Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > kerry ,edwards ,affleck pictures from scranton p.a.

Reply
Thread Tools

kerry ,edwards ,affleck pictures from scranton p.a.

 
 
Nick C
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2004

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Nick C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:ZVvSc.131900$eM2.61542@attbi_s51...
> >
> > When 9/11 occurred, it no doubt shocked the world. It's been reported

that
> > it took about seven minutes for Bush to recover from the shock and

behave as
> > the president.

>
> Nick, with all due respect (and I do respect your opinion --
> you've obviously done some homework) that's complete
> nonsense. According to the 9/11 report, and Bush himself:
>
> The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew
> Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower.
> America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was
> to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction
> at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children;
> he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he
> should project strength and calm until he could better understand
> what was happening. The President remained in the classroom
> for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued
> reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15,
> where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He
> next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr.Rice, New York
> Governor George Pataki and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He
> decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving
> for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to
> move the President to a safer location, but did not think it
> imperative for him to run out the door."


Rick, I don't believe the story Bush gave to the press about his remaing
calm for the sake of the children. I didn't believe it when I first heard it
and I don't believe it now. This is one thing we can agree upon. The rest is
just the same old spin amounting to integrity protection.

>
> Sorry, the word "shock" isn't mentioned here at all. And why
> would it? Bush knew at least a month in advance that al-Qaeda
> was planning to launch an attack with hijacked airplanes. The
> report makes this clear as well.


My POV is in two parts, which I will attempt to keep as short as possible so
I don't screw up in an attempt to snip-edit afterwards. Bear with me please.

I injected the word "shock" because it was the word used by Kerry when he
was being interviewed on Larry King Live. Kerry said something like this,
when he entered the room to meet the other senators for a meeting, it was
then that they were notified of the attack. Upon hearing the news, they were
in a state of "shock" and were at a loss as to what to think or say. It was
about 40 minutes later when they were able to discuss the events and seek
more information. This momentary shock is _not_ something I hold against
Kerry. After all, other senators apparently suffered the same effect. And so
did I upon hearing the news from my wife. I just couldn't believe such a
thing would happen and it took me some several minutes (I think) to accept
the fact that it actually happened. It was like the time my secretary rushed
into my office to tell me Kennedy was assassinated; news I mentally
rejected. So then, with that in mind, I can understand the shock that Bush,
Kerry, and the other senators that Kerry spoke of had experienced. Any words
to the contrary from either camp and the 9/11 report, AFAIC, is just face
saving spin. It would be politically bad form to have a nation think its
leaders were not capable of acting quickly when necessary. We expect our
leaders to be knights in shining armor, taking immediate command, instantly
bellowing orders. Unfortunately, they are but mere human beings with minds
that can momentarily go tilt until the return of composure. In Bush's case
the "tilt" was publicly displayed while the "tilt" that Kerry and the other
senators experienced was not publicly displayed nor was questioned after the
Larry King Live interview was aired.

Now to address the second part. Bush didn't know for a certainty that al
Qaeda would use aircraft in the 9/11 attack. The _possibility_ that aircraft
would be used was on the _list of potential methods_ that al Qaeda may elect
to use in a terrorist attack. That's what was disclosed by the news media
upon the release of requested information from the White House. An attack no
one knew when or where would happen but was expected to happen. That
information was again verified by the FAA when the agency admittedly
announced they were notified by the White House staff, that the agency
should notify the commercial airlines and airports to maintain an alert. The
FAA then did a ****-poor job of notifying the airlines and airports.
According to reports at the time, the FAA flow-down notification was treated
in a matter-of-fact manner. From the way the notification was presented to
the airlines and airports, they apparently didn't grasp the importance of
the FAA notification and only partially followed through in notifying their
respective terminals, crews, and airport security personnel throughout the
nation. There is no question in my mind, the information follow through was
botched and botched badly, but Bush is not the one to be held accountable
nor should it be said he _knew_ before hand that al Qaeda _would_ use
aircraft and with that knowledge could have prevented the attack. Bush
didn't know for a certainty that al Queda would use aircraft and he didn't
know the day nor time of the attack. You may recall, at the time of the FAA
announcment, there was some Washington talk that heads in the FAA should be
replaced, but the talk faded and nothing happened.

Oh, BTW, though I haven't read the 9/11 report, I can't quite grasp the
report actually says Bush knew for a certainty in advance, as you say "Bush
knew at least a month in advance that al-Qaeda was planning to launch an
attack with hijacked airplanes. The report makes this clear as well." The
news media has already reported the use of aircraft was on a list of
potential methods al Qaeda could use in an attack. That's what Bush knew a
month before the attack. Something is being said or reported out of context.

