| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Source |
|
now we get to watch his fair trial! right? i hope this finally gets michael jackson out off the news. for a day or so. |
you know what. I'm surprised, shocked actually. I guess we should have all known it was just a matter of time, but I guess I've gotten used to Saddam, Osama and WMD not being found or anything of that nature... even the cynic in me that thinks this may not be Saddam but some decoy or something for political purposes... no, I'm pretty damn sure they got him. GREAT JORB I propose something, and it isnt going to happen. DONT KILL HIM. Well, actually I shouldn't have a say, it should really be up to the Iraqi people... however I think Saddam is much more useful alive than dead, and shouldnt be disposed of at least until you squeeze every last drop of information out of him, analyze him, zillions of interviews... its going to be a fascinating while... however, unlike the yahoo article, I don't think this is going to put an end to the Iraqi resistance... its gonna get them more pissed off, nad if he dies, you've got a martyr figure... oh dear, the implications of all of this. I never really thought them all through... overall great to catch him, but there are so many new X factors that have been immediately created. let the speculation begin. |
|
Then again, Stallin and Hilter still make an occasional appearence |
|
that an event such as this didnt bring people together to at least be happy that SOMETHING good has happened with the war lately, but instead i'm seeing cons waving it in libs faces, which is kinda sick that they're more happy to wave it in their faces than be glad that Saddam is gone, and libs trying to spin this in bad ways, angry because despite it being a good thing, it increases the chances of W being re-elected... me, well I still think this capture holds more symbolic importance than anything. Saddam is still the scapegoat for 9/11, a distraction from the real culprits, and nothings going to change that for me. But still, for today, I wish people had put all this crap aside and just been glad that Saddam has been captured... I mean, Germany and France and Russia, etc are all congratulating the States... optimistically, this could relieve some world tension between the States and countries that didnt support the war... pessimistically, this is going to to further divide the public in the US, and this could mean that Bush might bring the troops home earlier than he should... |
some video for those who dont want to sit around the tv today, as pundits turn limited news into 24 hour coverage... |
|
|
|
They only look good if America looks bad. |
|
I think that goes both ways spunk. remember? Clinton blowjob? Bad moral example? Lying under oath? "They set themselves up for this, and I think they gave themself enough rope to hang by. " oh jesus, i didnt want to start this... okay, i'm sorry, but here i go... if it were massive stockpiles of WMDs found, you'd have a point. But the fact is, Saddams capture was just a matter of time, and Osama is still out there, Saudi Arabia is yet to be addressed, Afghanistatan is in trouble... you know spunk, this "his regime is over" talk they've been talking about all day, its the same think they said when they captured Baghdad and toppled the statue. Whats the real difference? W is more likely to be reelected now because he has Saddam, in the flesh. Big photo-op, campaign commerical material... but you cant tell me this really hangs the Dems by a noose. On one hand, the timing of this is very convenient since the primaries and stuff are in january, and this will hurt Dean in the short-term. But in the long-term, the pressure is on Bush to find out from Saddam where these supposed WMDs are, to get full confessions about what exact links there were with any terrorist groups, etc... and if the resistance in Iraq gets worse (they still kept going today, many dead)... I dont think I'm really spinning all that much here, spunk. This is the reality Bush has to face because of this... you know this whole thing really showed Liebermanns true colors. That man is a piece of shit opportunist if there ever was one. if he were the Dem candidate, he'd be the exception to the "anyone but Bush" rule. |
Saddam knows all the dealings that the US had with his regime. Saddam knows all the dealings that other countries such as Germany, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia and China had with his regime. This could be very bad for everyone, heh |
considering all this, Saddam just might be conveniently assassinated before trial even happens... and all too many people will have had the motive... shit... if the fighting continues, the US doesnt have the "mastermind Saddam" to blame anymore. hey spunk, do you think maybe it was actually in the White House's best interests to have Saddam killed in the capture? or do you think he will be of help to them? |
That's bullshit FoxNews and neocon propaganda. You've swallowed it hook line and sinker, spunk. GWB benefitted when the economy took a dive after the tech bubble. Were you complaining about him, then? Did you ever say, "George Bush will only do well if the economy goes bad. He wants the economy to fail!" Did George Bush set himself up in the same way you say the democratic candidates are setting themselves up? |
needing to get off the hook by bringing the other one down with you... come on spunk, thats the way most politicians get elected. even if they have a real platform, they benefit more from the other guy screwing up... |
"Perhaps Saddam could point to a hidden stockpile of weapons, if any exist — although none of his followers have. He may say what many of his former underlings have stated: Iraq didn't have any weapons and only low-level research and development programs. His information may even be inaccurate. Some Iraqi scientists have said Saddam was misled by fearful minions into believing that Iraq's weapons programs were more advanced than they actually were. " already planting seeds... so now there werent WMDs but they tricked Saddam into thinking there were? come on.... I saw on TV last night as CNN tried to handle the WMD issue by saying that Americans have "moved past that" and that Saddam is the weapon of mass destruction. This is just disgusting... |
They have been speculating about that for a couple of years now. The point is, he still had the intention of developing them, and there is also significant evidence of Iraq training the Islamic Jihad groups on using the chemical weapons. Which was one of the primary points, including Clinton's attempts in 1998. He was a direct threat to the US and other nations in the region. |
|
tell me who 'they' is, spunk The American people were sold WMDs. They were sold imminent threat. One that needed to be adressed right away. Sold that all other options had failed and that war was the only option left... if they werent there, if they werent what they told us, then why the bashing that the UN inspectors 'werent doing their job' to see that Saddam had disarmed? how can they do that if there was nothing there? if they werent there war wasnt the last and 'only' option, and it was all a bunch of lies... And you bought it too. Dont make me go back into the archives and dig up quotes from you again, I'll do it. I'm petty like that... off the top of my head I remember you touting a Dennis Miller routine that lets us all know that 'we are not there to liberate them' for you to buy each story as it changes, thats crazy. thats scary. make up your mind. |
see what i wrote two posts above that one... spunk, do you read before you post? or are you trying to be funny? |
-cut $1.5 billion to military family housing and schools -double prices veterans pay for prescriptions -suspend enrollments at VA hospitals, thereby cutting veterans' medical care -abandoned the following six major international agreements: Kyoto, Comprehensive Test Ban Treat, Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, International Criminal Court. The people should be glad that Saddam is gone, but it doesn't change the fact in America, every day since Bush assumed power, over 3000 private sector jobs are lost, over 5000 people started working part-time because a full-time job wasn't available, and another 250 people have stopped being recorded as "unemployed" because they've just given up on finding work. Basically, Saddam in custody doesn't change the fact that this administration has mislead the public in just about every thing it's done, from the rotten "voucher" system of No Child Left Behind (a stolen title by the way) to the insanity of the Bush tax cuts, to the war in Iraq. |
i have this fucked-up premonition that i'm gonna be laid-off today or soon. i even gave myself some bad dreams about it. a lovely present for the holidays. ugh. can i express to you how much that would suck? |
|
so do people who actually think hussien was a good man |
Of course, I have yet to meet one, have you? |
***************** The U.S. military capture of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is being trumpeted by the corporate media and the Bush administration as simultaneously a great victory, the start of a new era, and justification for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The seizure and public display of Saddam Hussein may be a propaganda victory for imperialism, but it changes nothing fundamental about the situation in Iraq, particularly the reality that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq constitute a blatant and brutal violation of both international and U.S. law. While hailing the detention of Saddam Hussein after an intense 8-month search, the current co-dictators of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, are expressing the hope of the Bush administration as a whole that this development will signal the beginning of the end for the Iraqi resistance. But intensifying Iraqi resistance to the illegal and colonial war and occupation has not been primarily based - according even to the more knowledgeable corporate media journalists in Iraq - on loyalty to any particular individual. Instead, it is a response to the negation of Iraq's sovereignty and independence, as well as the increasing brutality of the occupying army. Even supporters of Bush's war such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Vice-Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are raising questions: "Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes clear that Saddam was not managing the insurgency. ... That is significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the United States." There can be no question that the Iraq occupation is a colonial project in every respect. The U.S.-appointed "Iraq Governing Council" is headed by CIA asset Ahmed Chalabi, whose family was the richest in all of Iraq when the British-controlled regime was overthrown in 1958. All of Iraq's assets are being put on the auction block. The U.S. is setting up colonial-style Iraqi police, intelligence services, and paramilitary death squads. [Whaaaa-? -Spider] It is taking and holding family members hostage, including children and grandparents, to force Iraqis to submit themselves for "interrogation." U.S. forces are using "Israeli-style" collective punishment and violence against the population as a whole in large parts of the country. [I'd like to see some corroboration of these claims. -Spider] "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," stated a U.S. battalion commander in Iraq (New York Times, December 7, 2003). He was speaking from one of the many Iraq villages that the U.S. has wrapped in razor wire, holding entire communities prisoner. A sign on the barbed wire reads, in English only, "This fence is here for your protection. Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot." The U.S. government has a long history of destabilizing and overthrowing governments and replacing them with brutal dictatorships. One need only look at Iran, the Congo, Guatemala, and Chile to know that the democratic or undemocratic character of the government targeted by the U.S. has never been the motivation for its actions. In that context the U.S. government has supported the most brutal dictatorships and military regimes. The long standing demonization of the former Iraqi government followed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of a larger global project by the United States to militarily destroy any government that seeks to maintain even nominal independence from the dictates of Washington and Wall Street. The leadership of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Palestine and others have been selected by the Bush administration for destruction. This stands in fundamental violation of the right of self determination. Only the Iraqi people have the right to determine who their leaders will be. People should keep in mind as they watch the forthcoming carefully packaged documentary of the "crimes" of the former Iraqi government, that the Bush administration has taken tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, has plunged Iraq into chaos and anarchy, and has removed the essential features of sovereignty for the Iraqi people who struggled in the past for decades against colonial rule. The occupation is taking the lives of Iraqis, U.S. and other "coalition" forces every day. While Halliburton, Bechtel and other U.S. corporations are reaping immense profits, the people both here and there are paying the price for Bush and his corporate friends' looting spree, in blood and money. According to administration figures, the cost of the Iraq occupation is 210 million dollars every day. The administration has stated that it need not bother to count the number of Iraqis that it kills. circulated by: A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Act Now to Stop War & End Racism FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.InternationalANSWER.org ***************** |
I don't know about Mr. Hussien, but I know Saddam Hussein was a pretty evil motherfucker... please spunk. read the post. learn to spell the name... every. single. time. you. spell. it. wrong. and. we. always. have. to. point. it. out. but. you. keep. doing. it. know whats pretty weird? so people (and spunks said it too, several times) say that the weapons are buried deep underground, in amazing hiding places, in a big country such as Iraq. But Saddam, the president... is in a hole just barely large enough for him to lie down in.... doesnt make a whole lotta sense when you look at the two side by side: weapons supposedly are taken care of so very well, but the president lives like a gopher, not very comfortable at all. doesnt even have access to a pair of scissors for 8 months... |
