Swing States

[USAir757]

Who cares if there was or there wasn't? What are we still arguing this for? The point is that all of our intelligence pointed to connections... we only knew what the[bipartisan] intelligence told us.

Even still, if you want to believe that not having black and white, clear cut evidence of a connection with Iraq and Al-Quaida, is reason enough for us to not have entered this war, then you are forgetting that intelligence told us Iraq also had the aspirations and capability of using or facilitating use to others, of WMD. The president isn't out to deceive us. He's trying to protect us. And he's certainly trying harder than John Kerry ever will.

 

[KCFlyer]

Who cares if there was or there wasn't? What are we still arguing this for?

I guess because that is the reason that was given for going to war in Iraq. When the war went beyond it's 2 week expected duration, the reason given was the Iraq had ties to Al Queda. When those didn't pan out after another couple of weeks, the final reason (and the ONE reason rejected by Bush) was to liberate the Iraqi people from the oppression of an evil dictator.

The president isn't out to deceive us. He's trying to protect us. And he's certainly trying harder than John Kerry ever will.

Gotta disagree. I think that John Kerry would have used a bit more caution in starting what may well turn out to be World War III. Doesn't mean he'd wait around for another attack - just that he'd make sure that if we were intending to start WW III, then we damn sure better have more that 40 "nations" behind us if we are going up against 220 others.

One of the big reasons I voted against Bush 1 and opted for Perot in 1992 was that I was thoroughly DISGUSTED as I watched our commander in chief chip golf balls and ride in speedboats up in Kennebunkport while soldiers under HIS command were risking their lives on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Bush2 hangs in Crawford Texas (on vacation half a year) and THEN says "BRING 'EM ON". Easy thing to say when you're half a world away. I am sure that more than one soldier in an Iraq desert must have thought "What the f*** is he DOING". The man is too much cowboy.

 

[KCFlyer]

I got to thinking about this last night. You know, Bush and Cheney would have you believe that if John Kerry were president during 9/11, he would have sat twiddling his thumbs in the Oval Office, waiting for another attack before doing something about it. Cheney has all but said that when he said “A vote for Kerry is a vote for another terrorist attackâ€￾…He got the word out, and his statement that they “might have been a poor choice of wordsâ€￾ is buried inside the paper. He got what he wanted – for those “undecidedsâ€￾ who don’t have a brain, they heard that they need to vote for Bush or face another attack. It’s interesting that very similar words were used to “argueâ€￾ for the Patriot Act…Congress was told, “If you don’t vote for this, you will be responsible for the next terrorist actâ€￾.

I view things a bit differently. Let’s compare the war in Iraq with a backyard barbeque with either candidate and several neighbors. During the cookout, you spot a hornets nest, alive with activity. The Bush team, citing John Kerry’s “sensitivityâ€￾ (in a duly mocking tone) would say that he would wait until one of his guests was stung before doing anything about it. I see the sensitivity this way – Kerry would send his guests into the house, taking them out of harms way. He’d see to it that windows and doors were shut. In other words, he’d take care of his guests safety FIRST. Then He’d inform the neighbors around him of the hornets nest and see if they know of an exterminator who can be called in a hurry. They work together to get rid of the hornets and minimize the risks of the “guestsâ€￾ (in this case, the people of the United States) and worked WITH his neighbors to resolve the problem. And since most of the problem is taken out, the future risks are minimized.

Now, what Bush did in Iraq is akin to seeing it, deciding that the best thing to do was swat it with a large broom, so he’d send a couple of kids down the street to give the nest a good whack, which thoroughly pisses off the hornets, who repeatedly sting the boys on the “front lineâ€￾, then head towards the “guestsâ€￾, who are then panic ridden as they try to get in the door, hoping that a hornet doesn’t get in with them, while other hornets head out and “stingâ€￾ a neighbor (let’s say Spain). Then scatter out among the neighborhood to set up nests all over the place. When the “neighbors (France, Germany, Russia) complain, W says “Those hornets could have stung you at any time…they posed an imminent threat and we HAD to do something about it – NOW. If you were going to be “girlie menâ€￾ (the latest GOP buzzword), tough…you’re either with us or with the hornets.

 

[diogenes]

Actually, bin Laden is more ideologically aligned with Iran - both viewed Sadam as an apostate. Also keep in mind the Iraqi-Iran war. America did Iran a favor by removing Sadam, and it didn't break OBL's heart, either.

In my view, Iran and Saudi Arabia had far more to do with 9/11 than Iraq, and I don't understand how Iraq got to be THE priority.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Who cares if there was or there wasn't? What are we still arguing this for? The point is that all of our intelligence pointed to connections... we only knew what the[bipartisan] intelligence told us.