It would be an impeachable offence of a president to have beforehand
knowledge of an impeding attack and _intentionally allow_ a catastrophe of
such magnitude to happen and not doing something to prevent it. At no time
after 9/11 was an impeachment process asked by the democrat sector of
congress nor is it being asked after the release of the 9/11 report.
Besides, as I said earlier, the FAA admitted they were informed by the White
House staff of such a possibility and was asked to flow down an alert.

nick

>
> Rick
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2004
"Nick C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:M5HSc.292305$XM6.223260@attbi_s53...
>
> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Nick C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> news:ZVvSc.131900$eM2.61542@attbi_s51...
> > >
> > > When 9/11 occurred, it no doubt shocked the world. It's been reported

> that
> > > it took about seven minutes for Bush to recover from the shock and

> behave as
> > > the president.

> >
> > Nick, with all due respect (and I do respect your opinion --
> > you've obviously done some homework) that's complete
> > nonsense. According to the 9/11 report, and Bush himself:
> >
> > The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew
> > Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower.
> > America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was
> > to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction
> > at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children;
> > he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he
> > should project strength and calm until he could better understand
> > what was happening. The President remained in the classroom
> > for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued
> > reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15,
> > where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He
> > next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr.Rice, New York
> > Governor George Pataki and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He
> > decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving
> > for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to
> > move the President to a safer location, but did not think it
> > imperative for him to run out the door."

>
> Rick, I don't believe the story Bush gave to the press about his remaing
> calm for the sake of the children. I didn't believe it when I first heard it
> and I don't believe it now. This is one thing we can agree upon. The rest is
> just the same old spin amounting to integrity protection.
>
> >
> > Sorry, the word "shock" isn't mentioned here at all. And why
> > would it? Bush knew at least a month in advance that al-Qaeda
> > was planning to launch an attack with hijacked airplanes. The
> > report makes this clear as well.

>
> My POV is in two parts, which I will attempt to keep as short as possible so
> I don't screw up in an attempt to snip-edit afterwards. Bear with me please.
>
> I injected the word "shock" because it was the word used by Kerry when he
> was being interviewed on Larry King Live. Kerry said something like this,
> when he entered the room to meet the other senators for a meeting, it was
> then that they were notified of the attack. Upon hearing the news, they were
> in a state of "shock" and were at a loss as to what to think or say. It was
> about 40 minutes later when they were able to discuss the events and seek
> more information. This momentary shock is _not_ something I hold against
> Kerry. After all, other senators apparently suffered the same effect. And so
> did I upon hearing the news from my wife. I just couldn't believe such a
> thing would happen and it took me some several minutes (I think) to accept
> the fact that it actually happened. It was like the time my secretary rushed
> into my office to tell me Kennedy was assassinated; news I mentally
> rejected. So then, with that in mind, I can understand the shock that Bush,
> Kerry, and the other senators that Kerry spoke of had experienced. Any words
> to the contrary from either camp and the 9/11 report, AFAIC, is just face
> saving spin. It would be politically bad form to have a nation think its
> leaders were not capable of acting quickly when necessary. We expect our
> leaders to be knights in shining armor, taking immediate command, instantly
> bellowing orders. Unfortunately, they are but mere human beings with minds
> that can momentarily go tilt until the return of composure. In Bush's case
> the "tilt" was publicly displayed while the "tilt" that Kerry and the other
> senators experienced was not publicly displayed nor was questioned after the
> Larry King Live interview was aired.
>
> Now to address the second part. Bush didn't know for a certainty that al
> Qaeda would use aircraft in the 9/11 attack. The _possibility_ that aircraft
> would be used was on the _list of potential methods_ that al Qaeda may elect
> to use in a terrorist attack. That's what was disclosed by the news media
> upon the release of requested information from the White House. An attack no
> one knew when or where would happen but was expected to happen. That
> information was again verified by the FAA when the agency admittedly
> announced they were notified by the White House staff, that the agency
> should notify the commercial airlines and airports to maintain an alert. The
> FAA then did a ****-poor job of notifying the airlines and airports.
> According to reports at the time, the FAA flow-down notification was treated
> in a matter-of-fact manner. From the way the notification was presented to
> the airlines and airports, they apparently didn't grasp the importance of
> the FAA notification and only partially followed through in notifying their
> respective terminals, crews, and airport security personnel throughout the
> nation. There is no question in my mind, the information follow through was
> botched and botched badly, but Bush is not the one to be held accountable
> nor should it be said he _knew_ before hand that al Qaeda _would_ use
> aircraft and with that knowledge could have prevented the attack. Bush
> didn't know for a certainty that al Queda would use aircraft and he didn't
> know the day nor time of the attack. You may recall, at the time of the FAA
> announcment, there was some Washington talk that heads in the FAA should be
> replaced, but the talk faded and nothing happened.
>
> Oh, BTW, though I haven't read the 9/11 report, I can't quite grasp the
> report actually says Bush knew for a certainty in advance, as you say "Bush
> knew at least a month in advance that al-Qaeda was planning to launch an
> attack with hijacked airplanes. The report makes this clear as well." The
> news media has already reported the use of aircraft was on a list of
> potential methods al Qaeda could use in an attack. That's what Bush knew a
> month before the attack. Something is being said or reported out of context.
>
> It would be an impeachable offence of a president to have beforehand
> knowledge of an impeding attack and _intentionally allow_ a catastrophe of
> such magnitude to happen and not doing something to prevent it. At no time
> after 9/11 was an impeachment process asked by the democrat sector of
> congress nor is it being asked after the release of the 9/11 report.
> Besides, as I said earlier, the FAA admitted they were informed by the White
> House staff of such a possibility and was asked to flow down an alert.