the weapons that threatened the United States, the imminent threat that was THE justification for war? Where are they? Either you show me weapons, or admit you ate the shit sandwich the Administration fed you, which is clearly the case, because everything they've fed you since you've eaten, wholly. Obviously your standards for logic and truth are tainted. Saddam's capture, while a bit surprising, doesnt mean anything but an opportunity for necons to show how childish they are. To taunt his captured imaged as if to justify the war. It doesnt. In fact, it has little to do with the reason the Bush administration went to war. You know this. Dont act like you dont. YOu ate that poop hoagie a year ago. rememeber. The danger? The odd cargo ships with WMDs the chemicals, the biotoxins? Remember how scared you were? How convinced you were that Saddam had all these big bad weapons and was about the push the button? What? What happened? Where are the weapons? "Intent" is not a reason to justify war, deposit another quarter and try to make a sound and just argument. Leaders around the world have 'intent' to do the US all kinds of harm, some public, some not. So what. Try again. Please. Please, for once in this on going shit with you please make an ounce of sense. |
"so do people who actually think hussien was a good man" sem: "Of course, I have yet to meet one, have you?" I met one yesterday. First name "Straw," last name "Man." |
please stop countering any reasonable argument that challenges your ice thin logic with the idea that they somehow have thought saddam a good man and otherwise supported him and his cause. youve done this throughout the back and forth here. Its never been founded, its never made sense and only makes you sound stupid. please. stop. ok? just stop. ive never seen one serious note from anyone here offering any kind of support for Saddam, his regime or any of the actions they carried out as a brutal regime. if its possible, i'll key you in on something, IT IS POSSIBLE TO QUESTION THE ACTIONS OF THE US GOVERNMENT AND THOSE WHO SUPPORTED THIS WAR AND STILL HAVE NO INKLING OF SUPPORT FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN, OR HIS GOV'T. capiche? can we move the conversation forward? make it somewhat progressive? |
just watch out for all those dirty, hidey-hole terrorists. they'll bite your ankles. |
...notice we dont hear much about North Korea anymore, do we? haha "terror ships at sea", thats funny to think of now... I remember Bill O'Reilly said that if there weren't any WMDs found in Iraq, he'd apologize to the people and say he'd never trust the Bush administration again... how much longer till people demand he live up to his word? or is this going to be one of those things he claims he 'never said'? back in July or whenever when we were bugging on the WMDs not being found, spunk said "well its only been a few months", and even though Rummy said they knew exactly where they were, well, I guess spunk had a point then. we weren't none too patient... but its been 8 months now. come on spunk, lets hear you actually talk a bit about length about what you think now, rather than some stupid comment insinuating that we think Saddam was a good guy... you know sometimes i think its unfair how we make you political whipping boy, but lately you've really deserved it. |
1. Saddam in a shallow hole, this is a little hard to believe, really. I mean, I guess it is him and all, but he was too easy to find like that. With all that money, hiding in a hole he dug outside a farm? Something seems off about the whole thing. 2. I am watching the footage of all of the people "celebrating" in the streets at Saddams capture....and noticed that it was a small group of men, dancing around, no women, no children, no teenagers, no elderly, just a small group of 20 something men.....it just appeared so staged to me (not that that would suprise me at all). I don't think the issue of whether Saddam was good/evil was ever an issue, but rather what to do about the situation. And quite frankly, OK, we have him, now what? Seriously? I bet it will boost the nasdaq and shit like that, but what is going to happen next? So we have Saddam, and now what? I mean, what change will happen next? Cuz I don't see it? |
which is a shame if you actually believe in a sincere, determined and thoughtful effort to fight terrorism |
let them try him. let them hang him. he didnt slaughter thousands of americans. he didnt lead Americans into brutal winless wars that lasted years and years. part of me wants to question the entire situation. but lets say its the real deal. the real saddam, found in a hole. the impact is tremendous. his sons fought for hours on end to a miserably bloody death. saddam? hiding. like a rat. no fight. giving up immediately. where's the martyrdom? all the people who have 'martryed' themselves for this man and what this man represents, and he isnt willing to do it himself? THAT says something. Those images and the circumstances have potentially done more than any thing else we've done in this war on terror. But you can't tell me the Bush administration had this outcome planned all along. All it would have taken to turn the tides was for Saddam to have a grenade in that hole with him, to have his place of hiding to take a handful of American soldiers with him. None. Nothing. What Saddam did or didnt do had nothing to do with the Bush administration. The war on terror is a joke other. Afghanistan is a miserable mess we half baked. We brought terror to Iraq. The best we can hope for is with Saddam's disgraceful and otherwise shameful capture will bring some of the suicide bombing to an end. Bush was right to be subdued and humble in his press conference. Unfortunately he has plenty of lapdogs and mushmouths in the press to do his gloating for him. |
|
he's smart enough to avoid another "mission accomplished" type thing.... that and i think he realizes that Saddams capture might not be the political victory it could be... |
if we're lucky... might not even happen... check out todays news...doesnt sound like a very large protest though. U.S. Troops Disperse Pro-Saddam Protest in Tikrit Mon December 15, 2003 04:45 AM ET TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. soldiers Monday used batons to break up a demonstration in Tikrit to protest against the capture of Saddam Hussein near his hometown, witnesses said. Chanting "We sacrifice our blood and souls for you Saddam," scores of people gathered outside Tikrit university to denounce Saturday's arrest of Saddam, who was born and captured near the town "God is Greatest, America is the enemy of all peoples," they shouted with their fists raised. Shortly afterwards U.S. soldiers charged the protest, beating and arresting some protesters, the witnesses said. There was no immediate comment from the U.S. military. |
sick how the joy he gets from an evil dictator being captured is focused towards how it hurts Democrats. his priorities are seriously out of whack... http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/03dec/uf006225.gif |
I'm trying to remember if, outside of the Indian Wars, we have ever captured an enemy head of state before. I don't think Japan counts since they surrendered. |
|
see, i didnt know that until just a few minutes ago... that would have certainly made a much bigger impact worldwide had it happened... |
|
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003 |
It was not the first time that I had seen his face, of course. Who on our planet had not seen it before? And yet now, how different it looked to me. There was something, shockingly enough, almost pitiable about it. An English correspondent on FOX compared his bearded and disheveled visage to that of King Lear, and the comparison seemed almost apt, until you realized that Lear's worst offense had been the vanity of second childhood, while Saddam's had been the systematic murder and torture of thousands of his own people. I watched the video of anonymous hands feeling underneath the scruffy beard, probing the way a doctor probes a patient, and I saw that Saddam was saying something to his examiner, and it seemed perfectly possible that his words might have been along the lines of it, "Yes, doc, I've been having sharp pains here for some time." And I thought, how natural. He is in the hands of Americans, and it isn't our style to withhold medical care even from a monster. If he needs dental care, we will no doubt give that to him, too. As fallen dictators go, Saddam is lucky. He was not strung up and spat upon by the mob, as Mussolini was, but taken out of his squalid little hole, cleaned up and shaved, and is now, no doubt, sitting somewhere quite warm and safe, and most of all, alive. Thank God. The rest of the story |
|
|
where are the weapons? |
|
|
YOUR SOUL *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* |
-Colin Powell |
|
Does this link Saddam to 9/11? (Filed: 14/12/2003) A document discovered by Iraq's interim government details a meeting between the man behind the September 11 attacks and Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, at his Baghdad training camp. Con Coughlin reports. For anyone attempting to find evidence to justify the war in Iraq, the discovery of a document that directly links Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, appears almost too good to be true. Ever since four hijacked civilian jets devastated the United States' eastern seaboard on September 11, 2001, there have been any number of reports circulating Western intelligence agencies suggesting that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had close links to al-Qaeda. Most of the claims relate to meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence to discuss co-operation on matters such as funding, training and equipment. Prior to the discovery of the document published today by the Telegraph, the most controversial report related to the suggestion that Atta had met Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, in Prague in April 2001. But while both President Bush and Tony Blair have dropped numerous hints that they believe there was a significant level of co-operation between Saddam and al-Qaeda, their respective intelligence agencies have actively sought to downplay the significance of the relationship, especially the suggestion that Saddam was in any way involved in the September 11 attacks. To this end America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), with the backing of Britain's MI6, have poured scorn on Atta's Prague meeting. However, the tantalising detail provided in the intelligence document uncovered by Iraq's interim government suggests that Atta's involvement with Iraqi intelligence may well have been far deeper than has hitherto been acknowledged. Written in the neat, precise hand of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and one of the few named in the US government's pack of cards of most-wanted Iraqis not to have been apprehended, the personal memo to Saddam is signed by Habbush in distinctive green ink. Headed simply "Intelligence Items", and dated July 1, 2001, it is addressed: "To the President of the Ba'ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you." The first paragraph states that "Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer (an Arabic nom-de-guerre - his real identity is unknown) and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision. "We arranged a work programme for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him . . . He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." There is nothing in the document that provides any clue to the identity of the "targets", although Iraqi officials say it is a coded reference to the September 11 attacks. The second item contains a report of how Iraqi intelligence, helped by "a small team from the al-Qaeda organisation", arranged for an (unspecified) shipment from Niger to reach Baghdad by way of Libya and Syria. Iraqi officials believe this is a reference to the controversial shipments of uranium ore Iraq acquired from Niger to aid Saddam in his efforts to develop an atom bomb, although there is no explicit reference in the document to this. Habbush writes that the successful completion of the shipment was "the fruit of your excellent secret meeting with Bashir al-Asad (the Syrian president) on the Iraqi-Syrian border", and concludes: "May God protect you and save you to all Arab nations." While it is almost impossible to ascertain whether or not the document is legitimate or a clever fake, Iraqi officials working for the interim government are convinced of its authenticity, even though they decline to reveal where and how they obtained it. "It is not important how we found it," said a senior Iraqi security official. "The important thing is that we did find it and the information it contains." A leading member of Iraq's governing council, who asked not to be named, said he was convinced of the document's authenticity. "There are people who are working with us who used to work with Habbush who are convinced that it is his handwriting and signature. We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's dealings with al-Qaeda, and this document shows the extent of the old regime's involvement with the international terrorist network." This is the second document published by this newspaper that appears to highlight Saddam's links with al-Qaeda. Earlier this year the Telegraph published details of another Iraqi intelligence document that indicated Saddam's regime was attempting to set up a meeting with Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, who was then based in Sudan. Intelligence experts point out that a memo such as that written by Habbush