for everyone who can read and doesn't watch Fox this is hardly a surprising conclusion - how is Bush gonna survive this ovious and serious problem - and - why is no one on the right questioning his leadership in light of these bipartisan conclusions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17assess.html?hp

With 9/11 Report, Bush's Political Thorn Grows More Stubborn
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: June 17, 2004


WASHINGTON, June 16 - The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks further called into question on Wednesday one of President Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.

In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.

Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.

That is the difficult reality Mr. Bush faces 15 months after ordering the invasion of Iraq, and less than five months before he faces the voters at home. The commission's latest findings fueled fresh partisan attacks on his credibility and handling of the war, attacks that now seem unlikely to be silenced even if the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis comes off successfully in two weeks.

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, was quick to seize on the commission's report to reprise his contention that Mr. Bush "misled" the American people about the need for the war. Even some independent-minded members of Mr. Bush's own party said they sensed danger.

"The problem the administration has is that the predicates it laid down for the war have not played out," said Warren B. Rudman, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who has extensive experience in assessing intelligence about terrorism. "That could spell political trouble for the president, there's no question."

Mr. Bush has said that he knows of no direct involvement by Mr. Hussein and his government in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the president has repeatedly asserted that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a position he stuck to on Tuesday when he was asked about Vice President Dick Cheney's statement a day earlier that Mr. Hussein had "long-established ties with Al Qaeda."

Mr. Bush pointed specifically on Tuesday to the presence in Iraq of Mr. Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Mr. Hussein, and who has been implicated by American intelligence officials in the killing of Nicholas Berg, the 26-year-old American who was beheaded by militants in Iraq in March.

The White House said Wednesday that there was a distinction between Mr. Bush's position and the commission's determination that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on attacks on the United States.

The commission's report did not specifically address that distinction or Mr. Zarqawi's role. It found that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, but that Iraq never responded to Mr. bin Laden's subsequent request for space to set up training camps and help in buying weapons. It said there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

It quoted two senior associates of Mr. bin Laden denying adamantly "that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq." It concluded that there never was a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers; in an interview with National Public Radio in January, Mr. Cheney cited intelligence reports about the possibility of such a meeting in asserting that there was not confirmation "one way or another" about links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Democratic strategists said there was now no question that Mr. Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned. But Mr. Bush's supporters said that in political terms, the amazing thing was how well he had weathered the problems thrown at him by Iraq.

.....

for everyone who can read and doesn't watch Fox this is hardly a surprising conclusion - how is Bush gonna survive this ovious and serious problem - and - why is no one on the right questioning his leadership in light of these bipartisan conclusions?


Where have you been the last 18 months? Didn't you know that the end justifies the means under our new pre-emptive foreign policy? Or even worse, that the American public doesn't even care about this issue? Oddly, it was quite bipartisan in Congress supporting of the war, and there were few questions or debate back then.

Where have you been the last 18 months? Didn't you know that the end justifies the means under our new pre-emptive foreign policy? Or even worse, that the American public doesn't even care about this issue? Oddly, it was quite bipartisan in Congress supporting of the war, and there were few questions or debate back then.

but - what exactly is the end?
what US / Iraqi body count will make the American public care?
when will there be debate that goes further than "bomb 'em"

but - what exactly is the end?
what US / Iraqi body count will make the American public care?
when will there be debate that goes further than "bomb 'em"

Re-establish the draft. The war ends the next day.
Without shared sacrifice in the minds of the American people it is not "happening." With shared sacrifice the politicians better be damn sure that the war can pass the "Dover Test." (Refers to General Shelton's belief that a war is considered just if the American public sees the bodies coming back from the war theatre and still want that war to continue.)

Kerry voted for the war.

Kerry voted for the war.
(a) Kerry was right, made a great wise decision, and should be congratulated.

(b) Kerry was wrong, criminally wrong, and should be excoriated, then voted out of office.

Not sure which you're trying to imply here.

(a) Kerry was right, made a great wise decision, and should be congratulated.

(b) Kerry was wrong, criminally wrong, and should be excoriated, then voted out of office.

Not sure which you're trying to imply here.