[post="178179"][/post]​

That's the point, the intelligence the Bush administration used was far from 'bipartisan'. Rather than developing their assessment from ALL the available intelligence, any intelligence that did not support the conclusion they wished to draw was discarded. Rather than trust the information from the UN weapons inspectors like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, they chose to use the 'information' they were being given by far less credible sources like the Iraqi expatriates such as Chalabi whose agenda coincided with theirs.

 

[AA-MCI]

AA so what liberties have you been deprived of?

[post="177612"][/post]​

Thanks to Section 215 I have lost the ability to read what I wish without having the government able to know what I read and if they don't approve they can put me on a "watch list". I lost the ability to hear both sides of an issue without being forced to choose one. Have you even read it?

Look at the example you were given. Do you think it is right for someone to be harrassed by the FBI for their beliefs? Do you think you would have liked Clintons FBI doing the same thing to you?

Also Freddie, the links between Al Qaida and the Saudi Arabian and Pakistan governments are much stronger and much more numerous than those with Iraq that you would use to excuse the Iraq war. When do we invade?

 

[USAir757]

Rather than developing their assessment from ALL the available intelligence, any intelligence that did not support the conclusion they wished to draw was discarded. Rather than trust the information from the UN weapons inspectors like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, they chose to use the 'information' they were being given by far less credible sources like the Iraqi expatriates such as Chalabi whose agenda coincided with theirs.

That's all speculation... unless you were in the war room when they were making the decision for or against invasion. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter had been thrown out of Iraq so many times.... how could they even make a fair assessment if they can only go in this room but not that one, or this palace but not that one.... can't go down that road.... etc. Saddam was playing with them and trying to call out our bluff. And he did, to the extent that the UN did not support our decision to go to war. But he figured that he could ride out the storm again like he did in the early 90s... and he was mistaken. And now, a murderous and potentially world-threatening individual is in captivity being tried by the people he persecuted for so long.

Do you think it is right for someone to be harrassed by the FBI for their beliefs? Do you think you would have liked Clintons FBI doing the same thing to you?

If you go to the public library, and check out the book "How to Make Really Big Bombs", yeah I sure hope somebody is questioning you, and fast. "Clinton's FBI" has nothing to do with this issue... because he was president in a pre-9/11 era. For all intents and purposes, this is a completely different world, and our country will have to make the necessary changes to adapt. There's no way around it, unless you don't want to be protected.

 

[KCFlyer]

If you go to the public library, and check out the book "How to Make Really Big Bombs", yeah I sure hope somebody is questioning you, and fast.

But the problem is this...when Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 911" comes to DVD and you go to your library to check out a copy of it, should that warrant an investigation by the government? If you go to an anti-Bush rally in Denver, should that warrant an FBI visit to your home in Missouri? I don't think anybody would disagree that if "how to build a bomb" or "analysis of a 767 hitting a large building" books were checked out, the user might be just a tad suspicious. But the gist of the patriot act is that it goes much farther - you can be "investigated" only because you are vocal in your disagreement with the "ruling party". "Ruling Party" are words we often heard about Iraq, which we hope to democratize. But more and more, the Bush Administration is postitioning itself as the "ruling party" of America. While Bush and Cheney might not shoot us in the head for disagreeing with them, they apparently ARE willing to violate your first and fourth amendment rights without a moments hesitation.

And again I ask you ... the patriot act gives the government the right violate your first and fourth amendment...the door has been opened. How soon before administration views a well armed citizenry as a threat to the "ruling party", and ammends the patriot act to violate your second ammendment rights...all in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Farfectched? gotta wonder, but since the door has been opened by Bush/Cheney (legally violating 2 of the first 10 of every American's "rights"), what if another administration takes office and decides to toss those second ammendment rights into the "patriot" mess? I am sure that you would feel that the country must rise up and revolt should that happen. Why do you not feel that freedom of speech and freedom from unlawful search and seizure are any less worthy of a revolt?

 

[USAir757]

But the problem is this...when Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 911" comes to DVD and you go to your library to check out a copy of it, should that warrant an investigation by the government? If you go to an anti-Bush rally in Denver, should that warrant an FBI visit to your home in Missouri?

The FBI and the United States Secret Service have been doing this for a while now, which is scouting political and other events, talking to people, and trying to spot suspicious activity. They're doing what they're SUPPOSED to be doing, which is investigating... something they didn't do enough of before 9/11. The whole story with those guys was that somehow they were either saying things or doing things that warranted further investigation. That is how we stop people from commiting terrorist acts... before they happen!

Why do you not feel that freedom of speech and freedom from unlawful search and seizure are any less worthy of a revolt?

