and voting for anyone else is like voting FOR terrorism. This is clearly untrue.

[Dale Sorel]

the thread title is the same as the article headline

OK, if something makes it into print it's gospel :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

OK, if something makes it into print it's gospel :rolleyes:
what do you suggest i do when posting a newspaper article?

[mactastic]

what do you suggest i do when posting a newspaper article?

You could put the title in quotes to suggest it came from somewhere else... Oh wait, you did that already! :p

[cr2sh]

Oh get off it. Where did such an unprovoked exchange happen?

Uh... right here.


its hard to understand why anyone but an idiot or a Fascist would consider voting for this fool in November 2004 :confused:

Not that I would expect anything more from our public education system... :D

I don't believe that the Bush admin ever ignored or intentionally allowed anything to happen.. you might, but that's the nature of this forum. Most of the members jabber on in their democratic/liberal rhetoric and its pointless to even argue against it. You don't even see the futility of pointing the finger for an event that NO ONE could have stopped... it didn't matter who was in the White House (Clinton was president during the first WTC attack). So now we have to realize that we're a target and pointing a finger does not help that at all, and it certainly isn’t a solution to the problem at hand.

The FBI, CIA.. who ever, was probably understaffed. It certainly appears that way.. but it would have been impossible to man the CIA in a way that every piece of evidence was analyzed and processed so that these attacks could have been prevented. Its a field of static that they're sorting through, trying to figure out what's a real threat... its just not possible to catch everything. I don’t care what the commissions or news reporters think… no one is to blame for this intelligence failure. When the terrorists want to do it again, they will… the only thing we can do is fight back.

[toontra]

no one is to blame for this intelligence failure. When the terrorists want to do it again, they will

So in your opinion there is no point to the current investigation going on at the moment into possible intellegence failures?

You don't even think its worth waiting to hear its findings before reaching your own conclusion?

[cr2sh]

So in your opinion there is no point to the current investigation going on at the moment into possible intellegence failures?

You don't even think its worth waiting to hear its findings before reaching your own conclusion?

I'll admit I'm disillusioned with the American political system... so in a word, yes. I don't believe anything but political agenda will be found in this study.

There's a definite logic flaw in creating a commission to study an agency's shortcomings. If you contend that there is a flaw in the system, that there is corruption and that the US leaders can't be trusted.. why does that go away when they appoint a commission?

I don't see how anyone can argue that the study will prove anything.

We have to do something though, right? We have to study something, or figure it out... it helps the American people feel safer. "Something is being done, to prevent this in the future." That's ************... it won't change a thing.

If it turns out I'm wrong.. then I'll admit it, and praise our leaders and revel in the fact that there will never be another attack.

[toontra]

I'll admit I'm disillusioned with the American political system... so in a word, yes. I don't believe anything but political agenda will be found in this study.

There's a definite logic flaw in creating a commission to study an agency's shortcomings. If you contend that there is a flaw in the system, that there is corruption and that the US leaders can't be trusted.. why does that go away when they appoint a commission?

I don't see how anyone can argue that the study will prove anything.

We have to do something though, right? We have to study something, or figure it out... it helps the American people feel safer. "Something is being done, to prevent this in the future." That's ************... it won't change a thing.

If it turns out I'm wrong.. then I'll admit it, and praise our leaders and revel in the fact that there will never be another attack.

Wow, and I thought I was cynical about the political process!

Surely with views like this you don't believe what anyone tells you about anything ever, no matter what "evidence" given to support it. How does that work for you?

To be honest I think it's a get-out from holding your leaders accountable, and I'm sure they relish people thinking this way - it allows them scope to carry on any way they see fit.

IMHO, it's too easy to say "They're all corrupt, and nothing I or anyone else does or says will make any difference".

If things are that bad I assume you don't vote?

[wwworry]

I don't believe that the Bush admin ever ignored or intentionally allowed anything to happen.. you might, but that's the nature of this forum. Most of the members jabber on in their democratic/liberal rhetoric and its pointless to even argue against it. You don't even see the futility of pointing the finger for an event that NO ONE could have stopped... it didn't matter who was in the White House (Clinton was president during the first WTC attack). So now we have to realize that we're a target and pointing a finger does not help that at all, and it certainly isn’t a solution to the problem at hand.


Well the Clinton administration did stop the bombing at LAX. So it is possible to stop these things.

THe problem at hand is that we're in Iraq and Ossama is running loose in Afghanistan. The problem is that Bush basically ignored the terrorist problem before 9/11. Maybe if he did not ignore it it still could have happened. But he can't run for re-election as tough on terrorists when he ignored terrorists to begin with. I do not think any American president would ignore terror after 9/11 (though Bush did initially oppose the homeland security department).

Why is it not possible for you to believe Bush ignored the threat before 9/11? You have two administration insiders telling you he did. He was on vacation for the whole month of August. He was more concerned about missile defence. After 9/11 his focus shifted to Iraq. He kept implying that Iraq was involved in the attack.

I think they are doing a fairly good job now but who wouldn't?

However he messed up with Iraq. They threw out a year of postwar planning including what locations should be guarded after the fall of the govt. because it was done by people in the state department and the whole operation was handed over to the defence department. Remember the looting? That could have been prevented. Then all the BS about WMDs. Then this stupid June 30th deadline driven completely by the GOP convention. Then that Bush fired the general who dared give accurate cost estimates of the war. The completly alienating other countries that could help us there.

So you have a guy that ignored a lot of warnings, completely alienated the Arab world against us when we had their support after 9/11, lied in the state-of-the-union address, lied a bunch of other times, put most of our troops and money in the wrong country, still has not caught the guy who planned the attack and is running like he is "the answer". Blech!

[zimv20]

Then that Bush fired the general who dared give accurate cost estimates of the war.
who also said we'd need more troops than rumsfeld had estimated. and today we have this: Rumsfeld Leaves Door Open to More U.S. Troops for Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/international/06CND-PENT.html)

Mr. Rumsfeld, addressing reporters in Norfolk, Va., refused to be drawn into a discussion about whether he personally thought the present American troop strength, about 135,000, was sufficient. "I don't know that I would be the best judge," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It takes someone who's on the ground in the military who is assessing it on a daily basis, and we have superb people leading our military out there."

[pseudobrit]

Uh... right here.

I fail to see how that qualifies as "call[ing] other members fascist idiots."