Apparently he is saying that the BUCK no longer stops at the whitehouse but now resides with the junior senator from Mass.

Bush's three pronged reasoning for entering the war was:

1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - WRONG!
2. Irag harbored and funded al qaeda - WRONG
3. Iraq posed an immenent threat to the U.S. - WRONG

If you listen to him speak now, he doesn't mention any of these three things. What he gives as a justification is that we liberated a country from a ruthless tyrant who was butchering his own people. So, if that's the case and we are all-of-a-sudden the policemen for the world; why just Irag? Why not attack other "ruthless" governments in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, or the Congo? Why just Iraq?

This guy is a moron who is just trying to justify his case for revenge. In my book, when you want revenge you do it yourself. You don't send other guys sons and daughters to die for a stupid cause. Maybe if Bush's daughters had to fight things would change.

Kerry voted for the war.

lies and misinformation like alot of other people in the buildup to the war - I did - I figured Bush had really good info. that I don't have - he is the president after all - these are serious threats / accusation - these are serious times post 9/11 - the dangers must be based on solid evidence and surely he's the guy with all the info. - clearly that was not the case

Doug - do you not feel you were lied to by Bush re the war?

should Kerry or Bush take the rap for Bush's lies?

Maybe if Bush's daughters had to fight things would change.
just mudwrestle a couple of Iraqi gals.

Apparently he is saying that the BUCK no longer stops at the whitehouse but now resides with the junior senator from Mass.

so the buck DOES stop at the whitehouse? or at least, soon will. :p

so the buck DOES stop at the whitehouse? or at least, soon will. :p
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5232981/

--War sold under false pretenses--True
--Torture commonplace and OKed by the top brass--True
--People held without due process in violation of Geneva Convention--True
--Halliburton given a sweet deal to rebuild it all--True
--Certain "prisoners" held secretly at the order of Rumsfeld himself--True

Bush deserves impeachment at least. What has occured under his watch is indefensible.

lies and misinformation like alot of other people in the buildup to the war - I did - I figured Bush had really good info. that I don't have - he is the president after all - these are serious threats / accusation - these are serious times post 9/11 - the dangers must be based on solid evidence and surely he's the guy with all the info. - clearly that was not the case

Doug - do you not feel you were lied to by Bush re the war?

should Kerry or Bush take the rap for Bush's lies?
It was all Clinton's fault. Apparently to the neocon a little extra-marital nookie is worse that sending thousands of young men to war under false pretenses. My outrage over Bush's actions gets stronger each day as we hear the real story emerge.

Doug - do you not feel you were lied to by Bush re the war?

Not even the slightest lie. Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Albright, all had the same intel, all believed WMD's were in Iraq or Iraq seeking them (go back and read the speeches), and that was only part of the rationale. If Bush was wrong, Kerry was equally wrong. Where does that leave us?

Exact same things were said about Reagan continuously at the time, then the wall came down. Hundreds of millions of people released from tyranny. The Reagan and Bush haters just moved on to something else to rant about, rarely if ever, giving any credit. "Lie, Lie, Lie" seems to be the anti-Republican mantra. Say it enough and it becomes true, right?

Nope. No lies. Didn't happen. Repeating it ten times a day for two years won't make it true, either. I know you'd love to prove even one lie, but the proof just isn't there. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What should Kerry do about it? Well, I suppose he could say "yes, I voted for the war, firmly with the conviction that it was the right thing to do. I hindsight, maybe I made a mistake. I take responsibility for that mistake. Had I known that I'd be running for president then, and had I known that I could use this as an election issue, I'd have voted differently."

Not even the slightest lie. Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Albright, all had the same intel, all believed WMD's were in Iraq or Iraq seeking them (go back and read the speeches), and that was only part of the rationale. If Bush was wrong, Kerry was equally wrong. Where does that leave us?

Exact same things were said about Reagan continuously at the time, then the wall came down. Hundreds of millions of people released from tyranny. The Reagan and Bush haters just moved on to something else to rant about, rarely if ever, giving any credit. "Lie, Lie, Lie" seems to be the anti-Republican mantra. Say it enough and it becomes true, right?