Your right to freedom of speech is preserved under the Patriot act. But there is, and always has been, a limit to what you CAN say under law. You know it is a federal offense to say you are going to, for example, blow up a federal building. This is taking it a step further, and saying that the US Government can monitor what you say in order to protect and preserve life from acts of terrorism.

My feeling is go ahead and read my emails or my posts... what do I have to hide? I'd rather have someone invade my privacy a hundred times, if that meant we could avoid another catastrophic attack. I know it's not ideal, and it is something we have enjoyed since our country's inception. But I just don't see another alternative.

 

[KCFlyer]

The FBI and the United States Secret Service have been doing this for a while now, which is scouting political and other events, talking to people, and trying to spot suspicious activity. They're doing what they're SUPPOSED to be doing, which is investigating... something they didn't do enough of before 9/11. The whole story with those guys was that somehow they were either saying things or doing things that warranted further investigation. That is how we stop people from commiting terrorist acts... before they happen!

So two WASPish college kids from Missouri are a threat to national security? Really? I think the Chicago 7 didn't have half the scrutiny of Bush protestors. We aren't talking Ali and Akbar...we're talking Bill and Sue. They are INVESTIGATING them for one reason...they spoke out against the war in Iraq and against George W Bush (or as he prefers...King George). Are you suggesting that if the FBI investigated college kids during the Clinton years, 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

That is how we stop people from commiting terrorist acts... before they happen!

Okay...here's my deal....I'm willing to give up my first and fourth amendment rights in the name of protecting America. But since terrorists might use guns, I would ask that the patriot act be extended to have me (and the rest of America) give up their second amendment rights as well. Deal?

Your right to freedom of speech is preserved under the Patriot act. But there is, and always has been, a limit to what you CAN say under law. You know it is a federal offense to say you are going to, for example, blow up a federal building. This is taking it a step further, and saying that the US Government can monitor what you say in order to protect and preserve life from acts of terrorism.

Really? Let's go back to my "Bill and Sue" (real life) example. They didn't say they were going to blow up a building. They didn't say that they fly a plane into the Sears Tower. They only said "Bush must go". Is my speech really 'preserved' under the patriot act?

My feeling is go ahead and read my emails or my posts... what do I have to hide? I'd rather have someone invade my privacy a hundred times, if that meant we could avoid another catastrophic attack. I know it's not ideal, and it is something we have enjoyed since our country's inception. But I just don't see another alternative.

And all I'm saying is let the goverment come in and take your guns because Bush might be coming to your town and they want to "reduce the risk" of a terrorist attack. Again...deal??

 

[USAir757]

So two WASPish college kids from Missouri are a threat to national security? Really?

Who's to say? It wasn't long ago they found that guy in Oregon who had been trying to give logistic and financial aid to Al-Quaida... and he was as white as rice. So much for the element of racial bias....

They are INVESTIGATING them for one reason...they spoke out against the war in Iraq and against George W Bush..... They didn't say they were going to blow up a building. They didn't say that they fly a plane into the Sears Tower. They only said "Bush must go".

How do you know that? Were you privy to the FBI report on these kids and their reason for being investigated? They may say that was what happened, and while that may be the case, I have to say you're speculating again. There are plenty of people out there voicing their disapproval of the war and of the president, but you don't see them being investigated. It has to run much deeper than that in order to warrant that type of attention.

Okay...here's my deal....I'm willing to give up my first and fourth amendment rights in the name of protecting America. But since terrorists might use guns, I would ask that the patriot act be extended to have me (and the rest of America) give up their second amendment rights as well. Deal?

Why? Just for the sake of argument, or because you think that it is truly a necessary step to protect us? Especially considering the level of black market weapons available that no administration to date has been able to curtail.

And all I'm saying is let the goverment come in and take your guns because Bush might be coming to your town and they want to "reduce the risk" of a terrorist attack. Again...deal??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're on a "one thing leads to another" track... and your concern is with what happens when our government gets power-happy over the people and takes everything away with regard to constitutional rights. But the truth is we have a system in place that effectively allows the people to rise up and change the country. No person can be president for more than 8 years, thus disallowing a "dictatorship" for years on end. Congress balances and checks practically everything before it becomes law... and if things get out of hand, all the american people have to do is vote to change. That's the beauty of it... so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over things getting too out of hand. If enough people come together and agree that Bush should not be president any more after January, then you will see that system working in action. I think you need to give a little more credit to the authors of our government, and how our system can and can't evolve in a war on terrorism.

 

[FredF]

Not exactly. Try as hard as you may, your spin is way off the mark. These are the actual findings of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission on this issue:
Case closed.

[post="178135"][/post]​

I don't have to spin anything. The truth speaks for itself.