But if I wanted to see personal insults directed specifically at a member:

Not that I would expect anything more from our public education system... :D

I don't believe that the Bush admin ever ignored or intentionally allowed anything to happen.. you might, but that's the nature of this forum. Most of the members jabber on in their democratic/liberal rhetoric and its pointless to even argue against it. You don't even see the futility of pointing the finger for an event that NO ONE could have stopped...

I'd like to hear the truth. It's possible it could have been stopped. It's becoming clear that even if it couldn't have been stopped, measures that might have prevented it or lessened the severity of it were not taken.

Your argument is akin to one that if a platoon is outnumbered 10 to 1, the soldiers shouldn't bother to load their weapons or keep their helmets on because they're going to die anyway.

[zimv20]

I'd like to hear the truth.
the 9/11 commission agrees w/ you. if anyone's in a position to know...

[cr2sh]

Your argument is akin to one that if a platoon is outnumbered 10 to 1, the soldiers shouldn't bother to load their weapons or keep their helmets on because they're going to die anyway.

You can't deny that the vast majority of users on this forum are democrats. You see it in every political thread... so yes... your platoon metaphor is accurate.. except, by putting it in terms of dying, you greatly overestimate how much I care about your opinion.

As for the rest of your post, we clearly view the world in very different ways.

Surely with views like this you don't believe what anyone tells you about anything ever, no matter what "evidence" given to support it. How does that work for you?Maybe my post was poorly worded or maybe you just didn't understand what I was saying. I was pointing out the flaw in the Democrats logic that I see. You interpreted it as my own view of all things in life. That is not the case.

[toontra]

I was pointing out the flaw in the Democrats logic that I see. You interpreted it as my own view of all things in life. That is not the case.

Ah. I see. So you are willing to distrust certain views because of percieved "flaws in ... Democratic logic". Are you equaly willing to distrust Republican views when they are shown to be based on lies?

[pseudobrit]

You can't deny that the vast majority of users on this forum are democrats. You see it in every political thread... so yes... your platoon metaphor is accurate.. except, by putting it in terms of dying, you greatly overestimate how much I care about your opinion.

Um... I was talking about terrorism, not this forum.

[cr2sh]

Ah. I see. So you are willing to distrust certain views because of percieved "flaws in ... Democratic logic". Are you equaly willing to distrust Republican views when they are shown to be based on lies?

Again... I think you might have missed my point. Nothing has been "shown to be based on lies." I still don't think you understand what I'm saying.

What you're asking is a loaded question.. "do you distrust liars?" Is there any other answer but "yes"?

[toontra]

Again... I think you might have missed my point. Nothing has been "shown to be based on lies." I still don't think you understand what I'm saying.

What you're asking is a loaded question.. "do you distrust liars?" Is there any other answer but "yes"?

I haven't missed the point; I think you haven't read my comments correctly.

I didn't ask "do you trust liars"; I asked "are you equally willing to distrust Republican views when they are shown to be based on lies?".

You asked for examples - two spring to mind. How about:

1) Bush & crew intentionally misleading the US public in the lead-up to war by mentioning Iraq, terrorism & 9/11 in the same context on countless occasions (see other threads for links & specific quotes & references)

2) Powell's claims at the UN that he knew Iraq was involved in WMD production as a fact.

What I'm trying to get at is you seem to be selective in your distrust of the political system. You seem unwilling to believe that a commission into intelligence leading up to 9/11 will be anything other than a sham, whereas in the more substantial case of why your government took you to war on a false prospectus you seem to accept the reasons given without question when they have been shown to be erroneous. Why the double standard?

[blackfox]

I am tempted to post my take on this issue, but in truth, I just don't know...it would seem that someone dropped the ball, both within the Clinton and Bush administration, but I like most others, would just like the information to be revealed and the truth uncovered...as cynical as I am about modern politics, I still vote on 'character' and look at this issue as a representation of that...although I have never been a fan of GWB. There are plenty of other, better reasons than this to drive that paricular point home...despite what comes up, I do feel that GWB handled the 9/11 situation(post) rather well...it is just everything else he has done before and after that bothers me.

[cr2sh]

Why the double standard?

Toontra, there is no double standard. The long term outcome ofthe Iraq war will be positive. That was enough of a reason to go to war.

This ************ with the 9-11 commission.. is just that.

You seem to be good with semantics... but I urge you to stop indulging in it.

[zimv20]

The long term outcome ofthe Iraq war will be positive.
please explain how and give your best estimation as to when

[cr2sh]

please explain how and give your best estimation as to when

I refuse to play this game with you guys. Its laughable.

I cannot, honestly, believe that you see NO positive possible outcomes in this war.

[pseudobrit]

I refuse to play this game with you guys. Its laughable.

I cannot, honestly, believe that you see NO positive possible outcomes in this war.

What game? I'd like to know too. Of course you've worded your statement pretty vaguely this time around.

Of course there are possible positive outcomes. But you previously said:
The long term outcome ofthe Iraq war will be positive.

Which is it?

[pseudobrit]

This ************ with the 9-11 commission.. is just that.

I assume you feel the same way about the Whitewater investigation, Powell's speech to the UN and the administration's lies to the American people about Iraq?

Or is it only ************ when it looks bad for Bush?

[zimv20]

I cannot, honestly, believe that you see NO positive possible outcomes in this war.
i didn't say i couldn't. you said it *will* be positive, i'm not so sure. i'd like to know your view.

[toontra]

I refuse to play this game with you guys. Its laughable.


If you are not prepared to defend your argument that tells me everything I need to know about its likely validity. ;)

[mactastic]

The long term outcome ofthe Iraq war will be positive. That was enough of a reason to go to war.

Another 'the ends justify the means' person?

[skunk]

The long term outcome ofthe Iraq war will be positive.
I'm sure it WILL be positive for someone. He's probably an undertaker.

[Dale Sorel]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

So much for the source, who's title is shared with this thread :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

So much for the source, who's title is shared with this thread :rolleyes:
so the 8/6/01 pdb is the only source there is, eh? :rolleyes:

i can guarantee you she didn't even see it

edit: :rolleyes:

[Dale Sorel]

i can guarantee you she didn't even see it

No kidding... maybe she's just a lot smarter than Condi Rice (along with all the fruitcakes in here that think 9/11 was preventable :rolleyes: ).

[3rdpath]

No kidding... maybe she's just a lot smarter than Condi Rice (along with all the fruitcakes in here that think 9/11 was preventable :rolleyes: ).

name calling is frowned upon here.