I'm really confused. You complain about spin, and yet most
everything you've written in this discussion has had but one
purpose -- to exonerate George W. Bush from any
responsibility or accountability for the 9/11 attacks. In my
view there's no more precise definition of spin.

The fact is, Bush was and is our Commander in Chief, and
the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred under his
watch. It's also an established fact that when Bush took office,
Condi Rice (who, by the way, claimed executive privilege and
steadfastly refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission - see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/) was given a plan to
deal with al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden that had been
developed by the Clinton administration. Rice responded to
this plan by telling both Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and
Chairman Clarke of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the terrorism
issue "wasn't a priority". Now was Bush the one who selected
Condi Rice as our National Security Advisor, or was he not?
Is he not responsible for his choice?

It is also a known fact that Bush had already decided to invade
Iraq within three months of his inauguration -- SIX MONTHS
BEFORE 9/11. It is also an established fact that within a year
of the attack, Bush with the help of Karl Rove developed a
propaganda campaign to sell the invasion of Iraq to the
American people, by instructing his top administration officials
to deliberately misrepresent the threat Hussein posed to U.S.
national security. A summary of these misrepresentations was
given in the House of Representatives last March 16th:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h031604.html

These are HUNDREDS of lies, deceptions and half-truths, fed
to the American people methodically and systematically. Two
days before our forces invaded, on March 17th, 2003 Bush
went on national TV and said:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

That was a bald-faced lie. He had no unambiguous proof of
his claim, yet he said there was "no doubt" about it. Now the
9/11 Commission has concluded that Iraq neither possessed
nor concealed such weapons at the time of our invasion.

At SOME point the American people have to stop and ask,
IS BUSH RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS LIES, OR ISN'T HE?

Rick


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick C
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2004

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Nick C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:M5HSc.292305$XM6.223260@attbi_s53...
> >
> > "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > "Nick C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> > news:ZVvSc.131900$eM2.61542@attbi_s51...
> > > >
> > > > When 9/11 occurred, it no doubt shocked the world. It's been

reported
> > that
> > > > it took about seven minutes for Bush to recover from the shock and

> > behave as
> > > > the president.
> > >
> > > Nick, with all due respect (and I do respect your opinion --
> > > you've obviously done some homework) that's complete
> > > nonsense. According to the 9/11 report, and Bush himself:
> > >
> > > The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew
> > > Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower.
> > > America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was
> > > to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction
> > > at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children;
> > > he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he
> > > should project strength and calm until he could better understand
> > > what was happening. The President remained in the classroom
> > > for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued
> > > reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15,
> > > where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He
> > > next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr.Rice, New York
> > > Governor George Pataki and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He
> > > decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving
> > > for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to
> > > move the President to a safer location, but did not think it
> > > imperative for him to run out the door."

> >
> > Rick, I don't believe the story Bush gave to the press about his remaing
> > calm for the sake of the children. I didn't believe it when I first

heard it
> > and I don't believe it now. This is one thing we can agree upon. The

rest is
> > just the same old spin amounting to integrity protection.
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry, the word "shock" isn't mentioned here at all. And why
> > > would it? Bush knew at least a month in advance that al-Qaeda
> > > was planning to launch an attack with hijacked airplanes. The
> > > report makes this clear as well.

