posted
Just who declared that all other options (not choices.....it's a choice only after the fact) were to be not included? And, exactly how and on what bases did they determine that those were the only two to be allowed? Seems to me there was an option of letting the UN have time to prove that Saddam had nuclear weapons and poison gasses and biological agents and had a means of deploying them and the intent to do so. Of course, as we have now proved, all that was crap to start with......just BS to enflame a scared electorate!
Oh, yeah, right, come to think of it, now I see. Dumb me! They did have reason to make that conclusion, all those atom and hydrogen bombs and that nerve gass they found in canisters burried in the sand for miles and miles around Bagdad and those "portable manufacturing plants for bio-weapons. Yeah, now I got it.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you find something negative about this...
Bush Says Patriot Act Helped Convict More Than 200 Terrorists
BY NEDRA PICKLER - Associated Press June 10, 2005
COLUMBUS, Ohio - President Bush yesterday credited the Patriot Act with helping to convict more than 200 terrorists and dismissed accusations that the law has violated civil liberties.
Mr. Bush described scary scenarios that he said were thwarted by law enforcement and intelligence officers working together with powers granted by the law he signed six weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
posted
Bdgee, I've asked this question a few times, rarely get responses:
Suppose you had--with stalls and delays--managed to dismantle the WMD infrastructure. Couldn't you then dump the WMD inventory into your oil wells, then set them afire as the invasion begins?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
how about a link? to the cases where the patriot act was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to convict the bad guys?
don't you see that Bush himself has no intention of taking our guns from US? but the next Clinton that gets in will be able to do more towards accomplishing that? because of the new rules...no it won't happen all at once... BUT? it's a creeping disease, and there are already kids getting taught in school that the INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms isn't really a true constitutional right? and this was in friggin NEBRASKA where they were teaching this in high school american history ...not californication....
don't let your support for Bush blind you to the possibilities.... there is a lot at stake here.... one of the reasons i get so "annoyed" with Art when he calls me a "liberal" is cuz i love to shoot my guns....and you know the saying? they can have 'em when they pry 'em from dead cold fingers....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: Yes, and you also said the level of terrorism in Iraq 3 years from now would be the same as it was a month ago.
It has already started to drop since you said that. We have killed or captured many hundreds in the last month. In a year the terrorists will be attacking at a level as currently in Israel - a minor level.
really? who's data are you claiming to have? LOL Art, you better quit staring at the sun...
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report
By Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.
Art: Yep -it maxed out a month ago, like I said, and is now declining as we speak.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
paranoid nonsense. We are armed. We can revolt if the government ever becomes tyranical. That is why our founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms (or was that to arm bears?).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Art: French members of the UN inspection team were serving as spies for Saddam and keeping Sadam advised of planned inspections. This was discovered late, not too long before the UN team left Iraq.
glassy-eyed bozo:
now that is news to me... got any references besides the libmaugh propaganda machine.....
Read about this just before the Iraqi war, but can't find the article in searching now.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
to be honest? i don't doubt that it's true (about the frenchies helping saddam)... i also suspect the russkies...
problem is? bioweps and nukes don't disappear easily... i BET we have very good sensing devices both in space and on spyplanes that are capable of detecting nukes but not bioweps when they are being moved (not while they are buried tho)...
the frenchies were raking it in $$$$$wise...the russkies are just trouble....
my concern is that we are no closer IMO to making the mid-east free-er or more like OUR democracy cuz of Iraq... but that is just an opinion... we both know Bush hated Saddam for personal reasons...i believe we could have clamped down a LOT harder on him and even France and accomplished much more ( just IMO)... we can't leave Iraq 'till we get the job done, and i'm more concerned about the movement toward pulling out NOT coming from the white house than i am about most other stuff...if the white house would lead the way on that we'll be OK... BUT?
i SUSPECT the white house plan never really included pulling out at all... i suspect the plan was always to have major, MAJOR bases there indefinitely, and that's what the locals that are supporting the terrorists think too...that's why they are willing to support the terrorists that are destroying their chance at a future...IMO thats' what's really happening... the Iraqi's are losing any chance at even partial autonomy very fast...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges Statistics Often Count Lesser Crimes
"An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.
Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them."
Dan Eggen and Julie Tate Washington Post Staff Writers
posted
"From minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials. "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
It only takes 1 to murder an American(s). If one of these suspects killed one of your family members, you would be the first to accuse Bush of not doing anything.
You seem to only be able to link some article from the biased Post or throw out one of your "original" one liners about Bush is stupid.
posted
"...George Bush has always maintained that the use of force was a last resort, but the memo 'could be the first documentary proof that [he] deceived the American people.'
That could be a problem for the president. Campaigners such as After Downing Street want an inquiry to determine whether Mr Bush misled congress. If he did, it could be an impeachable offence.
Mr Bush's spokesman accused the congressmen of 'simply trying to rehash old debates', and the White House refused to respond to requests for an inquiry. A piece in Salon (very readable) asks whether it is 'just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes'...."
I am sure they're are those in the terrorist community that may adore you........
it's not that simple...
the terrorsts represent a group of people that wish to dictate what their "followers" can say and yes even think.... don't give them even a tiny victory by attempting to suppress the freedoms we are fighting to protect...
they wish to control every minute detail of the lives of the people they oversee...
freedom of speech is just the first thing the terrorists wish to destroy...
i BET the terrorists are more confused/annoyed about US americans saying whatever we want than anything else...
by allowing one single man to represent our war on terror? we are setting ourselves up to lose the NEVER-ENDING war on terror that we face....
even President Bush has acknowledged publicly that there is no way to win this war in one fell swoop like WW2.... this will be a very long war, and people who have said differently? they deliberately misled the genral public...
this country was designed specifically to PROMOTE speaking up about what you think is wrong...and being correct or being wrong isn't the point...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peaser01: Would Gore, or Kerry the Clown have waged war against terrorism I wonder? We'll never know I guess.
Too bad? Good Joke.
so you're implication is that these guys are unAmerican traitors? i'm sorry but that is just wrong....
i'm very unhappy with the choices BOTH parties have offered us for the last 20 years or so, but Kennedy was a liberal that i dislike for various reasons, and he is the ONE that made the Nam into a nightmare...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
baaa baaa.baaa