[zimv20]

No kidding... maybe she's just a lot smarter than Condi Rice
her job was to translate arabic, not review pdbs. you have a context problem.

[Dale Sorel]

her (Condi Rice's) job was to translate arabic, not review pdbs. you have a context problem.

You're kidding, right :confused:

[zimv20]

You're kidding, right :confused:
"her" referred to the translator, not ms. rice.

her job was to translate arabic, not review pdbs. you have a context problem.Originally Posted by zimv20

her (Condi Rice's) job was to translate arabic, not review pdbs. you have a context problem.
please don't misrepresent my posts

[amnesiac1984]

Toontra, there is no double standard. The long term outcome ofthe Iraq war will be positive. That was enough of a reason to go to war.


Tell that to the families of the 10,000 dead (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

[Dale Sorel]

her (Condi Rice's) job was to translate arabic, not review pdbs. you have a context problem.

"her" referred to the translator, not ms. rice. please don't misrepresent my posts

How is the inserting of my understanding of your post "misrepresenting" your post?


her job was to translate arabic, not review pdbs. you have a context problem.

With all the "she's" and "her's" flying around how was I to know what you meant?

And please, trust that I understand what I read before you go around implying that I don't.

By the way, does your keyboard have a shift key :p

[Neserk]

]I refuse to play this game with you guys. Its laughable.

I cannot, honestly, believe that you see NO positive possible outcomes in this war.

There are positives to just about everything, if you look hard enough. My cat died, one last cat to feed and clean up after. See?

That doesn't mean that the negatives don't far out weigh the positives.

[Neserk]

Tell that to the families of the 10,000 dead (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)


What is scary is we don't really know how many Iraqi's have died. Isn't 10,000 just an estimate? It could be 15,000+.

It bothers me in the deepest part of my soul that #dead only include Americans.

[skunk]

It bothers me in the deepest part of my soul that #dead only include Americans.

And why, oh why, in that poor, benighted country which you are instructing in the rule of law, does the US Army refuse to record the number of Iraqi dead? Is this not a fundamental responsibility? Surely it is incumbent on them at least to keep some sort of count?

[zimv20]

What is scary is we don't really know how many Iraqi's have died. Isn't 10,000 just an estimate? It could be 15,000+.

that site uses verifiable media reports to make its totals (e.g. "between 15 and 22 killed"). that's how it's got its high/low numbers.

because the numbers are verifiable, i'd agree with you that the actual numbers are probably (much) higher. hard to know how much, but i think it could easily be double.

[pseudobrit]

How is the inserting of my understanding of your post "misrepresenting" your post?

Because you added text to his quote without citation, making it look as if he said something he didn't.

And please, trust that I understand what I read before you go around implying that I don't.

It's quite clear that you didn't.

By the way, does your keyboard have a shift key :p

Does yours have a :rolleyes: key?

[Neserk]

that site uses verifiable media reports to make its totals (e.g. "between 15 and 22 killed"). that's how it's got its high/low numbers.

because the numbers are verifiable, i'd agree with you that the actual numbers are probably (much) higher. hard to know how much, but i think it could easily be double.

I assume much higher, too. Simply because our gov't want their casualties to be as low as possible so they are going to under report... :mad:

[amnesiac1984]

What is scary is we don't really know how many Iraqi's have died. Isn't 10,000 just an estimate? It could be 15,000+.

It bothers me in the deepest part of my soul that #dead only include Americans.

Remember, these are meant to be innocent civilian deaths too, the overall number of deaths will be much higher. The sad thing about all this is that I believed there was real hope for nation building in Afghanistan but GW just isn't interested, Iraq is all he cares about and that is becoming more and more apparent.

[SlyHunter]

Well the Clinton administration did stop the bombing at LAX. So it is possible to stop these things.

!
Reno reported to the 9/11 commision just today that the above was just dumb luck.

[SlyHunter]

Remember, these are meant to be innocent civilian deaths too, the overall number of deaths will be much higher. The sad thing about all this is that I believed there was real hope for nation building in Afghanistan but GW just isn't interested, Iraq is all he cares about and that is becoming more and more apparent.
Actually what is more apparent is that the press cares more about reporting the news in Iraq than in Afghanistan. There is a war currently going on in Afghanistan but the thing has been going on so long the News stations can't get any good ratings out of reporting on it so they harp more on Iraq which is still a big ratings grabber.

[SlyHunter]

Also their is apparently allot of purposeful misquoting going on.

INTENTIONAL LIES?

For two days the Washington Post has been reporting that the August 6,2001 Presidential Daily Briefing memo -- the one recently declassified by the White House -- "... warned [President Bush] a month before September 11, 2001 attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan."

There's a problem here. That problem is that the August 6 memo doesn't say what the Washington Post says it says. Not even close. The memo mentions that some suspects had been casing federal office buildings in New York. Not one mention of Manhattan, and no mention that any building in New York might be the target of a hijacked airliner.

Isn't it clear what's going on here? The Washington Post is reporting -- in two successive news stories on two successive days -- that President Bush was warned specifically that terrorists were going to hijack airliners and target a building in lower Manhattan ... the location of the World Trade Towers. They are presenting the facts this way because they know that the majority of Americans haven't read the actual PDB, and, furthermore, the majority of Americans are very unlikely to learn the truth about those memos. The goal here is to twist the truth so that millions of Americans will come to believe that Bush had a specific warning, and ignored it.

I can tell you where this is going to go. Six months from now, just before the November election, I'll be getting calls from people swearing that they read somewhere that George Bush had a memo in front of him a month before 9/11 telling him just what the terrorists were going to do, and where they were going to do it. The fact that what the Washington Post reported is a lie will be lost. What they reported will not.
www.boortz.com

Just today I heard similar mis reporting of the fact on NWI which I thought was suppose to report the truth and not a spring board for mis information.

[zimv20]

Also their is apparently allot of purposeful misquoting going on.

i missed that wash post article. do you have a link to it?

[SlyHunter]

I'm not sure whether they issued an internet copy of it. Maybe you can order a back issue.

Correction I found it.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072603A.shtml

Among the only clues cited in the report about Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda's intentions against the United States is an Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing (PDB) -- described in the report only as a "closely-held intelligence report" -- that included information "acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of [Osama] Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives."

[zimv20]

I'm not sure whether they issued an internet copy of it. Maybe you can order a back issue.

