quote:Originally posted by glassman: this is probly a good time to bring up a personal sperience.....
we were living in So Cal in 2000, 2001....
we were involved in a genomics project...
we were invited by the State to apply for a 100 million$ grant... cuz CA had several hundred million$ of surplus budget...
it disappeared OVERNIGHT...to ENRON et. al. cuz of the electricity crisis.... oh yeah the FAKE crisis that happened AFTER the White HOuse Energy Policy initiative....
HMMMMMM.... and CA had JUST passed a law requiring 5% of the cars available for sale to be ELECTRIC, and those cars are NICE....
i think the law was repealed bummer.....
OooooooohhhhhhhhhK so now you are blaming Enron for Kalifornia's financial ills? I would blame the commie legislative branch. I would blame a governor with all the mental agility of a pebble. I would blame the laws in place in that state which made ownership or operation of a business unprofitable and undesirable.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: Dont put words in my mouth. I find We went to war for the wrong reasons and now we as a nation have got to make the right choices.
I disagree with your thinking but you are childish (remove think from your name). I have a right to my opinion and because you are childish I no longer will respond to you. I can discuss with folks but when you got to personally attack, it tells me your thinking is negative, not mine.
I care about this nation and YES we are at war at the expense of America. I want my children to have a nation, a nation that is at peace not WAR.
Lif
It is funny, that you don't realize it is war that makes peace. I would like to think otherwise, but until nations such as iraq and the taliban's afganistan agree to a more peacfull way of life, it will have to be war (as a last option only as it was with iraq) that makes peace. I suppose you think there should not have been a civil war in our country? we should not have gone up against north Korea?, We should not have literally saved the world in the world war. It is that kind of thinking that will move us from world leaders to followers. This country gets its strength from doing what is right. And that is exactly what we are doing. The world agreed, but when it came down to it some were only prepared to let things continue on as they had been over the past 12 years. Looking over that, we did the right thing at the right time in the right place. Hundreds if not thousands swarmed into iraq to help keep twisted killers in power. To me it just means less to fight around the world and in our own country. The question is who do you have faith in to stop this here and now. I can not understand how some say Kerry? He goes with the wind, that is fact, it is provable, and it shows no leadership. If we are to remain the world power, we are headed in the right direction.
posted
additionally, Last I heard, we have spent 120 bil. not 200 bil. on the war. Although we can spend that 200 we have not yet. We have not incuured 90% of the injured. In fact it is true that this country is trying to step up and make its own future with our help. Stating otherwise only does injustice and takes away from the good men and woman, of any country involved, who have placed their lives on the line. The world is changing, and it is because of President Bush and Prime minister Blair that we are headed in the right direction. Oh yeah I forgot the other 30-40 countries that are there with us. Granted their troops might not be there in such numbers, but it does say somethign that they are there.
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by futuresobjective: It is funny, that you don't realize it is war that makes peace. I would like to think otherwise, but until nations such as iraq and the taliban's afganistan agree to a more peacfull way of life, it will have to be war (as a last option only as it was with iraq) that makes peace. I suppose you think there should not have been a civil war in our country? we should not have gone up against north Korea?, We should not have literally saved the world in the world war. It is that kind of thinking that will move us from world leaders to followers. This country gets its strength from doing what is right. And that is exactly what we are doing. The world agreed, but when it came down to it some were only prepared to let things continue on as they had been over the past 12 years. Looking over that, we did the right thing at the right time in the right place. Hundreds if not thousands swarmed into iraq to help keep twisted killers in power. To me it just means less to fight around the world and in our own country. The question is who do you have faith in to stop this here and now. I can not understand how some say Kerry? He goes with the wind, that is fact, it is provable, and it shows no leadership. If we are to remain the world power, we are headed in the right direction.
The biggest problem with the civil war is the fact that the invaders won. They moved this nation from what could have been a co-operative of fifty to a coruptable one, in one fell swoop.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco: OooooooohhhhhhhhhK so now you are blaming Enron for Kalifornia's financial ills? I would blame the commie legislative branch. I would blame a governor with all the mental agility of a pebble. I would blame the laws in place in that state which made ownership or operation of a business unprofitable and undesirable.
the sheep sheerers that de-regulated energy made that possible.... it was an ill-conceived plan.... the loophole were either part of a plan or just stupidity.... nonetheless we end up using MORE OIL today STILL......
and i still see Bush sending more jobs overseas..... if we don't UNITE on the cocnepts of how to get our jobs back here, the politicians will still continue to sell us out...
the Unions(which i don't like, but recognise their uses) should be leading the way here...are they all bought off too??????
quote:Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco: The biggest problem with the civil war is the fact that the invaders won. They moved this nation from what could have been a co-operative of fifty to a coruptable one, in one fell swoop.