> >
> > My POV is in two parts, which I will attempt to keep as short as

possible so
> > I don't screw up in an attempt to snip-edit afterwards. Bear with me

please.
> >
> > I injected the word "shock" because it was the word used by Kerry when

he
> > was being interviewed on Larry King Live. Kerry said something like

this,
> > when he entered the room to meet the other senators for a meeting, it

was
> > then that they were notified of the attack. Upon hearing the news, they

were
> > in a state of "shock" and were at a loss as to what to think or say. It

was
> > about 40 minutes later when they were able to discuss the events and

seek
> > more information. This momentary shock is _not_ something I hold against
> > Kerry. After all, other senators apparently suffered the same effect.

And so
> > did I upon hearing the news from my wife. I just couldn't believe such a
> > thing would happen and it took me some several minutes (I think) to

accept
> > the fact that it actually happened. It was like the time my secretary

rushed
> > into my office to tell me Kennedy was assassinated; news I mentally
> > rejected. So then, with that in mind, I can understand the shock that

Bush,
> > Kerry, and the other senators that Kerry spoke of had experienced. Any

words
> > to the contrary from either camp and the 9/11 report, AFAIC, is just

face
> > saving spin. It would be politically bad form to have a nation think its
> > leaders were not capable of acting quickly when necessary. We expect our
> > leaders to be knights in shining armor, taking immediate command,

instantly
> > bellowing orders. Unfortunately, they are but mere human beings with

minds
> > that can momentarily go tilt until the return of composure. In Bush's

case
> > the "tilt" was publicly displayed while the "tilt" that Kerry and the

other
> > senators experienced was not publicly displayed nor was questioned after

the
> > Larry King Live interview was aired.
> >
> > Now to address the second part. Bush didn't know for a certainty that al
> > Qaeda would use aircraft in the 9/11 attack. The _possibility_ that

aircraft
> > would be used was on the _list of potential methods_ that al Qaeda may

elect
> > to use in a terrorist attack. That's what was disclosed by the news

media
> > upon the release of requested information from the White House. An

attack no
> > one knew when or where would happen but was expected to happen. That
> > information was again verified by the FAA when the agency admittedly
> > announced they were notified by the White House staff, that the agency
> > should notify the commercial airlines and airports to maintain an alert.

The
> > FAA then did a ****-poor job of notifying the airlines and airports.
> > According to reports at the time, the FAA flow-down notification was

treated
> > in a matter-of-fact manner. From the way the notification was presented

to
> > the airlines and airports, they apparently didn't grasp the importance

of
> > the FAA notification and only partially followed through in notifying

their
> > respective terminals, crews, and airport security personnel throughout

the
> > nation. There is no question in my mind, the information follow through

was
> > botched and botched badly, but Bush is not the one to be held

accountable
> > nor should it be said he _knew_ before hand that al Qaeda _would_ use
> > aircraft and with that knowledge could have prevented the attack. Bush
> > didn't know for a certainty that al Queda would use aircraft and he

didn't
> > know the day nor time of the attack. You may recall, at the time of the

FAA
> > announcment, there was some Washington talk that heads in the FAA should

be
> > replaced, but the talk faded and nothing happened.
> >
> > Oh, BTW, though I haven't read the 9/11 report, I can't quite grasp the
> > report actually says Bush knew for a certainty in advance, as you say

"Bush
> > knew at least a month in advance that al-Qaeda was planning to launch an
> > attack with hijacked airplanes. The report makes this clear as well."

The
> > news media has already reported the use of aircraft was on a list of
> > potential methods al Qaeda could use in an attack. That's what Bush knew

a
> > month before the attack. Something is being said or reported out of

context.
> >
> > It would be an impeachable offence of a president to have beforehand
> > knowledge of an impeding attack and _intentionally allow_ a catastrophe

of
> > such magnitude to happen and not doing something to prevent it. At no

time
> > after 9/11 was an impeachment process asked by the democrat sector of
> > congress nor is it being asked after the release of the 9/11 report.
> > Besides, as I said earlier, the FAA admitted they were informed by the

White
> > House staff of such a possibility and was asked to flow down an alert.

>
> I'm really confused. You complain about spin, and yet most
> everything you've written in this discussion has had but one
> purpose -- to exonerate George W. Bush from any
> responsibility or accountability for the 9/11 attacks. In my
> view there's no more precise definition of spin.