Correction I found it.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072603A.shtml
???

i'm looking for evidence that the wash post said the pdb mentioned lower manhattan. i don't see that in the truthout doc.

from your boortz link:

For two days the Washington Post has been reporting that the August 6,2001 Presidential Daily Briefing memo -- the one recently declassified by the White House -- "... warned [President Bush] a month before September 11, 2001 attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan."


from the truthout/wash post doc:

Among the only clues cited in the report about Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda's intentions against the United States is an Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing (PDB) -- described in the report only as a "closely-held intelligence report" -- that included information "acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of [Osama] Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives."


where is the wash post article that claims the 8/6/01 pdb mentioned lower manhattan?

[SlyHunter]

???

i'm looking for evidence that the wash post said the pdb mentioned lower manhattan. i don't see that in the truthout doc.

from your boortz link:


from the truthout/wash post doc:


where is the wash post article that claims the 8/6/01 pdb mentioned lower manhattan?
Its possible after Boortz posted his article the Washington Post edited theirs. I don't know have to find a back issue and read that I guess to know one way or another.

[pseudobrit]

Its possible after Boortz posted his article the Washington Post edited theirs. I don't know have to find a back issue and read that I guess to know one way or another.

I've never heard of the Post editing an article in such a manner.

I've heard enough that I'm comfortable in calling ************ on the boortz website article, which I didn't see when I followed the link. Not surprising coming from an obviously partisan radio show instead of a legitimate news source (like the Post ;)).

[zimv20]

Its possible after Boortz posted his article the Washington Post edited theirs.
it's also possible that boortz is full of ****

[SlyHunter]

I've never heard of the Post editing an article in such a manner.

I've heard enough that I'm comfortable in calling ************ on the boortz website article, which I didn't see when I followed the link. Not surprising coming from an obviously partisan radio show instead of a legitimate news source (like the Post ;)).


story from yesterday's Washington Post. The story details Vice President Richard Cheney's Sunday interview on NBC's Meet the Press. Here is a paragraph taken directly from the Washington Post story:

"Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia's ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. 'I don't want to speculate," he said, adding that Sept. 11 is "over with now, it's done, it's history and we can put it behind us.'"

Now ... any reasonably intelligent person with any command of the English language would take that to mean that Richard Cheney said that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are past history and something we can just put behind us. But ... is that what Vice President meant? In fact, was that even what he said?

Apparently not.

If you read the Meet the Press transcript you will see that the Cheney quote as printed in the Post actually contains fragmented statements addressing two different issues. Here ... read it for yourself. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers but that it will not be released to the public.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don't know want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI that that material needed to remain classified. At some point, we may be able to declassify it, but there are ongoing investigations that might be affected by that release, and for that reason, we kept it classified. The committee knows what's in there. They helped to prepare it. So it hasn't been kept secret from the Congress, but from the standpoint of our ongoing investigations, we needed to do that.
One of the things this points out that's important for us to understand—so there's this great temptation to look at these events as discreet events. We got hit on 9/11. So we can go and investigate it. It's over with now. It's done. It's history and put it behind us.
From our perspective, trying to deal with this continuing campaign of terror, if you will, the war on terror that we're engaged in, this is a continuing enterprise. The people that were involved in some of those activities before 9/11 are still out there. We learn more and more as we capture people, detain people, get access to records and so forth that this is a continuing enterprise and, therefore, we do need to be careful when we look at things like 9/11, the commission report from 9/11, not to jeopardize our capacity to deal with this threat going forward in the interest of putting that information that's interesting that relates to the period of time before that. These are continuing requirements on our part, and we have to be sensitive to that.

It's clear that Cheney did not say that it is time to put the attacks behind us. He merely said that there is a great temptation to do so. If you read on in Cheney's response you will see that he clearly thinks that this is a temptation to be avoided. He says the response to the terrorist attacks is a "continuing enterprise" and that there are still people involved in the 9/11 attacks who are "still out there."

Oh well. If you're a leftist newspaper and you can Dowdify a quote in order to make it look like a conservative Republican Vice President is shrugging off the terrorist attacks ... hell, why not?


Yesterday I detailed how The Washington Post "Dowdified" a quote from Vice President Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney's comments on last Sunday's Meet the Press were misquoted in the Post article so as to make it appear as if Cheney felt that the attacks of 9/11 were behind us and done with. Well, to its credit, the Washington Post corrected the record today and said that the words of the Vice President had been mischaracterized. To this date The New York Times has not issued either a correction or an apology for Maureen Dowd's misquoting of George Bush some months ago.



Perpetuating lies
A recent Washington Post article unjustly accuses George H. W. Bush of lying about Dukakis's prison furlough policy
In an interesting column on presidential lying in the April 19 Washington Post, Michael Kinsley, perhaps unintentionally, perpetuates a whopper himself. "The memorable dishonesties of Bush I were highly original artifices on novel or obscure topics, such as Massachusetts prison furlough policy," he writes in his third paragraph.

The only problem is that Bush I and his campaign never lied about the Massachusetts prison furlough policy. They told the truth. It was Michael Dukakis's defenders who lied–and those on the left who have continued to lie about the issue to this day. Perhaps Kinsley just carelessly assumed that a lie so often repeated must be the truth, as many, including some not on the left, do. But it's still a lie.

The truth is this. Massachusetts had a law, passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Francis Sargent, that allowed prisoners sentenced to life without parole to receive weekend furloughs. Yes, you are reading that right: People who were never supposed to get out of prison, people who in a state without capital punishment had been sentenced to the most severe penalty possible, were allowed to go free on weekends.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_020425.htm


New York Times, Washington Post suppress media recount of Florida vote
A consortium of major American news organizations, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, has decided to withhold the results of its recount of ballots cast in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The consortium had planned to publish its report this week, and although its decision to suppress its own findings has received virtually no media attention, the reason is made clear in a September 23 column by New York Times Washington bureau chief Richard L. Berke.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/nyt-s25.shtml

Yeah its not like they've never done it before :p

[zimv20]

Yeah its not like they've never done it before
regarding the consortium report, it was delayed but eventually released. if you wanna talk about misleading, cnn.com's headline was that bush would have won anyway. read the story, and it said anything but that.

regarding the wash post, sloppy reporting here and there doesn't mean boortz's claim is correct. find where the post printed the lower manhattan thing and i'll believe it.

in the meantime, i have the choice to believe the post, which is all in all a fine institution, or boortz, who until this evening i've never heard of and whose favorite link is called "The Democrats' Secret Plan For America"

in short: back it up

[pseudobrit]

[lots of stuff from Godknowswhere]

You've splashed about a mishmash of quotes that are obviously from different sources, mainly opinion pieces. Please try to include relevant links to this stuff, and if you're going to support an argument with facts, an opinion piece is generally not a good place to start.