You would not be sitting here today if men had not been willing to step up to the plate. Nobody wants to fight a war. However unfortunate it may be, it is something that must be done in situations.
posted
there are various doctrines and some say war makes the peace. I will not dispute theoritally that premise. My contention is that the IRAQ war in not justifiable. I did support the afghanistan war because it is al qaeda that attacked us. You have to choose your battles. As with kids, there are some things I will let them have their way, some I will compromise and some no negotiation.
Posts: 864 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the sheep sheerers that de-regulated energy made that possible.... it was an ill-conceived plan.... the loophole were either part of a plan or just stupidity.... nonetheless we end up using MORE OIL today STILL......
and i still see Bush sending more jobs overseas..... if we don't UNITE on the cocnepts of how to get our jobs back here, the politicians will still continue to sell us out...
the Unions(which i don't like, but recognise their uses) should be leading the way here...are they all bought off too??????
Yes de-regultion made it possible for the compqanies supplying Kalifornia with power to receive acceptable compensation for those electrons. It was up to those governmental officials to make the public aware of the instant and delayed reprucuscions of that decision... they did not. Look I am not defending Enron, I am hoping you grasp that it was the state government that made the bulk of the mistakes that lead to the supposed energy shortage.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by futuresobjective: You would not be sitting here today if men had not been willing to step up to the plate. Nobody wants to fight a war. However unfortunate it may be, it is something that must be done in situations.
you couldn't be FURTHER wrong.... there are, and always have been PLENTY of people ready to fight wars... DQR and i both have served....
the question is really about cost-benfit analysis... Iraq is going to cost US big if we don't fixit ind do so QUICK..... a commander-in-cheif or ANY leader that refuses to recognise his/her mistakes is a guarantee of FAILURE....
quote:Originally posted by futuresobjective: You would not be sitting here today if men had not been willing to step up to the plate. Nobody wants to fight a war. However unfortunate it may be, it is something that must be done in situations.
You are right, I would not be sitting here today if the North had not invaded the South. Nor would you. Many things would be different. The federalists were and are still the plague that might very well destroy what could have been the longest lived of all societies on this pebble we call a planet.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DQR, the market for electricity in Kali was anyhting but fair.. it was such a slimy deal that i can't even believe you would suggest that....LOL
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: there are various doctrines and some say war makes the peace. I will not dispute theoritally that premise. My contention is that the IRAQ war in not justifiable. I did support the afghanistan war because it is al qaeda that attacked us. You have to choose your battles. As with kids, there are some things I will let them have their way, some I will compromise and some no negotiation.
But how can you not support a war that freed a country from oppression? These people are free, because of the steps our country took. WMD's, none found... plans to make them again? yes... even Kerry has said that. Terrorirsts, yes, he has ties to them. I want to say al sidar (spelling?), but I am not sure of the name. Don't forget that this is a man that raped, and killed hundreds and thousands of his own people. His sons, for example were murderers as well. One of them went as far as raping any woman he wanted. One story is, he was on an elevator with his body gaurds, he had them beat the heck out of the ladies husband and then took her back to his house and raped her. How can people like that be allowed to stay in power? They can't be. As far as the WMD's go, he did want to start manufacturing them again, the world agrees on this. And yes Kerry does as well. But now that it will help his polls he will say otherwise. This war is unfortunate I agree, but it is something that had to be done after 12 years of un sanctions that he did not take seriously. After 12 years of that do you really think for one second that another 1 year or another 30 would have helped? Nobody does. But when it came down to it there were only a few that stepped up to the plate. This is why I support Bush. This is why Kerry as a joke. This is why I support this war. This is something that had to be done, and now that it is done, we are allowing this countries own people to try and create a government. We are there becuse they ask us to be there (Bush has said if they asked us to leave we would get out as fast as possible). Their current leadership went to the un asking for help, and kerry made a joke out of it. This is a country that needs the help of the world, and along others we stepped up to the plate. This war was the right thing to do. This war needed to be done, and Bush is treating is as it should be treated.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: DQR, the market for electricity in Kali was anyhting but fair.. it was such a slimy deal that i can't even believe you would suggest that....LOL
$hit man, I don't suggest it was fair. I do suggest it was the natural peprecussion of an industry being regulated for so many years, trying to make back money lost. Do I agree with how it was done? Hell no. Do I blame them for making it known that they supply what is demanded? Hell no. Point being. The whole energy crisis was little more than two squbling children fighting over the TV remote. No biggy
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....