Nonsense, absolute nonsense. I've been trying to understand events as they
happened and not be quick to point a finger just because others have been
quick to the draw.

>
> The fact is, Bush was and is our Commander in Chief, and
> the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred under his
> watch.


So what!!

Theodore Roosevelt was our Commander in Chief when on Dec. 7,1941 Pearl
Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, killing thousands of Americans and
destroying 2/3rd's of the American Atlantic Fleet. He was still our
Commander in Chief when on Dec. 11, 1941 Germany declared was on the US
because the US was furnishing lendlease aid to England. In just a span of 4
days, the US was in a global two front war which is still considered the
worst war the world has ever seen. All this occurred while Roosevelt was on
watch yet Roosevelt, a three term president, is looked upon with reverence.

Before that Woodrow Wilson was the Commander in Chief when a German U-Boat
sank the liner Lusitania on May 7th, 1915 because German agents mistakenly
thought the Lusitania also carried war supplies in her storage holds,
bringing the US into World War 1. Wilson was not held accountable because he
was Commander in Chief at that time.

Good grief man, study history and place events in proper perspectives.


> It's also an established fact that when Bush took office,
> Condi Rice (who, by the way, claimed executive privilege and
> steadfastly refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission - see:


Yes she did refuse to testify, but she did indeed testify when Bush told her
it was be alright for her to testify.

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/) was given a plan to
> deal with al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden that had been
> developed by the Clinton administration. Rice responded to
> this plan by telling both Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and
> Chairman Clarke of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the terrorism
> issue "wasn't a priority".


It wasn't Rice who said terrorism wasn't a priority issue, it was Clarke and
O'Neill who made that claim. Clarke has since been shown to be a BS'er and
is rarely seen in any news worthy activity.

"Rice also took issue with claims that terrorism was not a priority for the
administration -- claims made by Clarke, a former chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. "I don't know
what a sense of urgency would have caused us to do differently," Rice said
she took issue with claims that terrorism was not a priority as Clarke and
O'Neill testified but _she Knew_ of no sense of urgency that would change
anything.


> Now was Bush the one who selected
> Condi Rice as our National Security Advisor, or was he not?
> Is he not responsible for his choice?


So Bush hired Rice. Rice testified saying terrorism was a priority but saw
no urgency to do anything. Something wrong here?

How could anyone see a sense of urgency when they had to work with archaic
data gathered from the Clinton administration. The information that the
Brit's supplied and what was obtained from Russia held nothing that would
indicate there was a sense of urgency, as in do something now.

>
> It is also a known fact that Bush had already decided to invade
> Iraq within three months of his inauguration -- SIX MONTHS
> BEFORE 9/11.


Nonsense. Rice said she saw no sense in urgency, meaning there was nothing
on the table needing immediate concern leading to taking action. There was
no cabal plotting to steer the US into a war. You might just as well accuse
Bush of joining with bin Laden to attack the twin towers so that we can
invade Iraq (as if we invaded alone). Indeed, nonsense.

There are accusations but no concrete absolute evidence to support the
accusations. Roosevelt was also accused of knowing the Japanese were going
to attack Pearl Harbor months before it happened and he was also accused of
plotting with Churchill to get America into the war. The newspapers in the
40's had a field day publishing those accusations. Sheeze .... point a
finger and heads will turn. Point a finger twice in the same direction and
people will believe something imprtant is happening. Do the finger bit a
third time and its .... gotcha.

The US has been constantly accused of imperialism and invading Iraq for its
oil, but now that Iraq has its independence and the coalition is rebuilding
Iraq's army, whose yelling imperialism and oil grabbing. There are
dunder-heads all over this world that will believe what they are spoon fed.
I doubt that will ever change. Have you not noticed that people who have
accused the US of imperialism and oil grabbing have not leveled that
accusation against England, Australia, Poland or Spain, whose military boots
and blood have also hit Iraqi ground, nor has anything controversial been
said about the supporting countries. Pound a drum and people will march.

> It is also an established fact that within a year
> of the attack, Bush with the help of Karl Rove developed a
> propaganda campaign to sell the invasion of Iraq to the
> American people, by instructing his top administration officials
> to deliberately misrepresent the threat Hussein posed to U.S.
> national security.


Egads man, your losing it.

> A summary of these misrepresentations was
> given in the House of Representatives last March 16th:
> http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h031604.html


I'm aware of Waxman's attempts to get at the throat on this administration.
I've heard his speeches.