I concur with zim: back it up or I'm forced to discount it as nonsense.

[SlyHunter]

regarding the consortium report, it was delayed but eventually released. if you wanna talk about misleading, cnn.com's headline was that bush would have won anyway. read the story, and it said anything but that.

regarding the wash post, sloppy reporting here and there doesn't mean boortz's claim is correct. find where the post printed the lower manhattan thing and i'll believe it.

in the meantime, i have the choice to believe the post, which is all in all a fine institution, or boortz, who until this evening i've never heard of and whose favorite link is called "The Democrats' Secret Plan For America"

in short: back it up
I read the Sentinel star, I live in Orlando and I don't have an internet copy. However they did report one day that they financed a recount (after the election and therefore considered unoffical) and after recounting the votes three times Bush still won. They only reported it once and did not put it on the front page you had to go digging for it to find it.

[SlyHunter]

You've splashed about a mishmash of quotes that are obviously from different sources, mainly opinion pieces. Please try to include relevant links to this stuff, and if you're going to support an argument with facts, an opinion piece is generally not a good place to start.

I concur with zim: back it up or I'm forced to discount it as nonsense.
Normally I don't put in the work and effort to trace specific items down but I'm new here and don't have a rep so I did.

Bush has come under renewed scrutiny because of a newly declassified document showing he was warned a month before the attacks about al Qaeda's presence in the United States and its interest in hijackings and a suspected desire to hit Washington and downtown Manhattan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6558-2004Apr12.html
again

The 2001 memo declassified late Saturday reported that the FBI had information that al Qaeda operatives had been in the United States for years, that they might be planning a hijacking in the United States and targeting a building in Lower Manhattan, that the FBI had 70 investigations underway related to bin Laden, and that a caller to a U.S. embassy in May 2001 said a group of bin Laden supporters were in the United States planning attacks with explosives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4275-2004Apr11.html

[spookz]

For translating needs that were dire,
'twas post-9-11 we hired
some mid-eastern speakers
as translating readers
of mid-eastern data acquired.

The backlog in which we were mired
was mid-eastern data acquired
remaining unleavened
before 9-11
in oceans of dots we'd acquired.

And one who is named "Sibel Edmonds"
is claiming before 9-11
the data explained
'twas hijacking planes
to crash into buildings envisioned.

*

Assume, arguendo, she's right
that Tenet and Dubya and Rice
had learned there were clues
that airlines they'd use
as missiles by hijacking flights.

Assume you were told, "Make a plan
to stop such attack on our land,"
but also assume
there also were clues
of hijackers planning to land.

Assume you must furnish the clues
as warnings to airliner crews.
Should warnings prescribe
"resist or you'll die"
or "let 'em prescribe where to land"?

Without 9-11 as hindsight,
you'd not know which warning's designed right,
so which would you choose:
"Resist or you'll lose"
or "Let them take-over the flight"?

link (http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y04m04d03-00-02-01.htm)

[zimv20]

I read the Sentinel star, I live in Orlando and I don't have an internet copy. However they did report one day that they financed a recount (after the election and therefore considered unoffical) and after recounting the votes three times Bush still won.
i'm not sure if by "they" you mean the consortium or the sentinal star (forgive me if the SS _was_ a part of the consortium, but i don't recall them being so)

the consortium report concluded that the election was by no means a conclusive bush win. gore won in about half the scenarios, many of those scenarios were not on the unlikely side of outcomes. i don't know if that's what you're referring to above.

i don't want to turn this into another florida recount debate, it's been done to death here. at issue is this boortz claim. perhaps i should just consider it another right wing mouthpiece hatchet job. and against the washington post, which has sided w/ bush on a number of issues, including the decision to invade iraq.

[SlyHunter]

i'm not sure if by "they" you mean the consortium or the sentinal star (forgive me if the SS _was_ a part of the consortium, but i don't recall them being so)

the consortium report concluded that the election was by no means a conclusive bush win. gore won in about half the scenarios, many of those scenarios were not on the unlikely side of outcomes. i don't know if that's what you're referring to above.

i don't want to turn this into another florida recount debate, it's been done to death here. at issue is this boortz claim. perhaps i should just consider it another right wing mouthpiece hatchet job. and against the washington post, which has sided w/ bush on a number of issues, including the decision to invade iraq.
No it is my understanding the Sentinel star did this on their own.
3 posts back, you may not have read it yet I gave direct links to Washington posts own web site where the quotes probably came from because they are the same quotes Boortz claimed would be there.

[Dale Sorel]

I concur with zim: back it up or I'm forced to discount it as nonsense.

You mean with a link to something on the Internet... surely you jest :cool:

[zimv20]

3 posts back, you may not have read it yet I gave direct links to Washington posts own web site where the quotes probably came from because they are the same quotes Boortz claimed would be there.
ah, yeah, i missed it. okay, thanks for the links. i've just reread the declassified pdb. from it:

Bin Ladin implied [...] that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Youse! and "bring the fighting to America."


A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.


FBI information [...] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country [...] including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.


from "World Trade Center", "New York", "federal buildings", the Wash Post came up w/ "lower manhattan" and "downtown". did the WP take liberties in its statements? possibly, but i don't think there's any great conspiracy as boortz is claiming:

The goal here is to twist the truth so that millions of Americans will come to believe that Bush had a specific warning, and ignored it.

[zimv20]

You mean with a link to something on the Internet... surely you jest :cool:
he backed it up w/ the links to the wash post articles in question -- exactly what i was asking for

[amnesiac1984]

Actually what is more apparent is that the press cares more about reporting the news in Iraq than in Afghanistan. There is a war currently going on in Afghanistan but the thing has been going on so long the News stations can't get any good ratings out of reporting on it so they harp more on Iraq which is still a big ratings grabber.

I know there is a war going on there but it probably could have been sorted by now if the US didn't all but pull out once they captured Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is still completely run by local warlords who are for sale. And you'd think that if they were really putting much effort in to it they would have gained control over the whole country and just be fighting insurgences. And the news may not be covering Afghanistan in the US but it is over here, I mean jeez Bin Laden is still there probably! You'd think Bush would be much more concerned about that. Bascially its as plain as day from an external perspective that Bush wanted to do nothing else but to invade Iraq in his term. he had a meeting about ti with Tony Blair only a few days after 9/11 saying he wanted to go get Iraq, Tony didn't really understand why as there were no links relating Iraq to terrorists.