still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
THIS MESSAGE EDITED BY GLASSMAN... TO INCLUDE THE WARNING THAT IT CONTAINS SARASTIC STATEMENTS.... WAY OVER THE EDGE TO MAKE A POINT... WE (AMERICANS IN GENERAL)DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CULTURES OF THE MID-EAST...IT IS NOT INTNEDED TO BE RACIST OR DEROGATORY TO THOSE PEOPLES
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco: [QUOTE]Originally posted by glassman: [b]DQR, the market for electricity in Kali was anyhting but fair.. it was such a slimy deal that i can't even believe you would suggest that....LOL
$hit man, I don't suggest it was fair. I do suggest it was the natural peprecussion of an industry being regulated for so many years, trying to make back money lost. Do I agree with how it was done? Hell no. Do I blame them for making it known that they supply what is demanded? Hell no. Point being. The whole energy crisis was little more than two squbling children fighting over the TV remote. No biggy
[/B][/QUOTE] Add an "a" to squbling
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
so i am commie, because i believe we need to have SOME and i emphasize SOME govenrmental control over the way we live???
water, basic food, electricity......
no, i don't want gov. health care, but guess what, it's inevitable....does that make me happy? NO, i would rather we had a doctor on EVERY block....hey neighbor, i'm sick can ya help me out??LOL
it's a pain trying to solve the worlds problems in two hours ain't it????LOL
quote:Originally posted by glassman: wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....
still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
twisting words, for what they are meant to mean. You understood that and it hurts me that somebody can sit there and say something that you have just said. That country was deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars that it had earned. Where did that money go? right into sadams pocket. The funny thing is one month after that war ended we had their oil production to 100% or just near it of where it was when sadam was in control, and that is with people trying to disrupt it. where it is at now I have no clue. The fact that you say these people needed to be treated like that, implies your lack of morals. Granted somebody can feel like that, but it is not right in any way to say that people need to be opressed and uneducated. The best thing one can do for anyone else is allow them to be in control of their own life.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....
still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
He ran Iraq like it needed to be run???? Glass were you not moments ago worried about people paying too much for electricity? Now you are unconcerned about people being tortured by a evil dictator? Yet again it needs to be emphacised that I am not making you seem like a photon crazed roach, I am merely pointing it out. Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by futuresobjective: twisting words, for what they are meant to mean. You understood that and it hurts me that somebody can sit there and say something that you have just said. That country was deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars that it had earned. Where did that money go? right into sadams pocket. The funny thing is one month after that war ended we had their oil production to 100% or just near it of where it was when sadam was in control, and that is with people trying to disrupt it. where it is at now I have no clue. The fact that you say these people needed to be treated like that, implies your lack of morals. Granted somebody can feel like that, but it is not right in any way to say that people need to be opressed and uneducated. The best thing one can do for anyone else is allow them to be in control of their own life.
recognising reality for what it IS, does not imply a lack of morals....
morals have nothing to do with this...
if you still think we went to war for MORAL reasons, i can't help you see the TRUTH....
bombing people into democracy doesn't work....
if Bush had presented the Iraq war to US as a humanitarian war when he SOLD it to US we would have been drawing up IMPEACHMENT papers..be real...
quote:Originally posted by glassman: wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....
still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
You have just stated the fact that you have racism at your core. How can anyone believe in your ability to support the morality that we all hold dear?
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco: You have just stated the fact that you have racism at your core. How can anyone believe in your ability to support the morality that we all hold dear?
If Bush had come to US and the UN and said, i think the world will be better off without Saddam Hussein, so i am initiating operation SHOCK and AWE..... we would not be there....if you say this is a good reason now, you are the ones that are being IMMORAL, not ME
posted
Glass, lick your self inflicted wounds how you see fit, but lashing out at me will not resolve the pain you feel. Just say it... "I do not have the ability to understand the intricacies of global conflict" Makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't it? Honesty will set you free my friend.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
i don't know YET, but what i hear is that they are asking their family leaders who they must vote for.....
maybe a miracle will happen in the ballot booth...or do they have booths? do they get privacy when they vote??? anybody know??? i don't.....
the views that i have represented above.... about governing iraq being a nightmare? those SAME views were expressed by George H W Bush in his book years before his son took office...they aren't exclusively my PERSONAL views......
i don't hear any response the question of whether or not Bush could have gained authority to invade Iraq to depose Saddam based on what we know today...except from Bush HIMSELF.....and i do not agree that it would still have been right.....
posted
What I don't understand is; when Clinton was pres. we stood by and watched from a distance while the intraconflict within Rwuanda took place, yet he was praised for doing nothing? (Or as least never critisized for it): We invade a country that had thumbed its nose at U.N. resolutions for 14 years, we liberate a country that was impoverished by a money-scamming dictator, tortured and raped--even killed--by a ruthless maniac, we attack terrorists (note Glass I didn't say Al Queda), in a country that sponsored and funded terrorists, and we are considered in the wrong.
