9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam by Zoriah

Sorry!

*offers a big hug*

I have had some cranky days lately, let me tell you. But that's because I want to make sure I am keeping up with the news, I care about what is happening around the world and some stuff is just darn scary to me at the moment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:26 PM

STANDING8

yeah i hate the american spin. im from the US but when i check for news online everyday. i ALWAYS go to BBC news first, cause i want no spinning. then i will proceed to check out the NY times and then cnn.

on a side note: im curious to see FARENHEIT 9/11.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
What a huge difference: compare the major US headlines slant to the International ones.

I have been quite busy with summer session (not to mention no inet 2 weeks :() and haven't had time to pay attention to the news lately so thanks for the update.

But, I do remember this from when I lived in the states. I found it disgusting what drivel was (and still is) put out by the US media. You just made me remember. It's something that is bitter sweet.

On the one hand I don't want to know these things because it is so very sad. But, on the other hand, I need to keep these things in mind if I'm going to have an informed opinion about such matters.

The very sad thing is that this happens with pretty much everything news worthy. When will they read the writing on the wall

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:57 PM

Perhaps its just me, but I don't know if this is "breaking" news persay. I mean, I supported the conflict, but I went into it knowing there wasn't a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, that wasn't my main concern regarding Iraq, nor for that matter was WMD's nessecarily.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:09 PM

QUICKSAND

This isn't news to anyone that's .... been.... reading.... the.... NEWS!!!!

Not only was there no credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda... there was NEVER any kind of link at ALL!!!

Every single 9/11 terrorist, except two, were from Saudi Arabia. The other two were from Egypt. This isn't news, the New York Times had this YEARS ago.

Liberal Media, my Big Fat Ass. Don't forgot to VOTE!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 10:57 PM

I guess to me it was breaking news because the 9/11 non partisan blue ribbon commission are the ones who came to this conclusion.

I was hoping that general joe public might actually see this and get a clue.

So what are the legitimate valid reasons for invading Iraq that Bush and the administration have put forward that haven't been discredited?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:30 AM

MILORADELL

Quote:
So what are the legitimate valid reasons for invading Iraq that Bush and the administration have put forward that haven't been discredited?

Ummmm...that Bush & CO are empire building? I don't think THAT's been discredited.

ROFLMAO!!!! It's either that, or cry.

edit - oops. Bush & Co. haven't actually said that themselves. My mistake

****
"History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind."

Edward Gibbon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:12 AM

JONTHEBROWNCOAT

How about UN resolution 1441? Apparently the UN did not have the will to enforece it and Bush stepped up to the bat to take action.

France and Russia had a lot of oil deals in Iraq and now there is some interesting dirt coming on out on the UN and how corrupt the organization is, looks like everybody was getting a kickback for the Oil for Food deal that was cut.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JontheBrowncoat:
How about UN resolution 1441? Apparently the UN did not have the will to enforece it and Bush stepped up to the bat to take action.

As far as I know, all 1441 said was that if Iraq didn't quite doing "bad things" then they would suffer severe consequences.

The problem is (and here is where the argument starts) is who decides when enough is enough? Who knows even if that enough is going on (we all knew that the enough Bush & Co put forth for going in was bs ie no proof to begin with)? And who decides what those severe consequences are?

There are a whole lot of other questions to ask when it comes to all this but pretty much all (if not all) of them end up being bad for Bush (the answers anyway). The *facts* state that it is this way now (the rest of the world knew before this all happened).

But this is just starting that same old tired debate that has been fought in many other threads. So, back on topic.

ZOZORIAH
This *is* news. Another body in the US has stated what has been stated time and time again. ie The reasons stated to go into Iraq were unfounded. This is just another nail in the coffin of the Bush Admin. It's becoming more and more difficult to deny such things

Let's just hope enough Americans figure it out before they go to vote

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I guess to me it was breaking news because the 9/11 non partisan blue ribbon commission are the ones who came to this conclusion.

I was hoping that general joe public might actually see this and get a clue.

So what are the legitimate valid reasons for invading Iraq that Bush and the administration have put forward that haven't been discredited?

Well, the reasons are there if you care to look for them, (at least they are more blatantly obvious to me then the reasons, granted still valid, put forth for the Serbian conflict). From absolute atrocities committed throughout Saddam's reign, (I don't think that anyone is disputing thaT) to the gas attacks (Bloody Friday) at Halabja and the persection of the Kurds. What confuses me is that there was (apparently?) wide support for taking out Milosevic for his crimes against humanity, and yet, at least in Europe, the support for taking out Saddam was nearly nonexistant. Not to point fingers, but might that be because several European nations had exceptionally beneficial arrangements worked out with Iraq? Hell, I know that France sold Saddam some of their Mirage aircraft, and Super-Frelon and Alouette helicopters, (this is in the mid to late 80's) nevermind the threats that were made by a state sponsored Iraqi Newspaper that would disrupt trade between some French companies and Iraq if they voted "Yes," to military action in Iraq.