[toontra]

Tony didn't really understand why as there were no links relating Iraq to terrorists.

Despite not really understanding, Blair still tacitly agreed to the "Afgahnistan now, Iraq later" strategy at this meeting, later having to devise all manner of shams (ie Iraq UN resolutions) to conceal his fundamental error of judgment at this crucial juncture.

[SlyHunter]

I know there is a war going on there but it probably could have been sorted by now if the US didn't all but pull out once they captured Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is still completely run by local warlords who are for sale. And you'd think that if they were really putting much effort in to it they would have gained control over the whole country and just be fighting insurgences. And the news may not be covering Afghanistan in the US but it is over here, I mean jeez Bin Laden is still there probably! You'd think Bush would be much more concerned about that. Bascially its as plain as day from an external perspective that Bush wanted to do nothing else but to invade Iraq in his term. he had a meeting about ti with Tony Blair only a few days after 9/11 saying he wanted to go get Iraq, Tony didn't really understand why as there were no links relating Iraq to terrorists.
Apparently you've never heard of the needle in the haystack or patting your head while rubbing your tummy.
Afghan won't work if we have to do all the work for them so we shouldn't be over there doing all the hunting either we can trust them or we can't but were not there to run their country for them.
And those mountains can't be searched by air and would be impossible to search by ground so its better that those who know the area do the searching. Whether or not Ben Laden is found is immaterial, he is a non-item right now powerless incapable of doing anything. Odds are he's dead from that kidney disease and will never be found. We should not halt everything else waiting on the off chance that this now unimportant person is found.

[amnesiac1984]

Apparently you've never heard of the needle in the haystack or patting your head while rubbing your tummy.
Afghan won't work if we have to do all the work for them so we shouldn't be over there doing all the hunting either we can trust them or we can't but were not there to run their country for them.
And those mountains can't be searched by air and would be impossible to search by ground so its better that those who know the area do the searching. Whether or not Ben Laden is found is immaterial, he is a non-item right now powerless incapable of doing anything. Odds are he's dead from that kidney disease and will never be found. We should not halt everything else waiting on the off chance that this now unimportant person is found.

Thats not the point. There isn't anybody there doing any searching. The new Afghani government only really has any power in Kabul. The rest of the country is wild and dangerous at the moment, all because the job was never finished.

[SlyHunter]

Thats not the point. There isn't anybody there doing any searching. The new Afghani government only really has any power in Kabul. The rest of the country is wild and dangerous at the moment, all because the job was never finished.
1. there are people over there.
2. we cannot be expected to expend 100% of our resource to search for an individual who has been rendered powerless and is probably dead.
3. We cannot be expected to do what they can do for themselves. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day teach him to fish and he eats for life. Irregardless the Afghans need to run their own country and not depend on us. We did what needed to be done and we are still there cleaning up the mess but for the most part they need to handle their own problems without any wellfare or handouts being thrown their way either thru the use of military or other items.
4. The job will never be finished irregardless how many men or how much money you throw at it. You are asking for the impossible. You can't lead men who don't wish to be lead thru the use of force. They must be brought around via diplomatic means or not at all. They must learn to figure out ways on their own to rule the entire country or split it up if that is necessary. We should not be forcing the rest of the country to abide by their will.

[mactastic]

You can't lead men who don't wish to be lead thru the use of force. They must be brought around via diplomatic means or not at all. They must learn to figure out ways on their own to rule the entire country or split it up if that is necessary. We should not be forcing the rest of the country to abide by their will.

Yet somehow I get the feeling you supported the Iraq invasion....

Nice sentiment though!

[SlyHunter]

Yet somehow I get the feeling you supported the Iraq invasion....

Nice sentiment though!
Some people no matter how good your intention can't be negotiated with. We tried with Saddam for 12 years. Some people just can't hold up their end of a negotiation table because they have no honorable intentions of standing by anything agreed upon. Like Saddam.

[mactastic]

Some people no matter how good your intention can't be negotiated with. We tried with Saddam for 12 years. Some people just can't hold up their end of a negotiation table because they have no honorable intentions of standing by anything agreed upon. Like Saddam.

And yet somehow I bet you were against the intervention in Kosovo...

[amnesiac1984]

1. there are people over there.
2. we cannot be expected to expend 100% of our resource to search for an individual who has been rendered powerless and is probably dead.


Is he rendered powerless? Is he dead? Anyway, I'm not suggesting spending resources trying to find him, but sorting out the country is what is needed.

3. We cannot be expected to do what they can do for themselves. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day teach him to fish and he eats for life. Irregardless the Afghans need to run their own country and not depend on us. We did what needed to be done and we are still there cleaning up the mess but for the most part they need to handle their own problems without any wellfare or handouts being thrown their way either thru the use of military or other items.

so you think we should get the hell out of iraq and let them sort themselves out too?

4. The job will never be finished irregardless how many men or how much money you throw at it. You are asking for the impossible. You can't lead men who don't wish to be lead thru the use of force. They must be brought around via diplomatic means or not at all. They must learn to figure out ways on their own to rule the entire country or split it up if that is necessary. We should not be forcing the rest of the country to abide by their will.

The rest of the country is instead being forced to abide by the will of a few warlords, who in turn answer to whoever they have chosen to answer to. Be it the remnants of the Taliban or the Heroin trade. I'm not suggesting using more force, in fact thats the last thing I want. I just get the impression that as little as possible was done to keep everyone happy and shut us up, which worked because we all have such a short attention span and then we could be led into attack the real goal all along which was Iraq!

[SlyHunter]

The USA is best at using force let the USA do what it is best at.
The French, Germany, and the UN at large is best at organizing civilian infrastructures and police forces let them deal with AFghanistan. The US doesn't have to do it all.

[skunk]

The USA is best at using force let the USA do what it is best at.
The French, Germany, and the UN at large is best at organizing civilian infrastructures and police forces let them deal with AFghanistan. The US doesn't have to do it all.

That's right. The US should just bomb EVERYBODY and leave the UN and those CESMs to clean up afterwards, when the US has grabbed all the assets to distribute among the FoGs AND failed to pay its dues to the UN.

Good thinking!