Nope. No lies. Didn't happen. Repeating it ten times a day for two years won't make it true, either. I know you'd love to prove even one lie, but the proof just isn't there. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What should Kerry do about it? Well, I suppose he could say "yes, I voted for the war, firmly with the conviction that it was the right thing to do. I hindsight, maybe I made a mistake. I take responsibility for that mistake. Had I known that I'd be running for president then, and had I known that I could use this as an election issue, I'd have voted differently."
Kerry wasn't the president then. If he had done what Bush has done I'd condemn him just the same. DOn't make this a partisian issue. Don't you think anything the press says in opposition to Bush could be the slightest bit true? If not, you are brainwashed. Again...saying Kerry or Clinton or Teddy Kennedy wanted the war does not excuse Bush. Stop poisoning the well against the messenger and respond to the actual allegations.

Not even the slightest lie. Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Albright, all had the same intel, all believed WMD's were in Iraq or Iraq seeking them (go back and read the speeches), and that was only part of the rationale. If Bush was wrong, Kerry was equally wrong. Where does that leave us?

Exact same things were said about Reagan continuously at the time, then the wall came down. Hundreds of millions of people released from tyranny. The Reagan and Bush haters just moved on to something else to rant about, rarely if ever, giving any credit. "Lie, Lie, Lie" seems to be the anti-Republican mantra. Say it enough and it becomes true, right?

Nope. No lies. Didn't happen. Repeating it ten times a day for two years won't make it true, either. I know you'd love to prove even one lie, but the proof just isn't there. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What should Kerry do about it? Well, I suppose he could say "yes, I voted for the war, firmly with the conviction that it was the right thing to do. I hindsight, maybe I made a mistake. I take responsibility for that mistake. Had I known that I'd be running for president then, and had I known that I could use this as an election issue, I'd have voted differently."


Did I just here the REAGAN INVOCATION? Can I get a witness, praise Jesus

Trying to create a link from Bush to Reagan is about as relevant as Iraq to 9/11.

Did I just here the REAGAN INVOCATION? Can I get a witness, praise Jesus

Trying to create a link from Bush to Reagan is about as relevant as Iraq to 9/11.

Pointing out the Liberal consistency of tactics. Repeat frequently that everything Republicans say are lies. Since the last Republicans were Reagan and Bushes, made sense historically, right? (ok, you got us on Nixon ;-)

Not saying Reagan is the same as Bush (either one), but that Democrats/Liberals are the same, no matter who is the Republican president. "Lie Lie Lie....."

Pointing out the Liberal consistency of tactics. Repeat frequently that everything Republicans say are lies. Since the last Republicans were Reagan and Bushes, made sense historically, right? (ok, you got us on Nixon ;-)

Not saying Reagan is the same as Bush (either one), but that Democrats/Liberals are the same, no matter who is the Republican president. "Lie Lie Lie....."that there is a Republican/Conservative consistency of attacks on Democrats too. One would, I imagine, expect that parties will take a consistent line, since that is the nature of parties. One can hardly conceive of that as shocking or especially revelatory.

Having posited that, I don't really recall many people calling the Elder Bush a liar. The charge, which stuck, was that he was out of touch with average Americans. That's a more consistent Liberal line of attack on Republicans, I believe.

that there is a Republican/Conservative consistency of attacks on Democrats too. One would, I imagine, expect that parties will take a consistent line, since that is the nature of parties. One can hardly conceive of that as shocking or especially revelatory.

Having posited that, I don't really recall many people calling the Elder Bush a liar. The charge, which stuck, was that he was out of touch with average Americans. That's a more consistent Liberal line of attack on Republicans, I believe.
Reagan was smart enough to dodge the whole Iran contra thing with a simple "I can't recall" defense, while Bush Jr. seems unable to keep anything under wraps. People are squealing on him on both sides of the political fence.

Reagan was smart enough to dodge the whole Iran contra thing with a simple "I can't recall" defense, while Bush Jr. seems unable to keep anything under wraps. People are squealing on him on both sides of the political fence.
I don't recall widespread charges of lying against Reagan either. I believe this is another of Comrade Sloan's straw men.