Anyways, the French aren't a terribly evil force or anything, just seems to be a little odd that some of the biggest detractors from a war were set up to benefit from keeping a dictator in power. (The US has often benefitted from this, so I don't know if we can throw stones in glass hosues.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:00 AM

HERO

I agree. There was never a connection between the Saddam regime and any form of terror.

Now if he had paid the families of suicide bombers or harbored terrorist groups, or allowed known Al Qaeda terrorists to get hospital care in Baghdad and then end up getting picked up coalition troops after the war, or gassed, raped, murdered, mutilated, cancelled Firefly, to his own people, or had his intelligence service work with Al Qaeda operatives including one or more the 9/11 hijackers, or used the Oil for Food program as a mechanism to systematically corrupt the entire UN, or fired at Coalition planes in the no fly zone he agreed to respect as a condition to ending the 1991 hostilites, or any myriad of other bad acts.

But he didn't do any of those things because we all live in Fantasyland. And in Fantasyland Saddam and Bin Ladden could rape Jessica Lynch live on national TV and somehow Bush would be responsible. The Fantasylanders would argue that the FCC should never have allowed this to be broadcast.

Bush should resign, because if he hadn't stolen Florida by contesting a recount of Democratic votes by Democratic vote counters then the evildoers could have bribed Gore into submission and there'd be no terror war to steal Iraq's oil, which somehow we didn't even get.

Fantasyland, where Clinton didn't have sex, Hillary is dedicated to serving her country and not herself, Gore won the election, France is a world power, John Kerry is a war hero, and Bin Ladden and Saddam are misunderstood men of peace.

You can have it, I prefer the real world, but not reality TV.

JEC
ALD

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:20 AM

Thanks for the post Zoriah.

The silence regarding the US Empire is precisely the same insanity that begat the Vietnam "conflict". Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead already and the killing will not stop. American soldiers are once again going out into bullsheit patrols and "pacification" missions which only get them slaughtered.

2 Million Vietnam Soldiers were killed in the 10 years the USA made war there. The USA only stopped when the truth about the reasons for the "conflict" came to light. The reason? No one wanted to loose. Not Truman, Ike, JFK, or LBJ. They let the death continue for thier own gain. Why?

A conspiracy of silence. Do a search for "the Pentagon Papers" if you want to know the truth about that war.

Americans need to take back thier governement from the rich elite who are perpetuating such insanity. Good frellin' luck since the US President clearly stated "you're either with us, or against us".

Well, count me against.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:04 AM

I think you forgot to mention the evil zionist plot to take over the nation through the usage of the media and the AIDs virus, which is tied into the alien conspiracy to control the northern hemisphere by using mind control on the leaders of the known world!

I got my tin foil hat Ghoulman, (its the only way to block the signals) do you have yours?

By the way, comparing the current situation in Iraq to Vietnam is exceptionally uninformed, in my opinion anyways. The only similarities I can see would be the use of guerilla warfare, and perhaps some vague notion that the "freedom" fighters over there could be compared to the Vietcong by their ability to blend in with the populice. Other then that the two aren't even remotely similar.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:45 AM

MINDSEYE

"We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available—including
investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting—we do not believe
that such a meeting occurred."

This is the only statement regarding Iraq in "Staff Statement No. 16" released by the 911 commission"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_16.pd
f

This brief snip from the statement does not, IMHO, prove or disprove any possible involvement of Iraq in 911. It just states that they do not think "Atta" met with an Iraqi intel-operative. Read the statement and make up you own mind. Don't rely on a reporters opinion.

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

Kell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:50 AM

SUCCATASH

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:07 AM

MINDSEYE

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

I am not trying to prove it one way or the other. I just thought it was interesting reading all the different interpretations of that “one mention of Iraq” in the “Official Statement” from the 911 commission. Sometimes it's better to get your information from the source and then make your decision on what might have/have not happened.

Freedom – Peace – Serenity

Kell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

That's how "conspiracy of silence" works.

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
I think you forgot to mention the evil zionist plot to take over the nation through the usage of the media and the AIDs virus, which is tied into the alien conspiracy to control the northern hemisphere by using mind control on the leaders of the known world!

I got my tin foil hat Ghoulman, (its the only way to block the signals) do you have yours?

By the way, comparing the current situation in Iraq to Vietnam is exceptionally uninformed, in my opinion anyways. The only similarities I can see would be the use of guerilla warfare, and perhaps some vague notion that the "freedom" fighters over there could be compared to the Vietcong by their ability to blend in with the populice. Other then that the two aren't even remotely similar.