would of necessity be vague and short. "Trained intelligence officers hate putting anything down in writing," said one former CIA officer. "You never know where it might turn up." Certainly the memo's detail concerning Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal fits in with the known movements of the two terrorists in the summer of 2001. Abu Nidal, the renegade Palestinian terrorist responsible for a wave of outrages in the 1980s, such as the 1985 bomb attacks on Rome and Vienna airports, was based in Baghdad, under Saddam's personal protection, for most of his career. Having briefly relocated to Libya, Abu Nidal returned to Baghdad at some point in early 2001. At the time it was assumed that Saddam had lured the Palestinian terrorist back to help the Iraqi leader plan a number of terrorist attacks aimed at destabilising American plans to remove him. In particular, Saddam wanted Abu Nidal to revive his network of "sleeper cells" in Europe and the Middle East to carry out a new wave of attacks. During 2001 Abu Nidal lived in a number of houses in the Baghdad area, including a spacious home in the al-Dora district where he is reported to have met Atta. The relationship between Abu Nidal and Saddam, however, quickly turned sour, mainly because - as the Telegraph reported at the time - the ageing Palestinian leader was reluctant to accede to Saddam's request to train al-Qaeda fighters in sophisticated terrorist techniques. Abu Nidal was murdered in August 2001, although the Iraqis tried to claim that he had committed suicide. Habbush appeared at a hastily arranged press conference in Baghdad in an attempt to persuade the sceptical Arab media that Abu Nidal had taken his own life after Iraqi investigators had uncovered a plot to assassinate Saddam. Although Western intelligence agencies have attempted to trace Atta's movements in the months preceding September 11, there remain several periods during which his precise whereabouts are unknown. Having moved to Florida from Hamburg in 2000, Atta is known to have made at least two trips from the US to Europe in 2001. In early January he flew to Madrid for a few days. His next confirmed trip was to Zurich in early July. In between, American investigators have concluded from a detailed examination of Atta's credit cards and phone records, that he spent most of the spring and early summer of 2001 in Florida, interspersed by occasional domestic trips. The only confirmed sighting of Atta during this period, however, was on April 26 when he was pulled over for a traffic violation in Florida. This traffic offence, taken with other evidence collated by FBI agents, is one of the reasons that CIA officials have discounted the report that Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier in the month (the Czech authorities claim Atta was in Prague on April 8). Yesterday the New York Times reported that Ani, who was taken into US custody last July, had told American interrogators that he had not met Atta in Prague. "The Prague meeting does not appear very convincing," said Lorenzo Vidino, a terrorism analyst at The Investigative Project, a non-profit organisation that investigates international terrorism, in Washington. "But even if that meeting did not take place you have to remember that Atta used a large number of aliases when he travelled. It is not inconceivable that Atta slipped out of the US undetected sometime in the first half of 2001." The US Congressional report into the September 11 attacks states that Atta used 16 to 17 known aliases, although American intelligence experts concede that there may have been others. It is entirely conceivable, then, that Atta secretly made his way to Baghdad to undertake training with Abu Nidal a few months before the September 11 attacks. But as long as Saddam and his senior intelligence operatives remain at large, it is impossible to assess just how much they knew about, and were involved in, the planning and execution of the September 11 atrocities. it all looks very convincing till halfway through the article, when you read about how one of the key players is dead, and that the Iraqis wont tell how they got this document, which seems to have every issue wrapped up in some tight little package... you know what they say about things that are too good to be true. |
|
There are some serious questions to be answered: "There are people who are working with us who used to work with Habbush who are convinced that it is his handwriting and signature." So, this is the level of verification involved here? "'Trained intelligence officers hate putting anything down in writing,' said one former CIA officer. 'You never know where it might turn up.'" If Habbush were so clever, why did he create the document using his own distinctive handwriting? If it was so sensitive, why wasn't it destroyed? "Abu Nidal was murdered in August 2001..." The article doesn't directly say it (oddly) but Nidal was killed by Iraqi agents. Seems kind of odd that they'd kill one of their own who was doing such important work. |
spunky, brother, dingoboy, polly with the number of posts you and I and others on these boards put up in these political discussions, not everything gets addressed... but if you want to sit back and tell me that we ignore what you say, i'll just say that you've dodged a much much higher percentage of questions, and usually the things you do acknowledge stick to unimportant elements and avoid the main points people make entirely. you know this. to sem: have you seen that India is saying that the Musharraf assassination attempt is a hoax? |
but still, even with that in mind, considering all the other proven false info over the past few months (like the mobile labs/artillery balloons for example) and other ones that are definitely false but havent been issues (the plagiarized dossier), in the days since this story 'broke', even most ultra-right news pages havent really gone full force with this one... maybe like Bush, they're playing it safe now... of course Spunkys believing it already though... it doesnt matter if its true or not, what matters is that it backs him up. for the time being, at least. i only found this through the yahoo messages neocons, the ones who type all their messages in all caps and call liberals 'commies' and 'sand nigger-lovers' - and they're all linking to this one site. i cant even find this on newsmax yet... though i did find this kickass Ann Coulter talking action figure they're selling. for reals: https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/coulter_talking.cfm evil, manipulative capitalists taking advantage of naive, hardworking average joe capitalists. they always have the strangest merch, and readily available so fast... the leftists have that 'bush: intl. terrorist' shirt, but not much else of note.. yes, the rightwingers are far ahead in commercial exploitation of hate. |
dont know how that 's' got in there... |
Saddam fate exposes Arab radicals' lies - Saudi press RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi newspapers on Monday said the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein without a shot fired exposed the weakness and hypocrisy of radical Arab leaders. "What we saw yesterday was the televised unveiling of 30-year-old lie. A leader surrendered without fighting, the Arab street is stunned, and the Arab media appears to be in a state of shock," wrote Tareq al-Hamed in Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat. Saddam was one of a string of Arab dictators over the last 50 years who boldly cast themselves as fearless champions of Arab nationalism. But the once ruthless ruler was shown after U.S. troops found him near Tikrit as a grubby and bearded prisoner, resigned to his fate. Saddam appeared submissive and obedient in a videotape showing his capture by U.S. soldiers. "With his silence, those Arabs who favour terrorising people and falsifying (the images of leaders) will also fall silent -- temporarily," wrote Abdul-Rahman al-Rashed in Asharq al-Awsat. "This is the end of one of the false heroes...but one lie will die for another to appear." Saudi Arabia, a strict Islamic state, had strained relations with Saddam and his pan-Arab ambitions. The English-language Arab News hoped this would be the end to authoritarian rule in the Arab region. "Hopefully, the pit in which he was concealed is also the grave for all despotism in the region. Never again must such a tyrant be allowed to besmirch the Arab world with his brutality," it said. But commentators said Saddam's arrest should hasten the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq. "The United States has achieved its declared goal of removing the regime and arresting its leaders," the daily al-Watan said. "Now it must state clearly what the fate of its presence in Iraq will be." |
I didn't see that bit about India claiming it was a hoax. Pakistan claims its Al-Qaeda, but then, every thing gets blamed on them, so who knows? What's really suspicious to me about the document that supposedly links Atta to Iraq is that it also mentions the discredited Niger yellowsnow. So I would be very careful about the validity of this one. Rowlfe, you can get a great doll of W at truemajority.org that you can hang in your car window, with his pants on fire. I got one in mine! (And another is going to be a stocking stuffer for Mom) |
Heh. |
spunk. where are the weapons? " In a section of the Syrian Desert known as Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria’s 600 sq. mile Al Jazirah province, which is wedged between the Turkish and Iraqi borders. |
|
And if they could hide the WMDs so well, how come saddam was in a little hole? |
One of which is that he was betrayed by his own men who were looking for that $25 million reward. His hole has all the appearences of being a hiding place for a captive. Saddam Hussein has never forgotten the terms of the deal offered him by Yevgeny Primakov, to prevent the war. One month before the American invasion, Primakov visited Baghdad and advised Saddam to take himself and his family into perpetual detention in one of the presidential palaces. They would be kept under lock and key for life under international custody. The only provision for averting war and saving his life was that the he surrender his forbidden weapons systems to the United Nations. He turned the offer down, certain that if the Americans attacked, they would be defeated at the gates of Baghdad. However, he told his Russian visitor that he reserved the right to come back to the proposal in the future. This was the deal that may have kept Saddam going in the hole in the ground where he was found and which was behind the first words he said to the US troops who came to get him, namely a offer to negotiate. But Saddam will play every card in his deck to save his life. He will be lucky if he can trade his weapons of mass destruction for incarceration for life in Iraq – the Primakov deal save for the palace. |
and what if he doesn't have any WMD to trade? I figure, you know, it's easier to hide a guy than WMD. A person is more mobile. So 8 months later, we got Saddam. but all that imminent threat stuff? where's that? Syria? sure, ok. whatever. sounds to me like it's the next big lie for the next big excuse to leap into another invasion. |
DoD Intel |
nice try though. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031213-3.html kind of a stealth enactment of Patriot II, giving the fed more power and creating less privacy for citizens... of course the media paid no attention to this important legislation... |
DoD Intel" hmmm... "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 so considering all the things the CIA, DoD, MI6, etc etc have said and have been turned up false/disproven or unproven, why should we trust this one you prop up now? |
spunk, if the intel is so good, how come we dont see pics on tv of these WMDs being moved on trucks on roads on their way to Syria... over the past 18 months Iraq has been under the strictest surveillance imaginable via satellites... come on, you know if they had this intel it would be on TV being trumpeted around in a snap, whether they were 100% sure or not. if unproven Niger connections are good enough to be one of 2 pieces of evidence in a SOTU speech, I think evidence of a move to Syria would get a little bit of airtime, dont you think? and if they're in Syria, how do you know that they're not Syrian WMDs instead? or is that the plain? go after them and hope you can pass off Syrias stash as Iraq's? whats up, spunk? in my extensive searching, most of the claims that WMD have been moved to Syria have been coming from Israeli sources... and today Israel is pointing its big finger at Iran again... now with all this speculation, lets say something we know for certain. Israel is an aggressive country. Israel HAS WMDs. there are 70 UN resolutions against israel, over half of which have been vetoed by the US... I dont trust Israel. Noone should. Why the US coddles them I dont know. Its bizarre. Moving on... so spunk, are there hundreds of miles of underground railways to truck these through now? the WMD shuttle? do they have that Harry Potter magic cloak? today: Blair and Blix clash over WMD claims Dec 16 2003 Former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix dismissed claims that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had laboratories for developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as just "innuendo". His comments came as Tony Blair said that the British-American Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had already uncovered "massive" evidence of a network of secret laboratories and plans to develop long-range missiles. In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, the Prime Minister said it was essential that the ISG kept up its hunt for Saddam's banned weapons. "I think in any event we have got to carry on the work that we are doing, because contrary to some of the things that appear, the Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles," he said. "Now, frankly, these things weren't being developed unless they were developed for a purpose." But in an interview with BBC News 24's Hardtalk with Tim Sebastian programme, Dr Blix said that the ISG, led by David Kay, had failed to produce any concrete evidence that the laboratories they had found were working on WMD. "I'm talking about the reactions to the David Kay report where he says that 'we have found laboratories' - well that's innuendo that laboratories were for WMD," Dr Blix said. Earlier, at the launch in Sweden of a new independent commission on WMD, Dr Blix said it was "increasingly clear" that Saddam had not had any WMD when he was ousted by US and British forces. "My guess is that there are no weapons of mass destruction left," he said. Dr Blix believed most of Iraq's WMD had been destroyed in 1991 after the first Gulf War. He said that when his inspection teams had found a crate of warheads in January, they asked themselves "whether this was the tip of an ice berg, or was it just an ice floe floating around" as a remnant. "I think it's getting safer and safer to say that it was just an ice floe," Dr Blix said. Downing Street said that Mr Blair's comments in his interview with BFBS had referred to Dr Kay's interim report in October and not to any new findings |