[zimv20]

That's right. The US should just bomb EVERYBODY
testing the edge case, i see. i like that game. i suggest the US, in cooperation w/ russia, china, the UK and france pre-emptively nuke the world to all hell. that will ensure all terrorists are killed.

[SlyHunter]

That's right. The US should just bomb EVERYBODY and leave the UN and those CESMs to clean up afterwards, when the US has grabbed all the assets to distribute among the FoGs AND failed to pay its dues to the UN.

Good thinking!
Dues to the UN!!!!!!! You had to bring this up.
ok UNICEF is a program when I was a kid I collected for UNICEF cause I wanted to help feed the poor. As an adult I found out they lied to me the money went into the general funds of the UN and not one single penny was applied to the dues owed by the US.

The US provides most of the armed forces for the UN when they do things and we do not get reimbersed for those forces.

There was an innocendent where we the US loaded up boxes to feed the poor, I think it was Haiti or somewhere in Africa. Anyhow we sent them out to a UN post where they promptly took stickers and pasted them over the US logo stating that these boxes came from the UN when the un didn't pay a penny for them and none of the cost was applied to the US's dues. In addition that same country later complained that the US were selfish capitalist pigs who refused to help and God bless the UN. It was an African country and the leader was I think Mandala or something like that or maybe it was Aristide. I don't have photographic memory but I remember watching the news reports and reading the reports on the internet about it.

This isn't the first time the UN took US funds and made it look like it came from the UN while they and the ones they were helping were talking aobut us like we were selfish pigs. IF were so selfish why is it we keep wasting my tax money on those who are unable to help themselves while trying to drag us down to their levels. They say how bad we are but if we can stand on our two feet so can they if maybe they copied us instead of crying for handouts all the time.

The US needs to get out of the UN it is made up of about over 50% totalitarian dictators. A large amount are socialist engaged in a secret cold war agains the US of Socialism vs Capitalism. The UN tried to place Iraq in charge of their disarmament committee when it was Iraq we were trying to disarm. The UN placed Syria and Egypt in charge of the Human rights committe the most human right violators in the world or close to it while kicking us out of it? No we should not pay them dues we should kick them out of NY and get out of it ourselves. We don't need the UN and we can create a new international group of freedom loving people instead. The UN couldn't even define terrorism when they tried.

The UN wasn't suppose to be a world Government they were suppose to be a forum for discussion. They actually demands that Texas abide by their court and not execute criminals in Texas who committed murder in Texas and when Texas thumbed their noses at them and did so anyhow tried to get the WTO to issue sanctions against the US as punishment.

You take that UN force and stuff it.

[SlyHunter]

That's right. The US should just bomb EVERYBODY and leave the UN and those CESMs to clean up afterwards, when the US has grabbed all the assets to distribute among the FoGs AND failed to pay its dues to the UN.

Good thinking!
France, Germany, Russia, China all decided not to participate in the attack on Iraq. They all had illegal oil trade deals with Iraq that violated the UN sanctions. They all demanded after we won that we honor those illegal oil trade deals. Bush the idiot said ask Iraq whether they honor it or not is up to the new leadership not us. Bush the idiot allowed Iraq to rejoind OPEC and not use Iraq to break the Monopoly that OPEC has enjoyed for so long. Luckily Bush told those countries tho that all US donated money will be spent only on countries who participated in the attack of Iraq in the rebuilding process. That does not mean Iraq cannot use their oil profits to spend on France, Germany, Russia, or China's bids. Hopefully Iraq leadership will turn them down too for why pay those who refused to help you when you were in need.

I've always felt it was stupid that the US had to pay our friends to be our friends. Its about freaken time they started acting more friendly.

[skunk]

Dues to the UN!!!!!!! You had to bring this up.
ok UNICEF is a program when I was a kid I collected for UNICEF cause I wanted to help feed the poor. As an adult I found out they lied to me the money went into the general funds of the UN and not one single penny was applied to the dues owed by the US.
You think YOUR pocket-money should have gone towards paying US dues?? It wouldn't have gone very far.

The US provides most of the armed forces for the UN when they do things and we do not get reimbersed for those forces.
Really? Where are all the US peacekeeping troops in Africa? May I remind you that Iraq is NOT a UN operation?

There was an innocendent where we the US loaded up boxes to feed the poor, I think it was Haiti or somewhere in Africa. Anyhow we sent them out to a UN post where they promptly took stickers and pasted them over the US logo stating that these boxes came from the UN when the un didn't pay a penny for them and none of the cost was applied to the US's dues. In addition that same country later complained that the US were selfish capitalist pigs who refused to help and God bless the UN. It was an African country and the leader was I think Mandala or something like that or maybe it was Aristide. I don't have photographic memory but I remember watching the news reports and reading the reports on the internet about it.
This is the vaguest hearsay, and almost certainly irrelevant.

This isn't the first time the UN took US funds and made it look like it came from the UN while they and the ones they were helping were talking aobut us like we were selfish pigs. IF were so selfish why is it we keep wasting my tax money on those who are unable to help themselves while trying to drag us down to their levels. They say how bad we are but if we can stand on our two feet so can they if maybe they copied us instead of crying for handouts all the time.
Sigh. The US contributes a TINY percentage of its GDP to foreign aid.

The US needs to get out of the UN it is made up of about over 50% totalitarian dictators. A large amount are socialist engaged in a secret cold war agains the US of Socialism vs Capitalism. The UN tried to place Iraq in charge of their disarmament committee when it was Iraq we were trying to disarm. The UN placed Syria and Egypt in charge of the Human rights committe the most human right violators in the world or close to it while kicking us out of it? No we should not pay them dues we should kick them out of NY and get out of it ourselves. We don't need the UN and we can create a new international group of freedom loving people instead. The UN couldn't even define terrorism when they tried.
This is a disgraceful racist rant. Get hold of some proper information, stop torturing the language, stop repeating half-remembered tripe, and try to contribute something useful. Please.
You take that UN force and stuff it.
Nice argument. It's been a pleasure chatting.

[skunk]

I've always felt it was stupid that the US had to pay our friends to be our friends. Its about freaken time they started acting more friendly.
I think you'll find it's the only way the US can GET any friends these days.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Dues to the UN!!!!!!! You had to bring this up.
ok UNICEF is a program when I was a kid I collected for UNICEF cause I wanted to help feed the poor. As an adult I found out they lied to me the money went into the general funds of the UN and not one single penny was applied to the dues owed by the US.