I don't care, I'm still free.

You are not free. You don't live in a democracy.

The Pentagon Papers were proof of the White House complicity (over decades) in war. Notice that Dick Cheney comes from the same governement (Dick Nixen) that escalated the Vietnam war.

Same shit, different pile.

Search for "the Pentagon Papers"... there are loads of sites, many official or right from Universities.

Americans need to understand that a right wing crowd has gained complete control and will do whatever is in thier interests... NOT THE PEOPLES.

And the White House has murdered over 10,000 Iraqi citizens over it with no regard for law (Gods or even their own)... or history. I guess they figured America is watching TV.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

You are not free. You don't live in a democracy.

The Pentagon Papers were proof of the White House complicity (over decades) in war. Notice that Dick Cheney comes from the same governement (Dick Nixen) that escalated the Vietnam war.

Same shit, different pile.

Search for "the Pentagon Papers"... there are loads of sites, many official or right from Universities.

Americans need to understand that a right wing crowd has gained complete control and will do whatever is in thier interests... NOT THE PEOPLES.

And the White House has murdered over 10,000 Iraqi citizens over it with no regard for law (Gods or even their own)... or history. I guess they figured America is watching TV.

Erm, I do hate to rain on your parade but it was Nixon that DEescalated in Vietnam. It was Johnson and Kennedy that esclated. You are either terribly ignorant, or terribly misinformed.

And, quite frankly, I am glad I don't live in a democracy. I live in a Constitutional Republic and couldn't be more pleased about it. I don't think the average Joe is capable, (nor willing) to have direct control in the government, (though I do subscribe to the policy that the government that governs best, governs least) though that does NOT mean that our own "form" of democracy is for the complacent, (it is not). Democracy, or even our constitutional republic, is an active process, for all citizens, (or at least those that wish to be involved). This involves discussions, protesting, (if you think its nessecary) gathering with those of similar thoughts or ideals, running for office, or helping campaign for others that run for office.

Furthermore, while 10,000 Iraqi's maybe dead, (perhaps you aren't aware, but people DIE in war, its why war is so terrible) estimates of the number Saddam has killed, or led to be killed, can go as high as a million. Does that justify the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi citizens, (how many of those were combatants?) I don't think so. I find it very hard to justify death in general. Does that mean that it would've been better to appease Iraq? Perhaps had your country benefitted from Saddam.

Anyways, I hope your tin foil hat is secured around your head. Its when you sleep that they get you!

EDIT

Also, could you please explain how you equate whether or not the governmental system I current live under directly impacts my level of freedom? I can live under a benevolent dictator and have as much freedom, if not more, then any democracy could provide for me. I want to think you don't believe that democracy automatically equals freedom, but I can't help but think that is what you mean.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:51 PM

Mindseye:

Ummm, Actually - I was going from the PDF files of the preliminary commission report downloadable from the BBC News page. It is from the Staff Statement 15 - Named Overview of the Enemy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Page 5 of the 12 page report (which is also available here (thanks for the link): http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pd
f)

Has actual statements in there such as "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

Maybe YOU might want to read that document and then come back to me on this, I was NOT just going by some reporter's 'opinion' and it is clear the journalists weren't just talking out of their collective asses either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As usual I read through all major documents.

Colin Powell's UN speech.
UN resolution 1441.
Bush's State of the Union Addresses.
David Kay's report.
White House and State Department official releases (available on repective websites.)
And the most recent 9/11 Commission reports.

To show you what kind of nut-case I am for facts, I read through all availble testimony at the Justice Department website on the Microsoft trial.

I've decided facts irritate a lot of people who like their opinions unadulterated.

So here are my opinions, sans pesky facts:

The spin in US media plain sucks. The UK Independent is the best English-language website I've come across, even better than the BBC. But, as easy as it is to get real news, most people in the US would rather not. It interferes with a smug self-serving mind-set.

The US actually sold Hussein the chemicals, know-how, and equipment to gas the Kurds and Iranians. (The US wasn't alone it this - other countries were also willing to make a buck selling weapons.) The US also provided post-gassing 'ground truth' so Iraq could adjust its techniques. Rumsfeld met with Hussein to reassure him that the UN resolution re: the use of CW agents wouldn't go anywhere, and wouldn't affect the good working relationship the US had with Iraq. Yup, Hussein sure was evil.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:23 PM

That much is definately true. We did sell chemicals to Iraq, but that was more to help determine the course of the Iran/Iraq war, not to gas Kurds. (That was due to Saddam and Chemical Ali, not so much US involvement.)