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html |
captured saddam action figure: pay 30 bucks for a piece of shit toy! http://store1.yimg.com/I/herobuilders_1772_44513 |
How much do you think we are talking about? every bit of it that was listed by GW on that last address before the war started could be fit in the back of one 18 wheeler. They do have those in Canada, eh? You know how big they are, right? Six hundred sqare miles of desert, one tractor trailer. Paint it sandy brown, and just how easy are they to track? |
fit in a trailer... Bush said in January: 30,000 warheads, 500 tonnes of chemical weapons, 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin and you say you can fit this in an 18 wheeler? is that what you're saying? who are you parroting? I think i saw this "18 wheeler' shit parroted about on FreeRepublic once, and even then they decided amongst themselves that would only take up only a portion of the chem weapons. and they got it off of a CIA guy whose letter which this information included, had slanted editorials against liberals... unbiased fair factual information huh? and all those warheads, we were told were put on ready to launch missles... at 45 minutes notice... theres even more space for those missles... operational yet impossible to find? plus there was bush's talk of ongoing programs... and remember that the alleged 'mobile labs' are supposed to take up 2/3 18 wheelers... so there goes your Single Truck Theory spunk. "every bit could fit" HAH next time know take better care in your parrotage.. the reason the 'swimming pool full of WMD' story is being spread is for the purpose of getting people to think its a needle in a haystack, so the public will get off their ass... ...after months of telling us they knew exactly where they were, and had satellite photos with convenient little white arrows... how can you be convinced that the US knew EXACTLY how much they had, but no idea where they WERE? and the times they did know where they were, these places werent so staked out they were following every single thing that left these buildings (yes, even single 18 wheelers, which need to be loaded up by the way, with machines and people, who exist and you could find, or get to come forward and tell their story... we dont even hear about this since the war ended... WMDs may be hard to find... but where are the people who could back up the claims? you think only a handful knew about them?) within a few weeks after the war they reported that had visited a third of the suspected sites. After that, they stopped giving us progress reports on what percentage they had gone through. now why do you think that is? come on spunk, its easy to say "its tiny, it could go anywhere", but it flies in the face of all everything the government told the world about these weapons, and what they know about them. They're either lying then, or lying now, or both. you should make up you mind what you're going to go with, and stop playing revisionist history... and I thought that was one of the main things conservatives accused about liberals, and yet here they are now, its dogma. |
the US said they had PROOF of WMDs but couldnt say anything because it might endanger the source... so now that Saddam is gone and captured, you'd think that evil liberal media would say "so, can you show us your proof now that that the imminent threat is gone?" PPS - other than bio-labs, which are relatively easy to set up and dismantle, (as it is their design) , it's a very fucking long-term and difficult process to move a chemical weapons production facility, and just about completely fucking impossible to move a nuclear weapons production facility. With all this I'm not even saying theres nothing there. there very well could be and if i had to say "nothing" or "something" be damn well sure I'd pick "something" but it doesnt take a genius to figure out that the lies and mistakes are countless. which is why you just saying "DoD" as your source, well, it reeks of horseshit. you can only cry wolf so many times before I'm absolutely vindicated in turning the other way. And whats sad is, its already been done so many times eventually there'll be a real threat, and the US will have had already blown its wad on fake threats... and something bad could happen because the people stop trusting their leaders entirely... and you can only create so much fake money to fund your wars before the people of the country end up truly suffering for it... |
anyways: 1)WMDs 2)links to terrorists 3)Saddam is evil dictator it's obvious that the United States knew perfectly well 1) Even if there were WMDs, Iraq didn't really have an amount worth taking up as much of the case for war as it did 2) Iraq's support of terrorist groups targeting the United States was nominal at best. Especially in comparison to places like Saudi Arabia, where most of the highjackers came from, Osama was from, and whose family channeled funds to Al Qaeda 3) noone disputed or is disputing. The troops got their man and Bush is reaping the rewards. this could have and should have been the entire march of war, but wasnt because 1) and 2) were exploited so the party wouldnt be cut off. CONCLUSION: war wasnt the last option. no imminent threat. Bush lied. |
|
|
|
there was a woman on a national news program last night whose young son died in afganistan. they interviewed her regarding the capture of hussein. she said something to the effect of, "i hope now we can get an answer once and for all if the weapons of mass destruction exist, to know if this war was truly necessary, and that my son died for a legitimate reason." i was relieved that she was able to maintain that perspective. for some reason i think that most people who have lost a loved one in the war wouldn't bother to question the motive. too much cognitive dissonance to admit that lives were sacrificed for no good reason, or at least for the reason they were trying to sell this nation on the war. |
Your mind was already made up the instant bush was elected president, and there could be nothing to change your mind. There are tons of connections between iraq and al-queda, the man did indeed have an ongoing programme, and he certainly was in violation of his cease fire agreement. Today Iraq is the hot spot instead of LA or NY or Montreal. Canada is just as infested with Muslem extremists as the US is, and she is just as guilty in obtaining oil from the Mid East as we are. Her hands were in the first gulf war as well, and she is no more innocent then the US or Brittain. Up till now you have been content with letting the US provide protection, and now you just sit there lobing insults at us, and try to distance yourself from the whole ordeal. Almost as irrating as the ex-alchoholic who thinks they are better then the alchoholics. |
Spunk, you can't read minds. To base your argument on knowing what someone else thinks is bullshit. "Today Iraq is the hot spot instead of LA or NY or Montreal." And you know, for a fact, that LA, NY, or Montreal would be like Iraq now if we hadn't invaded Iraq? And don't say, "NY was in 9/11" because that's bullshit. "[Canada] is no more innocent then the US or Brittain." I don't think anyone disputes that. "Up till now you have been content with letting the US provide protection" I seriously doubt they'd view the invasion of Iraq as "protection" if they don't see an imminent threat. "Almost as irrating as the ex-alchoholic who thinks they are better then the alchoholics." Might be irritating (mostly to alcoholics) but they are better. They stopped drinking. They can safely drive a car, probably won't hit their kids or wives as much, and don't stink anymore. They're right to think that they're better, too. Otherwise what's the point of being sober? |
And none of what you say has any bearing on whether someone can come here and critique foreign policy, regardless of where they live. And for minds being made up before George Bush was selected by the Supreme Court, you don't have any room to talk on that one. You're confronted almost on a daily basis on the man's constant deceit and anti-democratic behavior, and yet you still think he's a good president. History will not be so kind, I think. The list of horrifying actions against the common good this president has done is almost numbing. |
Bush and his allies are celebrating the capture of Saddam Hussein, but they may come to regret it. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Robert Scheer Dec. 17, 2003 | The onus is on the United States to accord this former ally and head of state all the rights due a high-level prisoner of war, as established at Nuremberg and The Hague. His testimony in open court could prove fascinating if he is allowed to detail his past relationships with top U.S. officials -- including the president's father and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who worked out terms of cooperation with Saddam in 1983. And now that the "fear factor" of Saddam's ghostly presence has been removed, there is no longer any valid explanation for why former members of Saddam's regime and key scientists cannot show us where all those infamous weapons of mass destruction went. After all, this invasion -- based on a new doctrine of preemptive war that bypassed United Nations inspectors -- was not pitched to the American people as a mercy mission. We were told that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the world and was close to building nuclear weapons that he might give to al-Qaida. Occupying Iraq, it was stated over and over again by the White House, was a legitimate response to the horror of Sept. 11 and a way to prevent, as Condoleezza Rice once put it, "a mushroom cloud" from appearing over an American city. Of course, President Bush was finally forced to concede that there was no evidence that linked Saddam to 9/11. Yet, in his brief statement after the capture of Saddam, he again connected the secular dictator to the threat of fundamentalist terrorism. He did this while continuing silence on the Bush family's old business buddies in Saudi Arabia, backers of al-Qaida and other religious fanatics, who numbered Hussein among their enemies. We have lost valuable time and resources in the struggle to quell al-Qaida and similar groups while creating a morass in Iraq. Saddam's removal was a politically motivated exploitation of our nation's anger and fear over the 9/11 attacks. With the historical footnote of his arrest now in the books, the White House needs to stop its daily lies of commission and omission regarding the war on terror. For example, the administration must stop its stonewalling of the panel Bush reluctantly formed to examine the origins of 9/11. This official obstruction would seem to be a clear indication that Bush is worried about embarrassing details emerging that could threaten his reelection. Yet Congress and the public must know the truth about 9/11 so that we may make our judgments about what happened and about how similar tragedies can be prevented. The capture of Saddam, while providing the president with fantastic propaganda footage, does nothing to make us safer from international terrorism. It could, however, shine a harsh light on Washington's decade-long military and economic support of the barbaric Saddam in his war against Iran's religious fanatics, who were making inroads with their brethren in Iraq. For example, Bush has made frequent reference to Saddam's gassing of his own people, yet those incidents occurred when Bush's father and President Ronald Reagan were using the Sunni Baathists as a foil against Shiite Iran in a war that Saddam launched. Reagan removed the designation of Iraq as a terrorist nation and established diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime. The first President Bush extended $1.2 billion in credits to Saddam after the dictator used poison gas against Kurdish civilians. This is a dirty history that calls into question our current motives in Iraq. The threat of Saddam's return to power has been a key reason given by the United States for its hesitation to turn over any significant authority to Iraqis. Surely internationally supervised fair elections are now in order, and decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq and the disposition of its oil resources should be made by an Iraqi -- not an American -- government. To linger in power over Iraq now is to suggest that our motives are imperial, rather than an affirmation of self-determination for the Iraqi people. |