I DO, however, recall many Republican charges of lying against Clinton. You will respond: But Clinton DID lie! So be it. I will respond: Bush Jr. DOES lie too!

There are no clean hands in either American political party, my comrades.

I don't recall widespread charges of lying against Reagan either. I believe this is another of Comrade Sloan's straw men.

I DO, however, recall many Republican charges of lying against Clinton. You will respond: But Clinton DID lie! So be it. I will respond: Bush Jr. DOES lie too!

There are no clean hands in either American political party, my comrades.
Yup...the only lie they could make stick was the BJ from Monica. The rest of them proved to be unsubstantiated--ie the whole Whitewater thing. Heck...didn't the neocons accuse him of murdering Vince Foster even? Politics is a dirty game. Check your morals at the door.

Pointing out the Liberal consistency of tactics. Repeat frequently that everything Republicans say are lies. Since the last Republicans were Reagan and Bushes, made sense historically, right? (ok, you got us on Nixon ;-)

Not saying Reagan is the same as Bush (either one), but that Democrats/Liberals are the same, no matter who is the Republican president. "Lie Lie Lie....."


easy enough to stop. just get your republican presidents to stop lying.

btw. watching rummy's press conference rtight now. what a dissembling piece of work this guy is.

Q: why would you want to not register an iraqi prisoner of war?

A: ahh, errr, ummm, well, uhh, i'm not sure, i assume there was a reason. umm, errr, you'll have to ask them why.

christ, you're the guy that authorized it!!!

I despise Bush, but I will also be the first to say Clinton does derseve some of the blame for what we are in today. On Clinton's watch the CIA was basically dismantled. In many Middle Eastern countries our "spy network" was non-existent. Then, you have the nail in the coffin: in the late 90's Clinton had the chance to get rid of Bin Laden. He was identified by boots on the ground and satellite surveillance while he was hawk hunting in Afghanistan. However, the intended missle strike was called off when it was discovered that severel high ranking officials from the United Arab Emirates were also on the ground with UBL!!!! Clinton didn't want an international incident so he pulled the plug on the operation.

Now this rat ******* is across the border in Pakistan laughing at us. What a world.

I find it interesting that people can site Kerry's vote with a straight face (presumably) after all that has been revealed about the way that the Bush Administration phonied up the intelligence Congress was given to base their votes on.

Nope. No lies. Didn't happen. Repeating it ten times a day for two years won't make it true, either. I know you'd love to prove even one lie, but the proof just isn't there. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Translation: LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA - I'M NOT LISTENING - LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!!!!

It wasn't "called off". Clinton was at a pro golf tournament when the call came in from Berger. Clinton never accepted his repeated calls and the opportunity was lost. I never heard that OBL was hawk hunting. Where did you get your info. Mine came from "Dereliction of Duty" by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.)

I find it interesting that people can site Kerry's vote with a straight face (presumably) after all that has been revealed about the way that the Bush Administration phonied up the intelligence Congress was given to base their votes on.

I find it interesting that people will ignore what was said and done throughout the '90s (1998 specifically), about Iraq's WMD programs and instead, blame Bush for "phonied" intelligence.

I find it interesting that people will ignore what was said and done throughout the '90s (1998 specifically), about Iraq's WMD programs and instead, blame Bush for "phonied" intelligence.
No...it started under Reagan who thought SH was a great guy even though he gassed his own people and sent Rumsfeld over to buddy up to him.

(a) Kerry was right, made a great wise decision, and should be congratulated.

(b) Kerry was wrong, criminally wrong, and should be excoriated, then voted out of office.

.

(c) Kerry and other congressmen were tricked into signing a bill that said one thing, and ended up producing quite another. I forgot the details, but that's what Kerry said.