I don't support the usage of chemical weapons, nor, in an ideal world war in general, but at the time Saddam was the lesser of two evils. (Again, not trying to defend the actions of Saddam or the US.) The facts are Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was making rather substantial, (relatively speaking) social reforms, in much the right direction. Granted, he wasn't a saint himself, but a much "better" leader, at least im my opinion, then the fundamentalists that took his place. I don't know if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sending thousands of young men to clear an Iraqi minefield is exactly the sign of a man who has the interest of his people in mind. Destablization in the region was inevitable under Khomeini. Under Saddam it was at least somewhat stable, and considering the still fresh memory of Vietnam I doubt America, or much of the rest of the "free" world was willing to risk troops to help the peoples of both countries, (nor nessecarily did many in the countries want to be helped).

Again, I don't support the usage of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq conflict, but thats not to say I don't see WHY they were used. (However, the gassing of Kurds and other dissidents, done without US knowledge or consent AFAIK was an outrage.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:00 PM

RUXTON

Concerning Saddam's supposed gassing, it's not as clear-cut as the Bush administration would have us believe.

This link:
"britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html" (put "www" in front of it)
gives more details on the gassing, which was not as simple as we have been led to believe.

Extracts:
"...all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds...

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.... In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

"...the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was IRANIAN gas that killed the Kurds, NOT Iraqi gas." [Emphasis added.]

The above is from "New York Times," January 31, 2003, in a piece entitled: "A War Crime or an Act of War?" By Stephen C. Pelletiere.

.......Ruxton

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 2:42 AM

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

I think I might have to go with the professional historian on this one.

Though in the same breath...

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Erm, I do hate to rain on your parade but it was Nixon that DEescalated in Vietnam. It was Johnson and Kennedy that esclated. You are either terribly ignorant, or terribly misinformed.

Yea... Nixon was innocent. Say, wasn't it the Nixon Administration that sent more and more troops to Vietnam and drafted more and more American kids to die in the jungle?

*sigh* I give you the REASON Nixon was forced to end the Vietnam war - and you use that to say I'm wrong and ignorant?

Yeaaaaa...

All I'm saying is that the current War isn't motivated by anything new. It's the same Empirical agenda the Nixon White House always had. Ask Kissinger. Ask Dick Cheney.

About the rest of what you say... I'm getting a tin-foil hat after all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 6:38 AM

Getting onto the topic... am I the only one weirded out that the US airspace is run by guys who call up NORAD and say things like; "uuuuh, yea, well, we need a little help from you guys." Really weird eh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 8:16 AM

HERO

Just wanted to note two things for the record.

1. Russia confirmed today that it had information about Iraqi sponsored terrorist operations, including plans to attack American targets both in and out of the US. Putin said that he made the info available to the US immediatly after 9/11. He still does not favor the war but states anyone who thinks there was no Iraqi-Al Qaeda link is mistaken. Note: this does not mean Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but since our policy changed to go after all who support terror, involvement in 9/11 is not a needed pretext to justify war.

2. There is no longer a credible link between US hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr's head and his body. Makes American prisoner abuse seem less dramtic, don't it just?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 8:41 AM

KRYPT

What happened to Mr. Johnson is tragic.

What happened (and is still happening) to civilians in Iraq is also tragic.

Krypt

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:05 AM

JASONZZZ

Zoriah:

you didn't see the frontpage splash of those items in the US papers b/c they were already old news.
Those items you listed in the US frontpage are the current news.

Besides, you are taking things quite out of context.
The 9/11 Commission's task is to look at things related to the 9/11 event. The 9/11 commission chairman clearly delineats this:

"What we found is, Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," Commission Chairman Thomas Kean said.

"We said that there is no evidence to support the notion that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated to produce 9/11," said Commision member James Thompson, then went on to comment that the report agreed with the administration's position that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. and also: "They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found." Thompson said. "I don't know, that wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11."

No link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 event[/q] is quite different than "Abolutely no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Below

Quote:
Yea... Nixon was innocent. Say, wasn't it the Nixon Administration that sent more and more troops to Vietnam and drafted more and more American kids to die in the jungle?

No! Your right! It was Nixon that started the war! Singlehandly too! I mean, its not like he was elected to office in the middle of the war or anything, hell that wouldn't make sense would it? I mean, its not like he deescalated the war, and pulled out American troops and accelerated the process of Vietnamization, no, no, of course not! That might be logical! I mean, lets just forget, for a moment, the fact that Johnson and Kennedy sent in hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam. Lets forget that Nixon removed 520,000 troops from Vietnam in about 3 years, and accelerated training of the Southern Vietnamize armed forces so they could defend themselves without American involvement. God forbid we remember that!

Did he cut off all American troops at once, (which would have been disasterous, both considering the ongoing Cold War, and the situation in Vietnam)? Absolutely not. He's not an idiot, (though don't get me wrong, Watergate wasn't exactly the brightest thing for him to do)he wanted to leave an army capable of defending itself in Vietnam that consisted of the Vietnamize. He did this. At the time America drew out of Vietnam the South Vietnamize had a sizable, and workable military force.