One other note. Thank you Jimmy Carter for not defending an ally during your presidency (the Shaw of Iran). Now we have to deal with Iran as a haven for terrorists, and a nuclear threat to our allies.
His inaction then has lead to a threat that could have prevented. May I have that Nobel Peace Prize back, please.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: lick my wounds huh?
seems to me that the point is MADE.....
how are the women in Afghanistan going to vote???
i don't know YET, but what i hear is that they are asking their family leaders who they must vote for.....
maybe a miracle will happen in the ballot booth...or do they have booths? do they get privacy when they vote??? anybody know??? i don't.....
the views that i have represented above.... about governing iraq being a nightmare? those SAME views were expressed by George H W Bush in his book years before his son took office...they aren't exclusively my PERSONAL views......
i don't hear any response the question of whether or not Bush could have gained authority to invade Iraq to depose Saddam based on what we know today...except from Bush HIMSELF.....and i do not agree that it would still have been right.....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: How many years was it before women could vote in American? How many years before black men could vote in America? This is their first election, and I think 40% of the voters are women. Our countries first elections were not at any better than these might be. However the fact is that they are voting. People who try to make the point you just made vex me. You seem to want things without doing the work invloved to get them. Things are hard and are tough, that is the point. That being said thinkgs in afganistain and Iraq are going very well (looking at the larger picture and realizing that there is work to be done and it will not be easy)
As far as Bush having authority to go into Iraq. He did have the authority. The last sanction placed by the un stated that there would be grave consequences (wording might not be exact) if here did not cooperate. Guess what... He did not cooperate. Still President Bush went to the un, pushed for them to go into the country... and they did. They did this because Bush pushed for it. Then the time came to make a decision. The president pushed for the UN to get involved, so the world as a whole would do what they said they would. Guess what? Some of them did not want to do what they agreed they would do shortly before. You sound like if the kid who gets his lunch money taken everyday, and wont do anything about it. Instead he just gives up the money before even being pressed for it. There was a threat, the un agreed to do something about it, and then backed off. Why? Certain countries did not want to risk the loss of troops and more importantly they did not want to invest money in a country other than their own. Shortsightedness in my opinion. The bottom line is By our President doing what he did, with the help of the english, and about 30-40 other countries, he validified the un as an actual force rather than just a meeting of countries that will not take any action unless it is immediately self serving. If the un wont back up what it says it will do... what is the point? President Bush took control (as a good leader should) and backed up those words. This is why America is a nation that leads others instead of being a follower. We are a world power (the world power in my opinion) and should act accordingly. People fail to see the facts. The un said it would do something and failed to do so, because of the veto power of france and germany. (Two contries by the way who were making money of of that sadistic leader) We once again took charge, (as America can only be counted on to do so) and did what was universaly agreed had to be done!
posted
I offer somethign esle, however far fetched it may be... These killers (terrorists) claim to blindly follow their religion... and that is what (to them, however twisted it may be) allows them to commit these acts... well maybe they want freedom, and maybe they want peace, that might have been their motive all along. ... Quran (9:11) --For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace. ::::::::::::::::: just a thought to throw out there...
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by futuresobjective: I offer somethign esle, however far fetched it may be... These killers (terrorists) claim to blindly follow their religion... and that is what (to them, however twisted it may be) allows them to commit these acts... well maybe they want freedom, and maybe they want peace, that might have been their motive all along. ... Quran (9:11) --For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace. ::::::::::::::::: just a thought to throw out there...
boy, this is gonna be a heartbreaker for you...those words are NOT in the KORAN period.... more propaganda.....
I AM SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK HERE....
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL: I AM NOT A KERRY SUPPORTER, I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU FIND THE TRUTH...... look it up....it ain't there. we have been lied to BIG TIME
As far as Bush having authority to go into Iraq. He did have the authority. The last sanction placed by the un stated that there would be grave consequences (wording might not be exact) if here did not cooperate. Guess what... He did not cooperate. Still President Sadam DID allow US in(just before we bombed them) and we still found nothing....the sanctions worked.. i have provided much of this data here already .....
furthermore "grave consequences" is not the same thing as Operation Shock and Awe"....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: boy, this is gonna be a heartbreaker for you...those words are NOT in the KORAN period....