Guess what boys. There are things bigger that all of us and are worth fighting for. I hear the same old rantings about sending someones kid to war. Well 10 yrs ago I was that kid and marched into Kuwait. Guess what, from what I saw there and the way the Iraq army slaughtered the people of Kuwait, I would do it again. You fight for what you believe in. If you feel that an evil dictator that slaughters 3000000 people is ok, then you don't fight. Its just that simple. As far as the post before that there were no WMD. What do you think chocked the lungs out of the Kurds in the 80's. We have a volunteer military, and they are payed and trained to squash a##holes. So lets not just sit by and whatch people die if there is something we can do about it.
P.S. If you havent been there, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

from what I saw there and the way the Iraq army slaughtered the people of Kuwait, I would do it again. So lets not just sit by and whatch people die if there is something we can do about it. P.S. If you havent been there, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
(snipped for space)

I was a Marine there 10 years ago... and I disagree with you completely. I was struck by how technologically and culturally primative the country was. I saw 20 year old Toyota trucks held together with coathanger wires ferrying three 55-gallon barrels of oil into turkey in the afternoon, and ferrying a few dozen containers of bread back the next morning. I saw a country that seemed completely incapable of making or sponsoring any sort of weapons or foreign terrorism. I thought that Iraq was geographically and economically contained. Iraq was led by a madman, but posed no more danger to the US than... Singapore or Peru.

I couldnt understand why we changed our focus from Afghanistan... I couldnt understand why we claimed all those shadowy connections. I couldnt understand how Iraq could have become so advanced as we claimed when we screamed WMD, WMD, WMD. I took it on faith that a President would never lie about those sorts of things. I assumed that he had intelligence information that citizens did not. Im very disappointed to find out that we were lied to in ways that wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Im worried that our ill-advised war has potential to expand regionally and globally. I hope I am wrong when I think that Saudi Arabia is the next place that it's going. At the very least, we are responsible for regional instability and for rebuilding a country that we had no business in, while building a several hundred dollar budget deficit that our children will be burdened with.

I don't think we should have went to Iraq. (Afghanistan? Perhaps.) I feel bad for the relatives and friends of the young men and women who have given their lives in Iraq - and I think that their sacrifices are shameful and wasteful. I have great respect for them as individuals, but I think that we are wrong as a country to impose political will the way we have. We should be ashamed.

Ive completely lost faith in our current political leadership... and I have lost respect for the individuals who make it up. I wonder if their actions merit war crimes charges. I would love a President with intelligence, courage, judgement and integrity, but since we dont have one - I would almost prefer a leader who lies about things like sex to a leader who lies to get us into wars. From orders like, "Hey, dont worry about that geneva conventions thing" to the concept of removing a foreign leader that we dont like - just cause we can. *SIGH*

If we didnt like Saddam as a dictator - and I agree with you USMC1029 that he was a madman who shouldn't have led Iraq - but if we didnt like him, we shouldn't have funded and supported him. If we absolutely felt an ethical requirement to get rid of him, we should have found another way. Our political meddling is probably justifiably seen as terrorism in the rest of the world. I think that we will pay for it, as a nation, for decades.

I've seen two bumper stickers that capture my feelings... one says:
"If you aren't appalled, you havent been paying attention"
The other one says:
Regime Change begins at Home

/off soapbox...

Q: why would you want to not register an iraqi prisoner of war?

A: ahh, errr, ummm, well, uhh, i'm not sure, i assume there was a reason. umm, errr, you'll have to ask them why.



"So we can maim or kill these people and not risk accountability by international courts."

Where did you get your info. Mine came from "Dereliction of Duty" by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.)

Here goes LS with his propaganda BS again.

I'm not sure, but isn't that the book that has a foreword by Robert Novak, the CNN hack that was instrumental in outing Valerie Plame? Lots of truth in that one, no doubt.

We have a volunteer military, and they are payed and trained to squash a##holes.

Not true, Mr. Jarhead. They're paid and trained to DEFEND the U.S., not to take offensive actions against sovereign nations without provocation at the President's or Joint Chief's whim. That makes Bush and our military no better than Hitler's Wehrmacht busting into Poland, or Reagan jumping Grenada. And I WON'T shut up, because I was a member of Army Intelligence and I have EARNED my right to speak about this as much as anyone. If you want to engage in "squashing a$$holes", you should march your brainwashed a$$ into the White House and start there. If you had ANY phucking integrity and TRUE patriotism, you'd know that. Is that loud n' clear enough for ya, GI-rine??