Quote:
*sigh* I give you the REASON Nixon was forced to end the Vietnam war - and you use that to say I'm wrong and ignorant?

You are wrong, and, as far as I can tell, still ignorant. You seem to be under the impression that Nixon *started* Vietnam, and didn't want to end it. He ran under the platform, (though the democratic canidate did as well) of ending Vietnam. You refuse to accept *facts* because doing so would completely destabalize any argument you may have had. That is not wise. Admit you were wrong and move on, thats the way to maintain, at least my, respect.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that the current War isn't motivated by anything new. It's the same Empirical agenda the Nixon White House always had. Ask Kissinger. Ask Dick Cheney.

Yes... Because as we all know it was NIXON that started Vietnam.

Come on, you are sounding more and more like a ranting lunatic and less and less like a sane person. I don't want to be so harsh on you, but it seems you are the only one with any kind of agenda here. Maybe you just got your facts confused, and thats understandable, but do some research into it bud! I think you really need to reexamine some of your beliefs and arguments.

Quote:
About the rest of what you say... I'm getting a tin-foil hat after all.

Good to know this forum has a great sense of humor.

You are a good guy, (or gal?) I just don't agree with yah bud.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

2. There is no longer a credible link between US hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr's head and his body. Makes American prisoner abuse seem less dramtic, don't it just?

Lowering yourself to shock value, eh

I think that people here (being as intelligent as they are) won't fall for that. So, why don't you keep this dramatic crap to yourself.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 10:38 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

2. There is no longer a credible link between US hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr's head and his body. Makes American prisoner abuse seem less dramtic, don't it just?

Lowering yourself to shock value, eh I think that people here (being as intelligent as they are) won't fall for that. So, why don't you keep this dramatic crap to yourself.

They chop off the head of a randomly chosen civilian. I mention the act and express disapproval. Call me an American, but I guess I'm just going to be the bad guy.

Lowering myself to shock value? Why, I'm just discussing the news of the day. Its supposed to rain tonight. Agassi won the French open. Kerry is looking for a VP. Terrorists chopped an innocent guys head off and didn't offend the flaming liberals infesting this board.

Sorry that last one wasn't really news. Here in Fantasyland chopping the heads off innocents is not offensive to anyone...at most its a unique form of culturally acceptable self expression. But prosecuting people for smoking pot, thats real terrorism.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 10:49 AM

KRYPT

"Terrorists chopped an innocent guys head off and didn't offend the flaming liberals infesting this board."

Says who? Is there anyone here is not saddended by the death of Mr. Johnson?

Krypt

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 10:57 AM

KRYPT

An interesting item in my email today:

The Bush administration's continued assertion that Saddam Hussein had long established ties with al Qaeda exposes the administration's
inability to comprehend reality and focus on real al Qaeda threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In so doing, they not only misled the country; they failed in their responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the American people.

While President Bush chased phantom al Qaeda ties in Iraq, the real al Qaeda was regrouping in Afghanistan. Video evidence of new al Qaeda training camps emerged this week. If confirmed, this evidence suggests that the shift to war in Iraq was a monumental strategic error that allowed al Qaeda to regain strength and prepare for more attacks against America and its allies.

The administration's continued insistence on a credible link between al Qaeda and Iraq is dishonest and breaks faith with the solemn obligation to protect the American people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Lowering myself to shock value? Why, I'm just discussing the news of the day. Its supposed to rain tonight. Agassi won the French open. Kerry is looking for a VP. Terrorists chopped an innocent guys head off and didn't offend the flaming liberals infesting this board.

Perhaps you should look at the title of this thread. If you do you'll see that it's about the 9/11 thing. And I for one did see and chopping of the heads 'round then, did you? If so, I'd like a link.

Also, if you wish to discuss the chopping thing, start a new thread. I think that you'll be surprised at the lack off non-offense of the "liberals that infest this board".

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
But prosecuting people for smoking pot, thats real terrorism.

Oh you, where do you get your *crazy* ideas.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 1:51 PM

I am offended by anyone getting murdered period.

I am offended by any act of terrorism, barbarism, torture, cruelty, despotism, corruption, continued systematic deception of the people....shall I go on?

To wrongs do NOT make a right.

The reasons for invading Iraq were legion, I'm just not convinced that any of them were totally credible, compelling or justified.

So the good news is that an alleged Al Qaeda leader was killed in Saudia Arabia. Can we please find Osama Bin Laden before something worse than 9/11?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't know what mental defect makes me think that facts actually count for something. But here goes. Regarding Iraq and al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission actually looked at a broad time-frame and make sweeping statements about the lack of ANY connection between the two over since al Qaeda's inception, not just in regards to 9/11.