well first off, Bush was never elected president. second off, you have no record of what I thought back then. Gore/Bush were basically the same person to me as far as i was concerned. I didnt care all too much about Bush until after 9/11... the only reasons I paid attention to him before then was because the way he was selected by the courts, and for their reasons, and the conflicts of interests in the decision, and the fact that the media paid no mind to it, was terrible. but even then I was way too busy to devote a lot of time studying it. Now you on the other hand, I can see on record since you posted here when I didnt, have been backing Bush pretty much no matter what, taking every single change in the story, since then. If anyones made up their mind for good spunk, its you. the other big problem with you 'mind made up' quote spunk, is the war and march to war didnt happen before Bush was selected president. there was nothing for me to make my mind up about and no evidence to weigh. so suck it, bitch. it doesnt change the fact that when you connect everything, there was NO imminent threat, war was NOT the last option. so you can argue that or you can run away and try to write it off as 'oh you made up your mind already' so you dont have to deal with it... heh... i'm being particularly bold today, having just seen Return of the King "Up till now you have been content with letting the US provide protection" going after iraq isnt protection, because they're not a threat. Afghanistan made sense, and other nations were there. the idea of the 'war on terror' is still bullshit, but going into Afghanistan made sense, there was a clear simple case and Canada was there. You could be going after Saudi Arabia or North Korea and you know damn well the rest of the world would have been behind you. With Iraq we asked the simple task of you proving it, or leting the rest of the world help prove it, and give some time, and sorry, but as much as you expected Iraq to prove a negative, it was the accusers burden to prove and the accusers burden of diplomacy, and the accuser failed on both counts. And for good reasons. And if you're referring to the "us protects canada because it doesnt have an army", well fine, I dont like that Canada wont stand up enough on its own. But at the same time 'doesnt have an army' is US speak for "not as big as us". its a penis car type thing. We dont piss other nations off as much nor meddle in their affairs as much. and should something happen between us and some middle eastern nation someday, well the rest of the world is behind us because Canada has been better at diplomacy and is a better 'world citizen'. period. we couldnt go it alone but we dont have to... ...and you know the US would always be there to help in that circumstance, not even really because it wants to, but because it would see it as a threat to itself, and looks after Canada because its in its best interests to, both for defense and economic reasons. thats what the 'protection' is all about. its more about you than it is about us. heres a way of looking at it. you're the bigger brother football star who swears he'll protect his younger brother, and works out for the two of them. except its gone to his head and thinks he deserves something for a choice he made on its own, to the point of being pushy and obnoxious... we're the little brother who could very well take some big hits, but will let whatever be and is sick of always being told what to do. theres empathy for the older brother and his responsible nature, but put yourself in our shoes. being family doesnt mean you're always on the same fucking page, and it should never be expected either. and if you think Canada hates the US so much, you need to stop reading whatever rag you're reading. The US media only reports about us now when we're at some trade dispute or something, its never "millions of Canadians flock to new Matrix movie, thank american filmakers for their art", "millions of Canadians enjoy the latest American breakfast cereal!", "millions of Canadians eat Hershey bars". even after 9/11 when we fucking cried out eyes out for you, gave endless blood donations, took all your planes in and were hospitable to the stranded families, it didnt really get much coverage, now did it? in fact, when Bush went on TV a while later and said thank you to other specific nations for their support... ...he fucking snubbed us. no mention whatsoever. you need to grow some perspective, spunk. You've really pissed me off you know, I'd say you're way more anti-Canadian than I am anti-American. "Almost as irrating as the ex-alchoholic who thinks they are better then the alchoholics. " the ex-alcoholic learned from his mistakes, knows he's better off, and tries to show the light to others. irritating maybe, but the guilt and the fault lies with the stubborn ones. Denial aint just a dang river in Egyptistan |
I choose Bush for a reason. I cannot stand his fiscal (federal budget) policies. I really hate the way he has expanded the government and how much he has inflated the national deficit with social hand outs. I love the fact that he has indeed cut MY taxes. That's my money, and the smaller amount the governement takes from anyone, an individual or small business or national corporation, the better, because it is without consent, and spent without consent. I cannot stand any social or religious or moral policies set by any government, because that does not fit the job description and none of thier business. What I do like is he has kept his word. All his promises, even the ones I disagreed with. And he his fucking doing something besides lob cruize missiles from hundreds of miles away (that guy on Politically Incorrect was right on when he said that, just bad timing). You want to talk about a way to demoralize your forces? Let them get hit (Khobar Towers and the USS Cole) and do nothing. Except further cut the military and force the females to abide by the host country dress codes by hiding their faces. The military, regardless of the few you are ALWAYS going to find, respect this man. There is pride again. They actually care about what they are doing, and most people saw Iraq and the Taliban and Al-Queda as a threat BEFORE 911. Whats that crap you said about carpet bombing langley? You want to back that threat up with some facts? |
That shuts down any possibility of any rational discussion with you. You bought that load of shit hook line and sinker. |
17/12/2003 - 19:34:47 The Bush Administration told senior politicians before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had developed drones which could strike the east coast of the US with weapons of mass destruction, a Senator has claimed. Democrat Bill Nelson said he was among around 75 Senators who received the classified briefing shortly before a Congressional vote last October, which authorised the removal of Saddam by force. He said the Senators were told that Iraq had developed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) which could dump biological or chemical agents, including anthrax, on east coast cities, including Washington and New York. “They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability,” Nelson said in a conference-call press briefing, reported by the Florida Today newspaper. The Tallahassee Senator said the intelligence contradicted other reports senators had received before the war. “If that is an intelligence failure… we better find that out so we don’t have an intelligence failure in the future,” he said. The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defence, which declined to comment. President Bush referred to UAVs, otherwise known as drones, during a speech in October last year. He warned of a “grave threat” from a “growing fleet” of the vehicles which might be used to carry out a September 11-style attack. He said: “We have also discovered that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. “We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.” But Senator Nelson said the classified briefing went further, warning that Iraq had actually developed ways of hitting the eastern seaboard with drones. |
and QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK listen spunk, I laid out my entire case for you on another thread, in detail, with evidence and fact, and you wouldnt address any of it. so you can go back and talk about that there or kindly shut up. your focus on writing everything else off based on this might as well be forfeiture. get talking or get walking. anything else is just more QUACKING |
I supported going to Iraq in the begining. I will not shift my position because of the losses we have seen, or the lack of WMD. There has been enough of the other (Al Queda in Iraq, Al Queda involved in the attacks to this day, Hussien out of power, citizens able to put their executed family members and loved ones to rest properly, practice freedom of speech, etc), to more then justify it in my eyes. I have to say that I would stand by my decision for support regardless of the outcome, because any less would be dishonest. Yes, I supported Bush from day one. I know from the outset that that puts me at odds with most of you. I have not shifted in that position because there is not one canidate out there I would switch to. Sorry, I do care about my country, I do think that while we may make mistakes (name one country that doesn't) there are still enough good things we do to outweigh it. I am fortunate enough to have been born here, and if I had not, I would have done my damnedest to get here. I love this country, because of what she is and what she provides and her promises. Your snide remarks and cynical attitudes cannot and will not disuade me from that position. I am conservative by choice because of the root word, conserve. I want to conserve what this nation stand for. Freedom. Equality. Oppertunity. |
Look here: CAUGHT ON FILM: THE BUSH CREDIBILITY GAP http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm |
|
you dont know that. everyone is subject to their surrounding. both you and i could be in completely different positions had we been born in different places, in different economic backgrounds or raised in religious households. i don't buy this 'destiny' crap. |
like I said, dig up the other thread and speak there, in detail, if you are so inclined. otherwise your general statement means nothing. it might as well be in All caps in the subject header on yahoo messages. |
Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden Tells Fox News' Kondracke she suspects political dirty tricks © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Fox News Channel analyst Morton Kondracke yesterday she suspects President Bush knows the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and is simply waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture. Kondracke made the announcement about what Albright told him backstage before an appearance on another Fox show on "Special Report With Brit Hume." Kondracke was incredulous that a former secretary of state could believe something like that about a U.S. administration. "She was not smiling when she said this," offered Kondracke, who believes Albright is serious about the conspiracy theory. Madeleine Albright Albright is on a media tour to promote her new book, "Madam Secretary, A Memoir." She was mildly critical of Bush administration policy in Iraq on camera in later appearances on "The O'Reilly Factor" and on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews." "I'm one of these people that said I understood the 'why' of the war, but I didn't understand the 'why now' or the 'what next,'" she told O'Reilly. "I still have a lot of questions. And I think that we don't know, frankly, what the effect of Saddam's capture is on the general situation in Iraq. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have, in fact, warned about violence still going on, and the effect within the rest of the Middle East of a prolonged trial or an execution or generally how he is treated" |
"Blair signals retreat on Iraq weapons By Jean Eaglesham, Political Correspondent Published: December 17 2003 4:00 | Last Updated: December 17 2003 4:00 Tony Blair yesterday signalled a retreat from his previous confident assertions that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq - the principal rationale used by the British government for the conflict. The prime minister instead suggested the search would uncover evidence of how the Iraqi regime had disposed of the chemical or biological weapons it had previously possessed. Mr Blair was careful to avoid asserting that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction when the conflict started in the spring. He referred instead to much earlier uses of such weapons by the former Iraqi leader, stating: "That he had them is beyond doubt . . . he used them against Iran, he used them against his own people." Asked in an interview with the BBC Arabic Service if he was still certain weapons would be found - an assertion he has repeatedly made - the prime minister said he was "confident that the Iraq Survey Group, when it does its work, will find what has happened to those weapons, because that he had them, there is absolutely no doubt at all". Mr Blair also cited evidence quoted in the survey group's interim report of a clandestine network of laboratories as evidence of the regime's efforts to conceal weapons. The prime minister's apparent change of stance could fuel the simmering political row over the reasons given for the war. Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, last night claimed Mr Blair's remarks fell a "long way short of what is necessary to show that there was an imminent and urgent threat to the UK from weapons of mass destruction". * Saddam Hussein is not likely to go on trial for at least six months, according to officials in the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad, writes James Harding from Baghdad. The timetable for Mr Hussein's trial is being driven by the complex need to establish a court that satisfies the Iraqi people as well as standing up to the scrutiny of the world community. CPA officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, think Mr Hussein would not be tried until July at the earliest, setting up the possibility of a televised trial of Saddam Hussein in the final months of the US presidential contest in 2004" |
|
ffh. anyway, how do you remain so calm? that's what i meant to end up saying. |
my last day is the 31st happy holidays |
i'm jealous. the daily show's on. |
hang in there, baby. |
|
|
|
Odd. |
Turn of the tide? |
blowjobs |
You know that feeling a priest gets from shaming a congregation thats just gonna go out and sin again anyway? well neither do i. but thats one hypothesis. you know. its a hobby. whatever. |