<-- Agreed... I understand that they ar not in the Koran (and pardon my spelling on prior versions) I AM SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK HERE....
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL: I AM NOT A KERRY SUPPORTER, I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU FIND THE TRUTH...... look it up....it ain't there. we have been lied to BIG TIME
[b] As far as Bush having authority to go into Iraq. He did have the authority. The last sanction placed by the un stated that there would be grave consequences (wording might not be exact) if here did not cooperate. Guess what... He did not cooperate. Still President Sadam DID allow US in(just before we bombed them) and we still found nothing....the sanctions worked.. i have provided much of this data here already .....
furthermore "grave consequences" is not the same thing as Operation Shock and Awe"....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).][/B]
Not only did we have reasons to go in because we thought there were in fact WMD's, but more to the point he wanted to start producing them again. Both are valid reasons for going in , and both are not needed. The first was the more imediate reason for going in, not the only. All that said and done, now after the fact hind sight is 20/20 (or closer to is, I dont think we will ever know the exact things we would like to), I am glad to hear you don't support Kerry, thanks for bringing a smile to my face. I agree, the truth is harder to find (in this situation) than we would like it to be. I don't think that has much to do with President Bush, I think it has more to do with all the current things going on and how they are all so intertwined. It is hard to see anything clearly nowdays, and I suspect it will be unless we all have a 100% accurate view of each nation their ideas and beliefs... again sorry about that Koran post, I could not believe what I was reading and posted it before doing some more dd on it. I would have eventually found out, but thanks for stopping that here and now...
furthermore "grave consequences" is not the same thing as Operation Shock and Awe".... that is a matter of opinion, what else is there one can do to a country aside from sanction it from here to eternity... the shock and... was not the grave consequences, it was part of them. What would you take grave consequences as? putting sadam in the corner with a dunce hat on? thats been done for the past several years... something needed to happen, it was stated that it would, and it did. But I guess it all comes down to opinion... whatever happens in the future I only hope for stability and courage to back up statements that were said or written.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 08, 2004).]
posted
that Koran thing is just the tip of the iceburg tho... this is why i am spending so much time on the subject..... read the New American Century web-site....
there were a LOT of conflicting Intel reports.... the ones that Bush presented to the congress and the Senate, and the UN are NOT the only ones....there were PLENTY of opposing views and the credibility of Bush's sources was called into question by quite a few people "in the know" the intel community is releasing documents showing that Bush has gone against the advice of quite a few of them...this is a clear sign to Bush and since they did it, he has looked very tentative....
quote:Originally posted by glassman: that Koran thing is just the tip of the iceburg tho... this is why i am spending so much time on the subject..... read the New American Century web-site....
there were a LOT of conflicting Intel reports.... the ones that Bush presented to the congress and the Senate, and the UN are NOT the only ones....there were PLENTY of opposing views and the credibility of Bush's sources was called into question by quite a few people "in the know" the intel community is releasing documents showing that Bush has gone against the advice of quite a few of them...this is a clear sign to Bush and since they did it, he has looked very tentative....
the UN did it's job...they disarmed Saddam...
the un disarmed sadam, but they did not stop him from having the ability to produce them at the drop of a dime... that is the new reality of the problem. thats what the un was to prevent, and they did not want to back it up....
posted
Saddam wasn't the problem.... He was non-secular.... we are fighting RELIGIOUS extremists(or so it appears)
the CIA had quite a bit of intel on Al-queda,
they even had intel that Osama was attempting to build radio-controlled airplanes (not models.. full-size) to attack the Prez in Italy in July of '01......
yeah , there is a lot of work to be done, and Iraq was simply not the place to start, cuz now we are fighting on one more front that we didn't need to fight on at the same time as the rest...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 10, 2004).]
posted
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 13, 2002
President Bush Holds Press Conference Press Conference by the President The James S. Brady Briefing Room
President's Remarks view listen
4:00 P.M. EST
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
so, Bush is trustworthy and singleminded???
by the way, Al-queda as of today is now listed as Israel's TOP priority...hmmmmmm
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary August 16, 2002
President Discusses Iraq, the Economy and Homeland Security Remarks by the President to the Press Pool Crawford Community Center Crawford, Texas
11:55 A.M. CDT
Q Mr. President, not all Republicans seem sold on your intention to deal with dictators who gas their own people. What are you going to do to make that case more persuasively? Are you consulting with them? And, what is your obligation of getting approval, not just consultation, with Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that question. First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say.
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run.
We'll continue to consult. Listen, it's a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know, I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.
even Republicans balked until he presented his NEW intel.....
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