As for DougSloan - you're getting more ridiculous by the day, just like the other Right-Wing Sheep here that are following the Neo-Con lemmings off the cliff.

Then I guess the invasion of Normandy was wrong. Germany never attacked us. If you believe war is wrong period, I could accept that as your personal beliefs. But dont try and justify your thoughts with this drivel about a soverign state.

Its Mr Jarhead to you.

Well I'm impressed....NOT.


Germany never attacked us. If you believe war is wrong period, I could accept that as your personal beliefs.


That's the dumbest rationale I've ever heard. Germany attacked allies which we had binding treaties and agreements with, AND also sunk our convoys. Are you even talking about the 1940's??? Oh I get it - yours is the "re-written" and "corrected" history of the Neo-Con's right?

Q: How do you drive a Marine crazy?
A: Throw sand on the wall and tell him to 'hit the beach'.

DUH.

War: only when it's necessary as a LAST RESORT. That's the way I see it. Phucking with Iraq the way Bush did it was NOT the answer to the problem, and not even close to the best response. It had nothing to do with "saving the Iraqi's from a dictator". That's bullsh!t.

If that was GWB's real motivation, why didn't he say so in his State of the Union address before the conflict? Instead we got a pack of lies.

Dream on, pal....

Linking you with anything that has to do with intelligence is an oxymoron. Just how where you involved with Army Intelligence?

No Robert Novak didn't write the forward to "Dereliction of Duty". Maybe you should read it before you open your big mouth about it's veracity. Oh that's right you're a liberal. You don't need facts to slander someone.

P.S. If you havent been there, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

but as a former grunt and current beleagured pantywaste liberal, I have to say that my brothers here are giving both grunts and liberals a bad name.

usmc1029, ten-hut! Your statement above: Very bad form. Carried to logical conclusion, we'd be listening to no one but ... you. And me. And I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want people taking ME as the last word on anything, especially geopolitics. Doubtful you're much wiser than I am. My general take is, civilians have better military bullshyt detectors than we give them credit for.

AJS, dude: You're making my job a lot harder than it ought to be. Hell, I'm out there trying to convince voters that we Democrats are reasonable people they can trust, and I JUST ABOUT get some swing voters half-believing me and you kick down the door like gangbusters with your 'Dems on Meth' rap. My advice would be to crank (pun!) it back a notch so I can get a couple of the good guys elected, or pretend you're a neo-con so the Dark Forces of Reaction get the blame for being obnoxious instead of us for a change.

Peace and love,
OldEd
Out --

OldEdScott -

I suppose there's something to be said for 'soft-pedalling' one's position, and on occasion that may be necessary. But you know what? I've never been one to sugar-coat things too much, and I'm not out for a popularity contest. I've always been one to 'tell it like it is', warts and all. I prefer directness and honesty over smoke n' mirrors. Let people make up their own minds, and the chips will fall where they may.

Sometimes my approach raises some eyebrows, and might have gotten me into a bit of trouble at times. But I'm used to it. Maybe it's a relic of my training/education, or more probably it's "just the way I yam". ;) I try not to piss on anyone's Cherrios unless it's needed.

LS, I already gave my credentials on another post a couple weeks ago, and I'll not repeat it here for your benefit. Feel free to search the forum if you're in doubt.

As far as your book recommendations, I said "I'm not sure,...", did I not? But oh yes - now I remember - here's the post in which you once again made an a$$ of yourself, (and with a pic of the book's cover crediting Novak's foreword):

Hey AJS is this book in your library? LOL!!!
It will be in mine soon! LOL!!!!

By David N. Bossie

He wanted a legacy.
We needed national security.
The rest, unfortunately, is history.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were the worst attacks in modern American history. How could this have happened? How could Al Qaeda wage these attacks against the strongest, best-defended nation in the world?

Eight years before 9/11 on February 26, 1993, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network declared war against the United States with a deadly attack on the World Trade Center. Al Qaeda continued to wage their war on the U.S. throughout the Clinton Administration, attacking Khobar Towers in 1996, two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. Yet the Clinton Administration did virtually nothing to stop them.