But U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery—part of a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents that has cropped up in the wake of the collapse of Saddam's regime. "It's a lucrative business," says Hassan Mneimneh, codirector of an Iraqi exile research group reviewing millions of captured Iraqi government documents. "There's an active document trade taking place … You have fraudulent documents that are being fabricated and sold" for hundreds of dollars a piece |
The exact number wouldn't be 666...would it? |
Sem: "Why bother with it any more, Rowlfe? Spunky has been confronted with the evidence again and again and he still believes Bush is telling the truth. " No more evidence then you have been presented. I have shown you time and time again that 911 started way before Bush was even in office, that Iraq was involved with it, and history itself tells the story of WMD. "He even beleives that tax cuts are helping him." Ummmm, less is (was) being taken from my check, so I get more, so they help. Not such a hard concept to grasp, is it? "(let's hear him say that when the interest rates start going up)." You know what I am going to say? YAHOOO! That means that the Federal Reserve is confident that the US Economy is back on track! "He's been handed a lump of steaming crap and thinks he has a handful of gold. He's mentally incapable of facing reality, so why bother anymore? It's an exercise in futility." Thanks. And thanks for the pig comment too. |
Not such a hard concept to grasp, is it? " ....uh, someone explain taxes to this man. please. so the dems say they exist so they must exist? very selective of you, n'est-ce pas? "history" eh... speculative history. an incorrect history. we find out truths today that disprove what we thought then. Is THAT such a hard concept to grasp? or is what is said before always true because it was considered and widely believed true at that time? come on spunk, this is the least convincing you've been in some time. its a baiting statement, but you really are grasping at straws with this "but they thought so too!" jargon |
The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income. Note: The Top 50% paid $942,179,000,000 in taxes in 2000. Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002. |
Due to the tax cut, they take less money of out my check that I earned, so therefore, as I had said, the tax cuts have helped ME. |
|
. The country you love needs your money. . Bush is spending billions of dollars on a war, cutting taxes to the rich, and then handing those same rich men the spoils of war. . But that's cool. The rich are the stepped-on, the cheated, and the pushed-around. Look out if the rich guys ever take control! Oh, yeah. nevermind. . I'm-a be rich someday. |
|
i just know that somebody's going to give me shit in 2007. thanks in advance. |
i'm-a gonna have a lotta time on my hands whoo! |
Happy freaking new year. |
Greater deficits lead to higher interest rates. Who is affected the most by higher interest rates? and i don't mean in terms of percentage of income or anything like that. I mean in terms of affording college loans and home loans. I mean in terms of credit card debt, which in the case of higher interest rates, means you owe more money than you would have before. Kind of makes the measly tax reduction most normal folks get, well, null and void. So where's the 1.4 million jobs Bush promised his tax cut would produce? In order to deliver, Bush will have to figure out a way to create over 150,000 a month from now to 2005. and if he manages to do that, he's still about 2 million jobs away from breaking even. He could do what CLinton did and raise taxes on the wealthiest folks. After all, Clinton did preside over 20 million new jobs during his term. Dr. Joel Prakken predicts that budget deficits created by Bush's plan would raise interest rates, lower savings rates, and discourage job creation. Who is this guy? he's the chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors. His company developed a model of the economy that is the same the White House uses in making all these statements about their economic plan, that end up being all smoke up our collective asses. Remember when Bush claimed that his tax cut was for everyone who paid taxes and would result in 92 million Americans keeping an "average" of $1000 more? The funny thing is, 72 percent of taxpayers are below average. Yep. 72 percent get less than $1000, and over half get $100 or less. 42 million taxpayers get zilch. So now we know who W thinks "everyone" is. Recall this statement from 2001: "My overall budget plan funds important priorities like education. It pays down our national debt at a record rate. It sets aside nearly a trillion dollars in a contigency fund for future needs and emergencies. And we still have surplus money left over for broad, fair, responsible tax relief." Now in reality, his budget didn't fund education, didn't pay down the debt, and no one's seen this trillion dollar contigency fund. Maybe Cheney has it. But the bit about money left over, that's just a huge fraud. The first thing he did was to ram through his tax cut, which means of course that everything else has to come out of the money left over, not the other way around. The problem with taxes is not that we have to pay them (it's worth it to have a functional society), but that it seems so patently unfair and complex. And huge corporations get off paying nothing. Check this out: teh Secretary of the treasury is John Snow, former CEO of CSX, a railway company. How much profit did they make between 1998 and 2001? well, depends if you are a shareholder or the IRS. The company told shareholders they made $934 million. They told the IRS that they made so little money, they qualified for a $164 million rebate. Nice trick. That's the guy running the treasury. Corporations are supposed to pay 35% of profits. In reality, the 250 largest and most profitable firms pay only about 20% in taxes. If these guys had done the honorable and right thing and not dodged their responsibility, there taxes would have totally $257 billion - $98 billion higher than what they did contribute. What does $98 billion do? one-year cost for homeland security ( ports, food, etc, everything): $30 billion. Environmental protection (clean air, clean water, superfund programs, everything): $40 billion. Head start: $6 billion. Pell grants: 13 billion. Title I education: 8 billion. Peace Corps: $275 million. Americorps: $65 million. Instead, it goes to Bush's buddies in the CEO club. What is Bush doing? nothing. well, not exactly. He IS increasing IRS checks of people claiming the EIC. He asked for $100 million and 650 more IRS personnel just to work on that. (EIC, earned income credit, is a $2000 credit that goes to households making less than $34, 692. For perspective, I don't qualify because I make too much and I live paycheck to paycheck). Bush is also going after waitstaff tips which he suspects are underrepported (hey, kind of like your friends' corporate taxes!). Bush says we can save up to $10 billion a year by going after the working class. Meanwhile, corporate tax shelters cheat $50 billion a year. Priorities? |
|
Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut(1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were enacted, the conflict in Vietnam was escalating and defense spending constituted a whopping 42.1 percent of the federal budget. When President Reagan pushed though his tax cuts during the height of the Cold War the Pentagon consumed 22 percent of the budget. Today, defense spending consumes just 17.1 percent of the budget – 25 percentage points below Kennedy’s defense spending. President Kennedy passed his tax cuts as he ran a deficit equaling 1 percent of national income. In 1981, Reagan cut taxes while running a deficit of 2.8 percent of national income. In contrast, Bush passed the largest of his three tax cuts, in 2001 with a budget surplus of 1.5 percent of income. |
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/ . Numbers, numbers, bumbers. |
When that tax cut was enacted, the nation had a deficit of only 36.5 billion (adjusted for inflation). Bush faces a $500 billion deficit. And at that time, the baby boomers were headed to work, not to retirement. Even after that tax cut, the wealthy still paid a 70% tax rate. Today, their top rate is 38.6%. Recall what Kennedy said about tax cuts: "Tax reduction alone, however, is not enough to strengthen our society." So if you want to tout Kennedy as an example, fine. I'm more than willing to double the tax on teh wealthiest taxpayers. If you don't like that, you can always support a nuclear test ban treaty or something else to actually "strengthen our society". in other news plus, the future of electronic democracy! http://www.trivalleyherald.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,86%257E10669%257E1836043,00.html |
Anyway, if he can't be convinced by being laid off, even in this wonderfully "recovered" economy, even being a skilled tech worker, I'm not sure anything would. If he loves this economy so much he can wallow in it with the rest of us. And let's see how much he hates governmental social services if he has to actually use them. Spunk, if you're applying for unemployment benefits right now...thank a liberal... |
I have been paying medicare taxes and social security taxes for 15 years as well. I have also sent out 48 resumes so far, and have had no less then 10 interviews, with projected start dates durring the first half of January, so I am not sitting on my ass doing nothing, I am actively looking for work. My gripe has always been about people lazing around on their asses on my dime. My lay off has nothing to do with the economy, but rather my mistakes I made when I was young and arrogant. This is a direct result of my lack of responsibility as a young person, who had no idea that not paying bills would cost me the best paying job I have had ever had. |
. And what we've taken you to task about earlier is that you seemed to assume that all or most people who benefitted from such programs were lazing about 'on your dime'. . You are current, living proof to yourself that honest, hard-working americans can do their damndest and still need some help. We know you're doing your best to get back among the employed. So are lots and lots of others. . So c'mon and be thankful that the programs are there and available to you. |
really? even when he said he wouldnt nation build? the thing is spunk, the 'evidence' you've provided is mostly half baked and most often not based on any serious position of authority. the Bush administration is saying there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam. Are you disagreeing with them? You cherry pick what to believe, that which supports your own thought structures. We all do that to an extent. I, personally believe you're just worse at it. Namely because i think you're so over stimulated with political nonsense from the right you arent able to reason and ration with an objective mind one way or the other. ive been telling you for two years to turn that shit off, it pollutes your head. Just like your nonsense about weapons boats in the Persian Gulf about a year ago, I'll toss that in the pile nonsense about a tractor trailor in the desert with all these dangerous WMDs. Puhleeze. You've made a countless number of unsubstantiated claims, claiming inside knowledge, DoD inside info and none of it, has ever ever ever manifested itself into some sort of reality. So you believe what you will. Its not important you believe one thing or the other. Just try and pay attention. Fact remains, this war was substantiated on weapons and threats that have yet to be uncovered. If anything, all the evidence proves just the opposite, that saddam didnt have the capabilities Bush and Rummy said he did and our go-it-alone attitude to war was probably the biggest foreign policy failure of the 20th and 21st century. No theories as to why or how the weapons havent turned up really matters. The proof has yet to be laid out for the world. and considering the US took upon itself to invade a sovereign country destroy the lives of millions and literally kill tens of thousands of innocents the burden of proof IS on the US to justify the war to the world. the US owes the world an answer. When the Bush administration is saying there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam and saying a collective "hell if i know" about weapons, every reason and logic and ounce of 'evidence' you present is kind of left by the way side now isnt it? Eitherway you're being made a fool by this administration. |
"MY MONEY" Actually, part of it was your EMPLOYER'S MONEY, which they MAY NOT HAVE SAVED for you if there hadn't been a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM that mandated them to DO SO. Same with SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE. There are EMPLOYEE contributions and EMPLOYER contributions for all of these BENEFITS. GET IT? |
Read your words. You said "It cannot be done, so DONT DO IT." in response to kazu who mentioned the impossibility of keeping people from exploiting enemployment benefits. If you had your way then, you wouldn't have any help now. So don't be ungrateful. |
|
your "every man and woman for themselves" doctrine means that every degree of gain for you is a degree of loss for everyone else -- the degree depending on the nature of the gain or loss. your average, middle-class, gain/loss ratios (should you live somewhere fortunate enough to have a middle class) are affected most profoundly by the demands of the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor. in fact, the existence of a middle class is the result of regulations that support normalization. what you seem to endorse will shrink or destroy it. your pals on the "opposite of left" are brainwashing you. speaking of brainwashing, and getting back on topic: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/372832.html |
Ummm, I remember this day that happened after he made that speach. It kind of changed a few things, if I remember. In regards to the article you refer to, Dave, in 1984 Goldstein was not real, he was made up by the IngSoc Goverment. I never said I was not grateful for these benifits. I am taking them for my family. If it was just me, I would work at taco bell or something and be fine. |