Here are extended quotes, which are much more informative that carefully culled snippets:

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred. The FBI ’s investigation places him in Virginia as of April 4, as evidenced by this bank surveillance camera shot of Atta withdrawing $8,000 from his account. Atta was back in Florida by April 11, if not before. Indeed, investigation has established that, on April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta ’s cellular telephone was used numerous times to call Florida phone numbers from cell sites within Florida.

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan (1991 - 1996 dates added), despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan (1996 date added), but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:41 PM

Yes Rue, statement 15 is all about the history of Al Qaeda going back decades, they looked at possible links to Saddam in the 90's and found nothing. And I have no doubt they examined ALL of the available evidence regarding Al Qaeda's formation, operation, sponsors and connections dating back to its inception. Unless Cheney is still withholding something, which is possible.

Of course now they are jumping to say - oh but um it was only in regard to 9/11 absolutely, specifically, cos gee the government is pissed that we worded it that way in the statements.

Proving attempts at contact is one thing, proving established co-operation and collaboration as implied by the Bush government is another entirely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 5:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And here is more stuff regarding Reagan's and Bush the First's cozy relationship with Iraq (even after knowing Iraq gassed the Kurds)

"September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war."
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php (1)

'Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982.' (3)

"November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians." (1)

In December 19-20 1983 Ronald Reagan sent Rumsfeld as an envoy to Iraq, carrying a hand-written letter stating the US wished to resume diplomatic relations. Rumsfeld met with Hussein personally during that time.

On March 5, 1984 the US State Department issued a report stating it had evidence Iraq had used chemical weapons. On March 7, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement saying that injuries to soldiers were consistent with chemical weapons. http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html (2)
Around that time the UN sent investigators into Iran to investigate the use of chemical weapons.

On March 23, the UN released a report indicating evidence Hussein was using CW. 'Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”''The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet' by Jeremy Scahill http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm (3)

'[during a return visit to Iraq] March 24th, ... U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”' Later 'The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.” (3)

"Rumsfeld went to Baghdad ... to assure Hussein that while President Reagan was on record publicly decrying their use of chemical weapons, that in no way ''intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire 'to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remained undiminished.''' http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/News/article/article.asp?Ne
wsID=36687&sID=4 (4)

On March 30, 1984 the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons.

"July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops." (1)

"March, 1986. **The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons."** (1)

Iraq purchased military helicopters of various US manufacture. Other purchases and assistance over a long time frame:

"Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified ... the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under license from the commerce department."
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html (5)

"Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq." (1)

'In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times ... they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

**In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House'** (3)

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. ... the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas.

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."" (1)

" in [December] 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare." (5)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 5:57 PM

SCOTTI

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

But he didn't do any of those things because we all live in Fantasyland. And in Fantasyland Saddam and Bin Ladden could rape Jessica Lynch live on national TV and somehow Bush would be responsible. The Fantasylanders would argue that the FCC should never have allowed this to be broadcast.

Hero, you are ... well... my hero! Thanks for putting this in terms that simpletons might be able to understand... but I doubt it.

==============================================
Mal: You are very much lacking in imagination.
Zoe: I imagine that's so, sir.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 8:52 PM

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Yeah, the US were the MAIN suppliers of arms to Iraq. Much as it may seem by what you supplied the US had very little to do with the number of arms supplied to Iraq, and I am still not sure we did the wrong thing, (though I think chemical weapons was definately the wrong thing to do). Iran wasn't all puppies and sunflowers.

And even then the conventional weapons bought from the US, (all helicoptors) were bought for conventional usage, then pressed into service by the airforce. (Source: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf)

Check out the military contributions for military usage of the other countries, bud. Furthermore, France and Germany also exported equipment used in the manufacture of chemical weapons to Iraq. (Things that governments are supposed to "know" about.)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf

Here is a far more neutral article in my opinion.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2004 2:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, at least we seem to have put to rest some proposals:

1) that al Qaeda, international terrorism, and WMD were reasons to invade Iraq (even you agree)

2) that Hussein was so evil the US just had to invade! Which falls apart in light of US support of same, such as giving billions of dollars of credit; providing intelligence; selling dual-use supplies and equipment; stonewalling UN action re: Iraq's CBW against Iran and the Kurds; etc (BTW, the notion the UN was idle 'forcing' the US to take action, goes in the same dust-bin.)

3) that while it was OK for the US to help Iraq's dictator Hussein against Iran's dictator Khomeini (all in a good cause - to protect the US mid-east oil supply) other countries were nasty and evil for having financial interests in Iraq

4) that the 'perhaps million' killed by Hussein get to be counted on the outrage meter, but the hundreds of thousands directly killed by the US (US Gulf War I and II), the millions killed in the Iraq/Iran war with US assistance and agreement (originally called the Gulf War), and the half-million to million who died as a result of sanctions, don't (selectively parsing outrage doesn't cut it)

5) that the US stands for democracy (the US described by you as a Constitutional Republic and Bush, the Lesser, as a benevolent dictator)

6) that the US didn't know about Iraq gassing the Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, and so its continued support for Hussein was an innocent mistake

Out of the various proposals you've made, that leaves ... Well, what does that leave?