You think YOUR pocket-money should have gone towards paying US dues?? It wouldn't have gone very far.

No I think it shouldve gone to feeding the poor but since they put it in the general fund instead and lied to us about where it went then yes it should've gone towards the US dues.

[SlyHunter]

Sigh. The US contributes a TINY percentage of its GDP to foreign aid.


The US needs to get out of the UN it is made up of about over 50% totalitarian dictators. A large amount are socialist engaged in a secret cold war agains the US of Socialism vs Capitalism. The UN tried to place Iraq in charge of their disarmament committee when it was Iraq we were trying to disarm. The UN placed Syria and Egypt in charge of the Human rights committe the most human right violators in the world or close to it while kicking us out of it? No we should not pay them dues we should kick them out of NY and get out of it ourselves. We don't need the UN and we can create a new international group of freedom loving people instead. The UN couldn't even define terrorism when they tried.

This is a disgraceful racist rant. Get hold of some proper information, stop torturing the language, stop repeating half-remembered tripe, and try to contribute something useful. Please.

Not racist simple statistical fact. Iraq really was placed in the chairman seat for the disarmament committee. Syria and Egypt really were placed in the chairman seat for Human Rights. Syria really is a huge violater of human rights and provides places to hide for terrorists. I'm not too certain on Egypt I think they try to play both sides of the fence. the UN countries are really over 50% dictatorships. A large percentage of UN countries particularly those against the war are socialist in nature. Nothing racist is here simple statements of fact.

It is not in the US's best interest to be a member of a group who works against the US more often than not. Its not a question that they should agree with the US all of the time its that they seem to purposely work against the US overly often.

[SlyHunter]

The US provides most of the armed forces for the UN when they do things and we do not get reimbersed for those forces.

Really? Where are all the US peacekeeping troops in Africa? May I remind you that Iraq is NOT a UN operation?

Bosia, Kosovo are two of several countries where the UN forces were primarily made up of Americans. Not saying it wasn't a good idea, I wasn't keeping track of world affairs back then for 9/11 was my personal wake up call.

[SlyHunter]

?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the CIA never informed a vacationing President Bush in August 2001 that a suspected Islamic extremist had been detected taking flight lessons, the panel investigating the Sept. 11 jetliner attacks on New York and Washington heard on Wednesday.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4828327

[pseudobrit]

?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the CIA never informed a vacationing President Bush in August 2001 that a suspected Islamic extremist had been detected taking flight lessons, the panel investigating the Sept. 11 jetliner attacks on New York and Washington heard on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4828327

Underline mine.

[pseudobrit]

Some people no matter how good your intention can't be negotiated with. We tried with Saddam for 12 years. Some people just can't hold up their end of a negotiation table because they have no honorable intentions of standing by anything agreed upon. Like Saddam.

Likw how he wouldn't get rid of his WMD?

[amnesiac1984]

A large percentage of UN countries particularly those against the war are socialist in nature. Nothing racist is here simple statements of fact.

If by socialist nations you mean European welfare states then you are being paranoid and are completely wrong. These countries may be more socialist in the way they govern themselves, but they are still hugely Capitialist nations, they still multi billion $ mega corps and are competing in the international business game. There is not some secret cold war against capitalism, It sounds like you are a victim of cold war propaganda. Socialists aren't spawns of Satan, they simply aren't quite as extreme right as the the US.

[SlyHunter]

Likw how he wouldn't get rid of his WMD?
Like how he wouldn't honor the surrender agreement he himself signed which required full discloser and documentation proof of him getting rid of all of his WMD.

[skunk]

Like how he wouldn't honor the surrender agreement he himself signed which required full discloser and documentation proof of him getting rid of all of his WMD.
That is the fault of whoever wrote the agreement. Sloppy work, if you ask me....

[mactastic]

Like how he wouldn't honor the surrender agreement he himself signed which required full discloser and documentation proof of him getting rid of all of his WMD.

Like how we promised the Shia in '91 that we would back them, then sat back and watched as they were slaughtered? Funny how you didn't hear any Republicans voicing the opinions they do today about the nobility of 'saving' the poor Iraqis...

They'd probably be more willing to work with us today if we hadn't lied to them so recently.

[SlyHunter]

Like how we promised the Shia in '91 that we would back them, then sat back and watched as they were slaughtered? Funny how you didn't hear any Republicans voicing the opinions they do today about the nobility of 'saving' the poor Iraqis...

They'd probably be more willing to work with us today if we hadn't lied to them so recently.
We have done allot of bad things in our past.
We cannot fix the past we can only concentrate on the present and the future.

[skunk]

We have done allot of bad things in our past.
We cannot fix the past we can only concentrate on the present and the future.
Let's hear it for selective amnesia! Yeah!

[SlyHunter]

Let's hear it for selective amnesia! Yeah!
No we can't pay for the rest of our countries life for everything we have done wrong in the past. We cannot allow all the wrong things we did in the past to paralyze our decisions in the present and the future. Its not selective Amnesia its reality. We cannot fix what has been done in the past we can only try to fix things being done in the present and the future. We cannot consistently live in the past and still have a future.

[amnesiac1984]

No we can't pay for the rest of our countries life for everything we have done wrong in the past. We cannot allow all the wrong things we did in the past to paralyze our decisions in the present and the future. Its not selective Amnesia its reality. We cannot fix what has been done in the past we can only try to fix things being done in the present and the future. We cannot consistently live in the past and still have a future.

but the thing is the states continues to do these things without our knowledge. They may be trying to sort out this mess now, but what we don't know is that they are still doing exactly the same things, in their own interest, elsewhere. Look at Venezuela, and the US sponsored coup. The CIA were the ones shooting during the protests, no the chavez supporters, its all on videotape in the documentary "the revolution will not be televised" (http://www.chavezthefilm.com/)

[SlyHunter]

but the thing is the states continues to do these things without our knowledge. They may be trying to sort out this mess now, but what we don't know is that they are still doing exactly the same things, in their own interest, elsewhere. Look at Venezuela, and the US sponsored coup. The CIA were the ones shooting during the protests, no the chavez supporters, its all on videotape in the documentary "the revolution will not be televised" (http://www.chavezthefilm.com/)
I followed that link they support socialism they support redistribution of the wealth the stealing of wealth from those who produce and giving to those who don't. I would not trust them.

[skunk]

I followed that link they support socialism they support redistribution of the wealth the stealing of wealth from those who produce and giving to those who don't. I would not trust them.
You sad, sad person.