fuck, man. can't a liberal gloss over a topic, ignoring the minutiae or is that reserved for conservatives alone? in other news, smoke screen alert! |
|
"The New York City Police Department released a statement saying it has 'no credible intelligence pointing to a specific or imminent terrorist threat' in the city. In the threats received for other cities, including Los Angeles and Washington, no mode of attack has been identified and no location or specific cells were named. Senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security, intelligence and law enforcement have a planned meeting Monday to evaluate the recent surge in information related to possible terror threats. " Wow. What a surge. A surge of headlines, maybe. |
passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts opassersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. f blood. passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. i have nothing interesting or fun to say about taxes and the economy other than who's going to pay for all these new cars and new houses and new products and CDs when everyone is downsized, working 2 jobs to get by on part-time type wages, and having to pay an unfair amount of taxes? All of North America is snowballing and its only going to get worse, and eventually, if the rich people who control all the corporations and all the political parties dont start sharing the wealth its going to take everyone down, including them. And I think a lot of people have figured this out, and this is why the hate (and for that matter, the envy) of the rich is so strong. I don't like the doom and gloom so much but I think this is a very real possibility. |
No "Smoking Gun" to Convict Saddam Hussein Yet, Say Iraqi Experts Iraqi legal experts warned of the huge difficulties ahead in finding decisive evidence of Saddam Hussein's guilt in crimes committed by his regime in Iraq. Much of the international community has been debating whether Saddam could face the death penalty for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the experts said at a Washington meeting organized by the American Enterprise Institute that any trial of Saddam could simply get bogged down over the lack of evidence. "It is one thing to say what we all know about what Saddam did. But it's another to prove it in a court of law," warned Kanan Makiya, founder of the Iraq Memory Foundation, one of the groups helping to draw up a new Iraqi constitution. Because "we don't have a smoking gun to convict Saddam. We will need witnesses, documents," he said. The foundation is gathering and analyzing documents from various parts of the Iraqi regime, including the intelligence services, police and army. Some six million pages, most signed by the former Iraqi leader and his close deputies over the three decades of his regime have been collected by the foundation. According to Hassan Mneimneh, an official at an Iraqi research and documentation center at Harvard University, "Saddam was shielded." "We have here a structure of oppression with layers of intermediates (while) he issued only general statements, limiting himself to a boring but non compromising rhetoric. "He believed it was necessary to protect himself," Mneimneh added. So, the experts said, it might be easier for example to charge Ali Hassan Al-Majid, dubbed "Chemical Ali", whose capture was announced August 21, than Saddam Hussein. "We have many smoking guns with regards to Ali Hassan Majid's responsibility in very serious crimes committed in Iraq," said Kanan Makiya. "Saddam is a much more difficult case." According to a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared in Kurdistan by Al-Majid between 1987 and 1988. Iraqi Kurds accuse him of ordering a gas attack that killed about 5,000 people in Halabja. Al-Majid also led repression in 1991 against Shiites in southern Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War. Neil Kritz, an international law expert and one of the architects of the Russian draft constitution (1990-1991), said that international law should be brought to bear on the Iraqi former dictator in attempting to bring justice to bear. "International law recognizes a top commander responsibility. We need to build the case in showing the nature of a system killing a large number of people," Kritz said. "If you can demonstrate that the ultimate commander was aware of the crimes, it is valuable in terms of international law." On the ground meanwhile three US soldiers were wounded in separate rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq's northern capital Wednesday, Iraqi security sources said. The 101st Airborne Division's public affairs section had no information on the incidents when contacted late Wednesday. Iraqi police said two US soldiers were wounded in a rocket-propelled grenade attack Wednesday morning in the city. The Americans returned fire, wounding one attacker who fled the area, said police Lieutenant Haytham Mohammad Jamal, who helped search for the suspect. Mahmoud Shaker Mohammad, 36, a shopkeeper in the area, said the attackers fled on a motorcycle at about 9:00 am (0600 GMT). Just over six hours later, eight mortar rounds landed at an American position near the University of Mosul, wounding one US soldier and damaging a Humvee vehicle, said Mazen Khalil Jassem of the Facilities Protection Service (FPS), which guards government buildings and facilities. Musaab Mohammad Sobhi, a witness, said he saw two men get out of a car and fire the mortars. Nabil Siruan, a Kurdish militiaman helping to protect the area, said one US soldier was wounded and a Humvee damaged. Four Mosul university students were shot Wednesday during a second consecutive day of demonstrations in support of Saddam Hussein, police said. Shots rang out as the protesters approached an FPS post, an officer said. On Tuesday a policeman was killed and another seriously wounded by drive-by gunmen after a demonstration by about 1,000 university students, police said. The US military announced on Sunday that Saddam Hussein had been captured the previous night hiding in a hole near Tikrit, south of here. |
Blair: Libya Plans to Destroy Banned Arms 17 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer LONDON - Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has confirmed his country has sought in the past to develop weapons of mass destruction capabilities but plans to dismantle all such programs immediately, Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said Friday. Blair said Britain and the United States had been engaged in talks with Libya for nine months. "Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner," the prime minister said in the northern English city of Durham. "Libya has now declared its intent to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction completely and to limit the range of Libyan missiles to no greater than 300 kilometers (186 miles)," he said. Blair said Gadhafi had promised that the process would be "transparent and verifiable." The U.N. Security Council ended U.N. sanctions against Libya Sept. 12 after Gadhafi's government took responsibility for the bombing of a Pan Am passenger jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, and agreed to pay families of the 270 victims US$2.7 billion. The council's decision was largely symbolic, since the United Nations (news - web sites) had temporarily suspended its embargo in April 1999. But the United States has kept its own 17-year embargo in place. Washington has said Libya is actively developing biological and chemical weapons, upgrading its nuclear capabilities and seeking ballistic missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction, for which it is receiving help from countries that sponsor terrorism. "This decision by Col. Gadhafi is a historic one and a courageous one and I applaud it," said Bla |
Stock Up on this Holiday Gift: "The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything" BuzzFlash PROUDLY Interviews the Author of "The Bush-Hater's Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years." You Don't Have to Even Hate Bush to Love the Book. We Don't Hate Bush; We Just Think He Should be Serving Hard Time. |
Jerkwad, those are considered part of your "compensation package". They are not a charitable gift, and if you did not work, then there would not have been a nickle paid for you. |
--Wasam Adain, a 23-year-old music shop owner in Baghdad, The Daily Telegraph (London), 12/15/03 “Finally I am happy. Don’t be scared, they’re only fireworks.” --Najim Fukkar, 13, setting off a handful of squibs with a horde of other children in Baghdad, The Daily Telegraph (London) 12/15/03 “This nightmare is gone once and for all. Celebrations are taking place throughout the country from the north to the south. It is a great day.” --Hoshiyar Zebari, Iraqi Foreign Minister, Daily Star, 12/15/03 “We want to make him suffer the way he made us suffer.” --Rujin Naji, 12-year-old Kurdish girl in Dallas with children stomping a burning picture of Saddam Hussein, Associated Press, 12/15/03 “We are happy that the oppressor is no longer on the loose.” --Issan Fadil, a Baghdad restaurant owner, The Boston Globe, 12/15/03 “He executed my brother and my brother-in-law in 1979, so I am most happy to hear of his capture." --Saad Hassan, owner of a Baghdad electrical supply shop, The Boston Globe, 12/15/03 “Today divine justice has prevailed!” --Ali Mohammed, in Kirkuk, as Kurds danced traditional steps on the streets, Los Angeles Times, 12/15/03 “In the city of Baquba the Muslim priest issuing the daily call to prayer instead issued a call to celebrate. And even Iraqi journalists covering the press conference which broke the news to the world cheered, punched the air and shouted 'Death to Saddam.' Some of the pressmen – who had been tortured by the dictator's henchmen – burst into tears. One former victim of Saddam, Ali AlBashiri, from Kirkuk, said: ‘This is the joy of a lifetime. I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule.’” --Tony Leonard, Daily Star, 12/15/03 “I'm very happy for the Iraqi people. Life is going to be safer now. Now we can start a new beginning.” --Yehya Hassan, a Baghdad resident, The Guardian (London) and agencies, 12/15/03 “In the northern city of Kirkuk, rumours of his capture sent people streaming into the streets. Cars honked their horns and played loud music and sweets were given out to children waving green ribbons.” --Rory McCarthy in Tikrit and agencies in Baghdad, The Guardian (London) 12/15/03 “The devil is caught, his regime is finished. Everyone knew what he did to the Kurdish people.” --Salahadin Mohammed, The Guardian (London) and agencies, 12/15/03 “This is the joy of a lifetime. I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule.” --Ali al-Bashiri, The Guardian (London) and agencies, 12/15/03 “I cried with happiness. He was not a real human, he was some kind of creature. He lived in that palace without any idea how real people had to live. Now we must see him in a court. But I do not want him executed. He should suffer, just as the Iraqi people suffered under him. I want to tell you we are so grateful for what the Americans have done.” --Media Ali, a 19-year-old law student in Iraq, The Guardian (London) and agencies, 12/15/03 “We are celebrating like it's a wedding. We are finally rid of that criminal.” --Mustapha Sheriff, a Tikrit resident, The Advertiser (Australia), 12/15/03 “This is the joy of a lifetime. I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule.” --Ali Al-Bashiri, a Tikrit resident, The Advertiser (Australia), 12/15/03 “We are very, very happy. The entire community is happy. We are going to celebrate with fireworks. This is a big day for Iraqi people all over the world and marks the turning point in the h istory of our country. This should improve security in Iraq as many people still believed he was waiting to come back. Now they will believe his era is over. We really do have something to celebrate. It is the wish of all Iraqis that Saddam Hussein should be publicly tried for all his crimes inside Iraq.” --Professor Nadir Ahmad, a member of the group Iraqi Exiles in the UK, said of the Iraqi exile community in Manchester, Belfast News Letter (Northern Ireland), 12/15/03 “The initial impact of the news in Baghdad yesterday was encouraging, with volleys of traditional celebratory gunfire rippling into the air over the Iraqi capital as the word spread among the population that their former ruler and longtime oppressor was finally in custody. For a people traumatised by more than two decades of Saddam’s rule, the reality of his fall was always tinged with the fear that he might return to wreak vengeance on those he judged to have betrayed him.” --Analysis by Ian Bruce, The Herald (Glasgow), 12/15/03 “It will be a new start for peace. This is a new day for the country. Saddam should at least get the death penalty.” --Said Jassim al-Yasseri, 34, the imam of a Shiite mosque in Iraq, The New York Times, 12/15/03 “Obviously, we’re generally happy that this is an end of an era. A brutal dictator has been consigned to the dustbin of history.” --Riadh Muslih, editor of Al Shorouq, an English/Arabic newspaper in Vancouver, The Vancouver Province (British Columbia), 12/15/03 “There is some good news. New stores have opened their doors, many of them selling once banned goods like satellite dishes. U.S. officials helped issue new Iraqi bank notes, in part to curb rampant counterfeiting. Electricity is becoming more stable, and Baghdad's telephone service should finally be restored to prewar levels by early next year.” --Kevin Whitelaw, U.S. News and World Report, December 8, 2003 “For many Iraqis, living standards have shot up. Labourers get double their pre-war wages, many other public-sector workers between four and ten times more. … The electricity supply, though still erratic, is back roughly to its pre-war level, after briefly surpassing it. Most important, oil production is heading for its pre-war level of 2m barrels a day, and is supposed to reach 2.8m b/d in April.” --The Economist, December 6, 2003 “The Americans did well. They freed people from terror and fear.” --Amina Mohammed Aziz, a Kurdish Iraqi