Other countries as well as the US had financial interests in Iraq which made sense of supporting Hussein against Iran, despite his well-known evil ways. And so other countries as well as the US sold conventional and unconventional arms and supplies to Iraq. And the US continued diplomatic and financial relations, providing billions in credit, selling questionable items etc up to 1992.

But how does moral outrage over Hussein's evil dictatorship now get retrofitted onto history?

The true threshold to the most recent war was the oil contracts (1993 - 2003). Other countries got them, the US and Britain didn't. Not one. Considering Iraq has the world's largest known oil reserves, it was a big deal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2004 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Below

Quote:
that Hussein was so evil the US just had to invade! Which falls apart in light of US support of same, such as giving billions of dollars of...

I don't know why you think that falls into the dustbin... Just because someone is the lesser of two evils, doesn't mean they aren't still evil. I think you are missing the point, either wittingly or unwittingly.

Quote:
that while it was OK for the US to help Iraq's dictator Hussein against Iran's dictator Khomeini (all in a good cause - to protect the US mid-east oil supply) other countries were nasty and evil for having financial interests in Iraq

Erm...

No, that is the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard.

Come to think of it, build a time machine and go back to Iran in the early 80's, hell, go there now. I am sure you will absolutely LOVE what that Ayatollah has done with the place.

Quote:
4) that the 'perhaps million' killed by Hussein get to be counted on the outrage meter, but the hundreds of thousands directly killed by the US (US Gulf War I and II), the millions killed in the Iraq/Iran war with US assistance and agreement (originally called the Gulf War), and the half-million to million who died as a result of sanctions, don't (selectively parsing outrage doesn't cut it)

Please provide credible sources for these numbers, including the number of dead noncombatants, and the supposed link to US involvement in these deaths, which as far as providing intel is comprised of can be very sticky to determine. Furthermore, where do you get hundreds of thousands killed in the first Gulf War? (Sanctions deaths are an interesting thing to be appalled at, perhaps you would WANT to give money/arms to Saddam? Maybe you think he's a good guy, who knows what crazy things you believe.)

From Wikipedia.

Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths seem to be around 378, with US forces suffering 148 battle-related and 145 non-battle-related deaths (included in the 378). The UK suffered 47 deaths. The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991 when an Iraqi Scud missile hit an American military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania. The number of coalition wounded seems to have been less than 1,000. Iraqi casualty numbers are highly disputed. Some claim as low as 1,500 military killed, some 200,000. Many scholars believe a number around 25,000 to 75,000. The number of military wounded is equally unknown. 71,000 Iraqis were taken as prisoners of war by US troops. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from just 100 persons to 200,000 excess deaths as a result of the war.

Yes, if you want to take Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf word, I am sure you can total the number of deaths to 400,000.

But lets not be competely insane and go with the logical 25,000 or so.

Quote:
that the US stands for democracy (the US described by you as a Constitutional Republic and Bush, the Lesser, as a benevolent dictator)

Okay, you have me in stitches. I think you must have a selective reading problem here bud. Furthermore I don't think you know the terms you are using. We are a Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Democracy. Furthermore, I never described Bush as a benevolent dictator, I said that being in a democracy did not equal freedom. If you want to ACTUALLY read, (I know, a novel concept) I said that a benevolent dicatorship can provide as much, if not more freedom, then any democracy can provide. I suggest that you actually try READING in the future. Might save you some trouble.

Quote:
6) that the US didn't know about Iraq gassing the Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, and so its continued support for Hussein was an innocent mistake

Yeah, I definately said that.

Sounds to me like you need to look more at France. Perhaps the fact that they armed Iraq with more conventional weapons in 1990 ALONE, (even after all he had done, and it was publically known) then we did in all of the time Saddam was in power, (and when we did they were helicoptors originally purchased for civilian purposes).

Again, I did not, and do not support the arming of Iraq, doesn't mean I can't see a degree of logic behind it. Iraq was terrible, but Iran was far more threatening. I am under the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that you think Iran was some fresh, flowering, innocent, wonderfully cuddly nation, and that the evil Iraq, (and I use that word with no sarcasm, for I have always thought that the leaders of Iraq were "evil") was only bad people there.

Maybe you should tell that to the young kids that Iran used to clear minefields.

Quote:
Out of the various proposals you've made, that leaves ... Well, what does that leave?

The ones you aren't too naive to understand? Who knows.