I suggest you again review what was written in the congressional record and
then place what you read in context with what information was gathered by
the Clinton administration, the British, and the Russians. Pay careful
attention to that period in time. Even at that time, all information
gathered was considered inaccurate but probable though being old data.

Waxman wanted a report of the statements made by this administration as to
their validity and naturally a review of those statements made at that time
will be seen as misleading when confronted with knowledge gained later on.
The statements would indeed appear to be misleading. But consider at the
time the statements were being made, they were being made with the knowledge
of the time. NOWHERE IN THE REPORT IS THE ADMINISTRATION ACCUSED OF OUT
RIGHT LYING.

>
> These are HUNDREDS of lies, deceptions and half-truths, fed
> to the American people methodically and systematically. Two
> days before our forces invaded, on March 17th, 2003 Bush
> went on national TV and said:
>
> "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
> doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
> some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
>
> That was a bald-faced lie. He had no unambiguous proof of
> his claim, yet he said there was "no doubt" about it.


You still don't get the connection. Based upon the information that was
available, though there was nothing that could be considered conclusive,
doing nothing after the 9/11 attack was not an option. Although the
information was not conclusive, there was an indication that Saddam may have
offered aid to al Qaeda. Would you expect a president to take such sever
action while still having doubts that the action may be unwarranted? Are you
making your accusations against Bush while still having doubts? Do you
accuse other collation nations leaders of acting without conviction?

Attempts were made to bring the UN into the picture, Powell appeared before
the UN, but that endevor was nixed by France, Germany, and Russia because
they had hidden vested interests with Saddam, interests that were in
violation of UN sanctions. So the US, with England, Australia, Poland, and
Spain, with some 62 nations supporting, using the information of the time
decided to bypass the UN and go after Saddam.

If it is your intention to show Bush as an out right liar, then you MUST
include the governments of England, Australia, Poland and Spain of out right
lying to their people. Then carry that accusing line to 62 other governments
that supported the actions of England, Australia, Poland, and Spain. They
all acted upon having similar information and had no doubts that what they
were doing wasn't the right thing to do. Especially now that there are
indications that the UN may be ripe with corruption.

> Now the
> 9/11 Commission has concluded that Iraq neither possessed
> nor concealed such weapons at the time of our invasion.


Stockpiles of artillery shells filled with Saran gas have been found, but it
is believed they were leftovers from when Saddam used gas on his own people.
But there is a strong yet unproven belief, that WMD's may have been shipped
to Syria. Satellite photo's show lots of mobile activity between Syria and
Iraq, at their boarder at the onset of the war. What that activity was has
yet to be disclosed. Syria will not say what that activity was about.

>
> At SOME point the American people have to stop and ask,
> IS BUSH RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS LIES, OR ISN'T HE?


That's your question. I would like to know when Americans will wake up and
see they are being manipulated for the sole purpose of obtaining political
party power. That's what all this is about .... power. Nothing is all black
or all white; there have been mistakes but mistakes do not in themselves
prove evil intentions.

In retrospect, there will never be another Churchill (whom I consider the
best) or a Roosevelt, who had the presence and strength of mind to go
against the doves in congress and think of a way to aid England in her most
dire times. These were not power hungry people. They gave their best to do
what was best for their countries and to help each other when there were
many who would oppose their actions. We sufaced the better because of their
actions. Can't beat that with a stick. I do feel there are bonds between
nations that have gotten stronger because of coalition actions as it was
applied to Iraq. I'm not ready to say it was all a lie. There is nothing
absolute to support it all being a lie. Understand this, when a finger is
pointed, the intent is to divert your attention.

Rick, I must say you do well when engaged in a discussion. Unfortunately I
do not believe I have been the least bit sucessful in opening a vista of
understanding of the events of the past as they may be seen in the present.
I in turn have not altered my understanding of the events as they were
unfolded and brought to light. However, I've enjoyed the conversation.
Perhaps we need to take a break.

nick


>
> Rick
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: The Ultimate John Kerry Ad (*Humour) Jerz MCSE 7 10-29-2004 11:59 AM
Kerry is Frankenstein savage henry HTML 0 09-13-2004 04:11 PM
Motive in slamming Kerry..ot lsj7 Computer Support 3 09-01-2004 10:42 PM
bush and kerry family tree nerd32768 MCSE 9 06-25-2004 04:56 PM
Kerry's subversion of the military hailedby KGB NASCAR DADS FOR BUSH Digital Photography 6 04-11-2004 09:43 AM



Advertisments