Neither have other important assertions been retracted, including those by CIA Director George Tenet. As journalist Stephen Hayes reiterated earlier this month, Tenet, on October 7, 2002, wrote a letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


Then of course there was this little bit here as well.

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
(Emphasis added.) This allegation has always been inconvenient for the "absolutely no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda" club.


So, I guess the case is closed, except you choose not to believe it.

 

[KCFlyer]

Why? Just for the sake of argument, or because you think that it is truly a necessary step to protect us? Especially considering the level of black market weapons available that no administration to date has been able to curtail.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're on a "one thing leads to another" track... and your concern is with what happens when our government gets power-happy over the people and takes everything away with regard to constitutional rights. But the truth is we have a system in place that effectively allows the people to rise up and change the country. No person can be president for more than 8 years, thus disallowing a "dictatorship" for years on end. Congress balances and checks practically everything before it becomes law...

Please read up on the patriot act and see just how much of an opportunity to "check and balance" Congress was given before voting on it. The answer is - very little. In fact, Buch/Cheney told Congress "If you do not vote for this, you will be responsible for another terrorist attack". Now, if there IS another terrorist attack on our shores (which, sadly, I believe there will be), and since Congress was "check-mated" with the fear factor, does that mean Bush Cheney will accept responsiblity for the attack? Bush and Cheney have already disregarded many of the "checks and balances" that have been put in place throughout our history. They not only have a "my way or the highway" attitude with the other countries in the world, they have the very same attitude towards the Congress of the United States.

and if things get out of hand, all the american people have to do is vote to change. That's the beauty of it... so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over things getting too out of hand. If enough people come together and agree that Bush should not be president any more after January, then you will see that system working in action. I think you need to give a little more credit to the authors of our government, and how our system can and can't evolve in a war on terrorism.

My sincerest hope is that the American people come to their senses before November 2 and say that Bush should not be president any more.

What I find a bit difficult to understand is that those of you who support the Iraq war by accepting the "coulda/mighta" arguments of the Bush administration completly pooh-pooh the FACT that the groundwork has been laid AND IS ALREADY BEING USED to violate the very rights that our forefathers fought and died to provide us, again resorting to the "coulda mighta" argument to explain why two college kids from Missouri would be investigated as a potential threat. Yes....Saddam could have planned an attack on the US. Yes, Saddam might have a brother in law who knew a guy whose uncle was a member of al queda. Despite the "coulds" and "mights", they posed no threat to your rights or freedoms as American citizens. Yet the Bush administration FORCED the passage of a bill that DOES give them the right to violate your rights. We are supposedly fighting a war in Iraq to "protect our freedom", but here at home, those very freedoms that we are supposedly protecting have been violated with the stroke of a pen .

The US has spent how much on the Iraq war? My contention is that that money could have been better spend stateside...improving immigration procedures, making this country safer by taking steps to drastically reduce the chances of a terrorist threat here - WITHOUT violating the rights the citizens of the United States.

 

[USAir757]

In fact, Buch/Cheney told Congress "If you do not vote for this, you will be responsible for another terrorist attack".

Since when does "congress" as a whole entity, give a collective crap about what Bush/Cheney tells them to do. Remember, even John Kerry voted against funding the war simply because he knew that it "had no chance of not passing." If democrat senators and congressmen voted for the patriot act simply because they were "check-mated by the fear factor", then they need to be re-elected themselves.

My contention is that that money could have been better spend stateside...improving immigration procedures, making this country safer by taking steps to drastically reduce the chances of a terrorist threat here - WITHOUT violating the rights the citizens of the United States.

Please elaborate... I'm still waiting to hear any ideas about how we can make this country safer from terror without violating somebody's rights.

 

[KCFlyer]

Please elaborate... I'm still waiting to hear any ideas about how we can make this country safer from terror without violating somebody's rights.

[post="179397"][/post]​

Last I checked, nobody had a "right" to be allowed entry into this country. No American citizen has a "right" to be assured of a hassle free re-entry into the United States. Being inconvenienced is not a violation of rights. So if a resident of a foreign country is trying to enter the US, why not do more than a few questions and search of their bags? When a US citizen returns from a trip abroad, why not question them a bit more - check their passports for countries they were in. yep..it take some time to do that. Yep, it'd inconvenience them. yep, it'd cost a lot more to do it. But we've alread spent billions in Iraq - imagine if we had invested some of that in additional manpower at the borders. How about spending a few bucks and link up with an international database (Interpol and the like) so that a search of non residents (non residents don't have the same rights as Americans) might quickly locate records from those countries on individuals. How about spending a bit and provide a little federal protection at US chemical plants? How about beefing up security at nuclear power plants? There are many things that we could have done (but haven't) to protect ourselves and not violate the rights of the US Citizens. Why aren't we doing them?