Quote:
Other countries as well as the US had financial interests in Iraq which made sense of supporting Hussein against Iran, despite his well-known evil ways. And so other countries as well as the US sold conventional and unconventional arms and supplies to Iraq. And the US continued diplomatic and financial relations, providing billions in credit, selling questionable items etc up to 1992.

Thats odd, because a very credible source I have seen said we stopped selling weapons to Iraq, (keyword being weapons) in 1988. http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Of course, nevermind the other countries, the US is the evil one here. And, even then, I think your argument bogs down. Not to say that the past is irrelevent, (something I fervently disagree with, the past is of exceptional relevence) but do you hold the Germany of today responsible for the Holocaust? But of course, nothing Saddam could do, apparently, would make him bad enough for the US to take action, at least thats what I am understanding you as saying.

Quote:
The true threshold to the most recent war was the oil contracts (1993 - 2003). Other countries got them, the US and Britain didn't. Not one. Considering Iraq has the world's largest known oil reserves, it was a big deal.

Surely oil played into it, I would never assume that the economics didn't play into our decisions in some way. Heck, if we could get some money into the hands of the Iraqi people to get some nicer infrastructure in there, and at the same time have cheaper gas it seems to be a win-win situation. Of course, now, the UN isn't getting a lot of kickbacks, and that must be a tragedy for so many of our good friends there, but hopefully they will manage, some how.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 6:12 AM

Wow, this thread is full of the sort of lies and bullsheit that I've come to expect from neocon Americans.

I suppose the thing to remember here is that the rest of us in the world aren't brainwashed by American media liars, nor are we so foolish as to think the USA has ever done anything but install dictators, kill citizens, and generally impose thier inhuman foreign policy on the rest of the world like the Empire it is. After all, can you give me one country the USA has helped? EVER? Well, I can site bombings, killings, dictators created, and Iran/Contra till the cows come home. You see, many in the world are beginning to see a pattern with the USA and the world is not amused.

As I said before (sorry if I was so OT there Zoriah), I wanted to forward the opinion that the American motivation for a War against Islam is the same as Cold War motivations... and the results are the same: Iraq will have American troops dieing there for 10 years at least (come back in a year to see if Ghoulman is right!).

The Pentagon Papers... someone please look it up since jcobb refuses too. What a jerk!

Nice little site from the Vets in the USA. Check it out. Vietnam History.
http://www.vva.org/about_the_war.htm

Oh, and of course Nixon excalated the Vietnam Conflict, (btw it's not called a "war" because the US didn't want to call it that. Tell that to a Veteran and watch the responce). Nixon DID excalate the number of troops too. However, he did drop the number of American soldiers (but still exculated the number of Allied troops in Vietnam) in 1969 while still insisting to Kissinger that "we should just nuke em!" - that's an actual quote btw. So I'm right of course, but liars like to pick on one detail to "prove" you're wrong. It's an underhanded lie and a common tacktic of the legions of Limbaugh liars out on the Media cyberwaves.

Getting to the real topic - the American Media is a liars dream!

Take the Putin announcement. Putin says "he" had passed information to the White House that a top Iraqi Officer was an Al Quada member. At the same time, Bubba Clintons' book has come out (a memoir). Now, Billy Boys book is no big thing but the Neocons all over CNN constantly spun the Clinton book into a greedy push for book money and that Clinton was a terrible President and liar because of the Monica thing.

Yea, big hairy deal! What shitters they are on Meet the Press!

While at the same time. the Putin thing is presented as pure truth. Well, any fool can see that Putin might have gotten this from the recent G8 meeting in Georgia State from Dick Cheney himself. Further, presenting this after the 9/11 Commission is OVER (done! finished!) just shows it's propoganda for the American Media. They will repeat this (soon to be disproved) bullsheit over and over like it's truth.

But it isn't.

So Clinton is demonized for writing a book (what a horrid thing for an ex-President to do eh!) while information about Putins' lie (which he got from the White House in my opinion) will be repeated and repeated for the rest of the year as truth... but it's not.

America is the matrix. TAKE THE RED PILL!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 6:34 AM

Wow...

I think my IQ dropped 20 points, (and I don't have that much to lose, bud

) just by reading your posts.

I wonder, if you keep lying to yourself, do you actually start to believe your lies? I guess you are evidence enough of that, Ghoulman.

Nixon didn't start Vietnam, he did end it. What happened in the middle all were very valid steps twords a pullout, but, of course, we wouldn't want to recognize that.

Keep lying to yourself, bud, its much easier that way apparently.

(Oh, by the by, I recognize I am influenced by the media I listen to, you, obviously are not. I think that is the ma jor difference. You can watch any media and you will get a slant, I don't think you recognize that, and that is the root of your problems, I would wadger.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:29 AM