Intelligence Failure is the definitive account of Bill Clinton's greatest failure as president, detailing how his poor judgment, negligence, indecisiveness, and denigration of U.S. intelligence services and the military left America open to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This book details the case against Bill Clinton, providing convincing evidence that he not only knew of the threats posed by Al Qaeda, but undermined U.S. intelligence services from defending America.

While President Clinton desperately worked to secure his legacy, the truth is that the attacks of September 11, 2001 will remain Bill Clinton's legacy.

http://www.citizensunited.org/index.html
A good source for the truth!

Well if you had better reading skills, you would see that the book I cited -"Dereliction of Duty" is not the same book Novak wrote the forward to.

So why won't you post you "credentials" again? I have to do a search to see what they are? I really could care less what they are. I already know what you're about.

LOL!!!! You made the same stupid and unsubstantiated statement here with no specifics. "a member of the U.S. Army intelligence apparatus, as well as being a human-rights activist" LOL!!! What did you do, work in the mess as a nutritionalist, telling the enlisted men that the food would tase better with ketchup on it? LOL!!!

These "extreme measures", as you call them, are in no way warranted. I know, because I was a member of the U.S. Army intelligence apparatus, as well as being a human-rights activist, AS WELL as having a measure of common sense and humanity.

I don't think so, numbnuts. Why don't you search around a little further because it's not in the post you're citing - but I thought you just said you "really could care less what they are."?? Typical 'Sheep double-talk.

FYI: it's called a Top-Secret Security Clearance, Eyes Only, in a Division Tactical Operations Center, analyzing Warsaw Pact Orders of Battle, and briefing the top field commanders with pertinent recommendations, (among many other duties in many other places) which I can assure you has nothing to do with washing toilets at a laundromat as you told czardonic your occupation was.

Shaddap, dumb-aSS, and get back to cleaning your sh!tters.

So what was you roll, making photo copies? LOL!!! If ever you did work in that field, it was probably under the Clinton administration - they had plenty of people who didn't know their a$$ from their elbow doing jobs they were ill qualified for - you must have been the copy boy! LOL!!!!

Yeah that's right I washed toilets I owned. There was a few hundred thousand dollars of equipment attached to them that I owned too, that I fixed with my hands. I actually own quite a lot of toilets and am not too proud to do the dirty work when it's required. You are one hard up, frustrated and small-minded dude. As I told you when you first started posting here, you sound like you're 14. Actually my 13 year old niece is more mature than you come off as being. LOL!!!

Like I said, search around and you'll get your answer.

But if you weren't so nit-witted, you'd have enough sense to know something when someone mentions "analyzing Warsaw Pact Orders of Battle", but that's all I will say. *Hint: the WP didn't exist during Clinton's years, idjit, and BTW - you can bet that all the 'photo copy' I required was fetched for me. :rolleyes: Why? Because Intelligence Analysts don't do that work - generally Administrative Clerks do. Certainly Janitorial Engineers such as yourself (LAFF OUT LOUD!) are not allowed to even be "copy boys".

I won't argue with you further, since you've shown time and again on this site that you can't seem to accept facts as they are and hold a reasoned conversation.

No...it started under Reagan who thought SH was a great guy even though he gassed his own people and sent Rumsfeld over to buddy up to him.

You missed my point.

Czar was excusing Kerry's vote on intelligence that was "phonied up" by the Bush administration. I was just pointing out that all though the 90's, the same claims were made about Iraq and WMD. The U.N. passed resolutions about it. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act and Clinton signed it. We bombed Iraq for 4 days in Dec. 1998 over WMD. Democrats and Republicans alike made all the same noises then as they did after 9/11.

How could that happen without Bush in office to phony up the intelligence?

How does that in any way excuse Bush for lying to the Congress & people about WMD, aluminum tubes, British intel, etc. in his '03 SOTU address, and Powell for the trumped-up, vastly exaggerated presentation to the UN - all when they KNEW it was untrue, unsubstantiated, or highly suspect information?