who lost four sons and everything she owned in the mass genocide campaign in the Kurdish region of Iraq, The Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2003 “Now we're getting recognition and attention. Before, we were playing in the dark.” --Nobar Adnan, violinist in the Iraqi Symphony Orchestra in Baghdad. The orchestra struggled to survive during Saddam’s regime because of restrictions on music and instruments by the Iraqi government and UN, The Washington Post, December 5, 2003 “After 1979, when Saddam Hussein took power, we went through a catastrophe. All aspects of culture were neglected.” --Mohammed Amin Ezzat, conductor of the Iraqi Symphony Orchestra, The Washington Post, December 5, 2003 “Of course, we are delighted Saddam Hussein is gone, but that shouldn't mean that people should be breaking the law. If I arrest a thief or vandal, that is good for Iraqi society.” --Mohammed Mothair, a 17-year veteran of the Fallujah police, The Boston Globe, December 4, 2003 “I'm glad they're [the Americans] here. I want them to stay. All we want is peace of mind. It's only the dishonest Iraqis who want the Americans to leave. They want the freedom to rob and steal again.” --Muhammad Shakir Jaafar, a Sadr city resident and business man, Knight Ridder Tribune, December 4, 2003 “Saddam used to say 'the problem is in your head, so we will chop it off.' No problem. That's what we are doing to him.” --A supervisor of the construction company taking down the large bronze statues of Saddam in Bagdad, Agence France Presse, December 3, 2003 “Americans and Iraqis cheered as soon as a crane lifted the frowning bronze bust and began lowering it gently to the ground.” --Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, on the removal of Saddam statues from the old palace, December 3, 2003 “Taking Saddam down from his palace, that means a lot to us. This is a once-in-a-lifetime job." --Iraq contractor, after his company removed large bronze busts of Saddam Hussein from the palace, New York Times, December 3, 2003 “The truth is, Saddam gave us nothing but cruelty, he looked after nobody but his own family. He was a tyrant. He gave us nothing.” -- Muhammad al-Hussein, 60, a farmer in Amiriya, Iraq, The New York Times, December 1, 2003 |
"WE ARE NOT THERE TO LIBERATE THEM" - Dennis Miller |
That's all that matters, really, the freedom of Iraq alone, and not the world-wide integrity of the american government. Not truth! Icky scary truth! Not 2 years or so of one story, then another story clipped on at the end to make us all feel good. Can't we all just forget about the WMDs? This is what it was all for. Freeing them. Nothing else. Gosh, it was all worth it. Let's all take our big warm fuzzy quilt of lies and curl up by the tv and watch them dance. |
The president shouldn't lie to us to do it. It's that simple. In the Clinton years you were very upset when the president lied to us. Now you don't care. Oh, and I know that unemployment is part of your "compensation package." And I know that if you didn't work you wouldn't get unemployment insurance. You insult your own intelligence by making those arguments. |
|
|
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16158 |
this ones been given a lot more media attention than usual... |
|
|
c'mon, eri. you know you read all of 'em. it's ok. |
yeah. 9/11 was brilliant. FDR did it. some say Lincoln did it. when your defense industrial complex isn't getting the funding it wants, nothing spells C O N T R A C T like a terrorist event that was arguably allowed to happen. WooooHoooo carte blance for everyone!!! and it all goes back to fear. they're shoving a warm *orange* rod of fear up america's ass as we speak. drink your eggnog. they make a monkey out of you spunk. monkey!!! every day. day in. day out. |
Kurds claim Saddam capture December 22, 2003 SADDAM Hussein was found by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British newspaper reported yesterday. Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer. The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq, "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete". A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until the leader negotiated a deal. The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region. An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence". "We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time." However US military intelligence said in Baghdad yesterday the man who led US troops to Saddam was one of his top aides. "He was someone I would call his right arm," said Major Stan Murphy, head of intelligence for the 4th Infantry Division's First Brigade in Tikrit. Meanwhile, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar yesterday paid an unannounced visit to Iraq. Aznar flew by helicopter from Kuwait and spent about five hours at a base in Diwaniya, south of the capital, where he had lunch with the mostly Spanish troops stationed there. "The visit had to be a surprise for security reasons. Very few people knew about it," said Major Carlos Herradon, spokesman for the Spanish troops based in Iraq. Mr Aznar said he wanted to support the Spanish soldiers and their allies in "their struggle for a just cause, one of liberty, democracy and respect for international law". Later, a senior US officer said four Iraqis died and an unspecified number of US troops were wounded during a Baghdad demonstration in support of Saddam five days ago. Three more Iraqi policemen were gunned down by mistake by American soldiers about 90km south of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, local police said, adding that they were mistaken for rebels. |
Russia Deploys Fresh Batch of Missiles 1 hour, 41 minutes ago By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer MOSCOW - Russia has deployed a fresh batch of its top-of-the-line strategic nuclear missiles after a break caused by a funding shortage, and military officials presented ambitious plans Monday for building weapons even more potent. AP Photo Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov inaugurated the new set of Topol-M missiles at the Tatishchevo missile base in the central Saratov region Sunday, describing them as a "21st-century weapon" unrivaled in the world. "This is the most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said in remarks broadcast by Russian television stations Monday. "Only such weapons can ensure and guarantee our sovereignty and security and make any attempts to put military pressure on Russia absolutely senseless." Ivanov on Monday reported the deployment to President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites), saying the military will continue modernizing all components of the nation's nuclear forces. The Interfax-Military News Agency said six Topol-Ms were deployed Sunday. The first 10 such missiles entered duty in December 1998 and two more sets followed in the next two years. The military had planned to continue the deployment in regular annual installments, but got the fourth batch of Topol-Ms out only Sunday. The Topol-M missiles, capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away, have so far been deployed in silos. Its mobile version, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, is set to become operational next year, the Strategic Missile Forces chief, Col.-Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, said in televised remarks. The daily Izvestia said that the Topol-M lifts off faster than its predecessors and maneuvers in a way that makes it more difficult to spot and intercept. It is also capable of blasting off even after a nuclear explosion close to its silo, the newspaper reported. The deployed Topol-Ms have been fitted with single nuclear warheads, but there are plans to equip each missile with three individually targeted warheads, Izvestia said. The missile's mobile version will carry from four to six warheads, the Interfax-Military News Agency quoted an unidentified General Staff officer as saying. However, the Topol-M's chief designer, Yuri Solomonov, told Izvestia that a severe money crunch had put the program in jeopardy. Budget allocations for making Topol-Ms next year were halved without consulting its makers, he said. If the government doesn't revise its course, "the year 2004, or the year 2005 at the latest, will be the last year when we will be able to carry out serial production of high-tech products for the military," Solomonov added. As the Topol-M program faced difficulties, the military has sought to maintain nuclear parity with the United States by extending the lifetime of its Soviet-era missiles. Putin said in October that Russia had several dozen Soviet-built SS-19 missiles that remained factory-fresh because they were stockpiled without fuel. The General Staff officer who spoke to Interfax said these missiles would enter service beginning in 2010 and remain on duty through 2030. Next year, design work will start on a next-generation heavy nuclear missile, which will enter service after 2009, the officer said. The new missile will be capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads with a total weight of up to 4.4 tons, compared to Topol-M's combat payload of 1.32 tons, he added. Russia's strategic aviation chief, Lt.-Gen. Igor Khvorov, said Monday that the air force was drawing up requirements for a new strategic bomber that could become operational in 2014-2016, the Interfax-Military News Agency said. |
blood feud! the news need more of those. |
"twelve years and 16 UN Resolutions" ...and he might have actually been disarmed already. we dont know. Blix thinks so. we're trying to find out. there have been no weapons found, and many of Bushs other claims have been proven false or otherwise discredited. in addition to the fact that the US defied the UN in order to enforce it, which makes no sense, and Israel has over 70 resolutions, at least half of which the US has vetoed... try another route spunk, because the 'but the UN resolutions' thing has no merit at all anymore... there was no need for war at that time, it was not the last option, Bush and co. purposely avoided and were negligiable in coming up with other options than war. and you supported it, willing to let people die rather than genuinely try to get Saddam with as little bloodshed as possible... even if the US had waited just a couple more weeks there would have been even less AlSamoud2 missles and if the US had even more time they perhaps (not that the probably would have but perhaps) could have put together a better plan for what to do after major combat had ended and occupation had really began... but people did die, who didnt have to die and shouldnt have died. you supported it. and they wont even tell us how many people are dead or allow the filming of American caskets, to keep people from questioning the Scapegoat War of Distraction. its immoral and wrong and I think you've come to know it, but wont just let yourself admit it. |
Bush's man rejects Blair weapon claim Luke Harding in Baghdad Sunday December 28, 2003 The Observer Tony Blair was at the centre of an embarrassing row last night after the most senior US official in Baghdad bluntly rejected the Prime Minister's assertion that secret weapons laboratories had been discovered in Iraq. In a Christmas message to British troops, Blair claimed there was 'massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories'. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed compelling evidence that showed Saddam Hussein had attempted to 'conceal weapons', the Prime Minister said. But in an interview yesterday, Paul Bremer, the Bush administration's top official in Baghdad, flatly dismissed the claim as untrue - without realising its source was Blair. It was, he suggested, a 'red herring', probably put about by someone opposed to military action in Iraq who wanted to undermine the coalition. 'I don't know where those words come from but that is not what [ISG chief] David Kay has said,' he told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme. 'It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me.' With the Government's policy on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in apparent disarray last night, insurgents inside Iraq yesterday launched another major attack, this time in the southern city of Karbala. Four Bulgarian and two Thai soldiers were killed and 37 coalition troops were injured after Iraq's increasingly well-organised resistance attacked, using mortars, machine guns and a car bomb. At least seven Iraqi civilians were killed and up to 135 were injured in the attacks. 'It was a coordinated, massive attack planned for a big scale and intended to do much harm,' said Major General Andrzej Tyszkiewicz, head of the Polish-led multinational force responsible for security around Karbala. 'Four car bombs were used, grenade launchers and guns. In all cases, the suicide drivers were shot dead before they could strike their targets.' Yesterday's offensive in Karbala marks the end of a disastrous Christmas week for coalition forces in Iraq following Saddam Hussein's capture a fortnight ago. Last week guerrillas fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad; lobbed mortars at the 'Green Zone', the coalition's riverside HQ; hit the Turkish, Iranian and German embassies; and killed four US soldiers in Bequba, north of Baghdad, using their favourite weapon: the remotely detonated roadside bomb. A massive anti-insurgent offensive by US forces in Baghdad appears to have made little difference. With confusion apparently growing between London and Washington over WMD, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said he would be pressing Ministers when Parliament returned in the New Year on what precisely the Government knew. 'It is high time the Prime Minister cleared this matter up once and for all,' he said. Blair made his remarks in a pre-Christmas interview with BFBS, the British Forces Broadcasting Service, heard by the 10,000 British troops stationed in southern Iraq. In recent days, senior Whitehall officials have raised the extraordinary possibility that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction after all - but believed he did after being misled by his own advisors. |
|
