Captain Ed
Member
Bush may be nuts - a partially recovered alcholic.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_4687.shtml
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_4687.shtml
Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!
- Thread starter zonecontroller
- Start date
KCFlyer said:
whats kerry's defined position?? just a bunch of baloney...oh i forgot ,hes going to appologize to the world for bush.....
if you swoon over him...more power to ya...he's a great guy,so was clinton...i just don't want them running my country.
who cares?...doesn't really matter now does it?
they went in because khaddafi was covertly building nukes for saddam in libya....syria and n.korea were involved....thats it.
all the other crapola is dem hyperbole to discredit "W".
get over it....
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,582
- Reaction score
- 1,455
See...you can't even come up with ONE good thing about Clinton or Kerry, other than they'd be great guys to have a beer with. Yet Newsmax is an "educated source". Heck - here's one for you - In the days following 9/11 I admired Bush. He was doing EXACTLY what needed to be done...going after OBL and Al Queda in Afghanistan. Then he set his sights on Iraq and I believe he was wrong, wrong, WRONG on that one. But....note that I said something good about Bush. Oh...and I bet he'd be great company at a BBQ at the ranch in Crawford, but I don't want him running my country any more.delldude said:whats kerry's defined position?? just a bunch of baloney...oh i forgot ,hes going to appologize to the world for bush.....
if you swoon over him...more power to ya...he's a great guy,so was clinton...i just don't want them running my country.
who cares?...doesn't really matter now does it?
they went in because khaddafi was covertly building nukes for saddam in libya....syria and n.korea were involved....thats it.
all the other crapola is dem hyperbole to discredit "W".
get over it....
Gosh, wouldn't it have been great if Bill Clinton could have told Ken Starr "who cares, doesn't really matter now does it?" when he was being grilled about his blowjob? But he "lied under oath". About a blowjob. And somehow, that was of dire importance to the future of this great nation. And somehow that crappola wasn't a rep hyperbole to discredit Clinton.
🙄
khdaffi and N korea weren't part of 9/11, so what's that really matter? do you think that Saddam would have been foolish enough to try a nuke strike on the US? I don't.
Also, I find it a bit odd that ini dismissing the findings of the 9/11 commission (the Saddam had no ties to 9/11), you post a picture of the burning World Trade Center at the end. The message it sends is "It doesn't matter WHO is really responsible for this, we are going to invade any country we even THINK had a hand in it. " Damn...the motto of the USA should be changed from "In God We Trust" to "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later"
Captain Ed
Member
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/i22b.shtml
This could answer the question of why we went into Iraq.
Since there were no WMD, and no connection to 9-11, it makes sense.
Take control of Irag, which has the second largest oil reserve in the world, build new pipelines (Halliburton, perhaps?), pipe it to Haifa, call it new Rotterdam" in honor of the fiasco that was the Arab Oil Embargo, and let Israel get the income from Iraq's oil.
Such a deal! I think "The NeoCons" would support such an idea.
BTW, has anyone read the PNAC, the Plan for a New American Century?
It was drawn up by Rumsfeld and Wolowitz, etc., BEFORE Bush won the election by a squeaker.
The un-anticipated Arab resistance has perhaps put the kebash on this. Bush said our troops would be met by happy people dancing in the streets, throwing flowers at our troops, so glad to see the end of Saddam. He was half right. They danced around our burned corpses, after throwing grenades.
This is no Lebanon.
This could answer the question of why we went into Iraq.
Since there were no WMD, and no connection to 9-11, it makes sense.
Take control of Irag, which has the second largest oil reserve in the world, build new pipelines (Halliburton, perhaps?), pipe it to Haifa, call it new Rotterdam" in honor of the fiasco that was the Arab Oil Embargo, and let Israel get the income from Iraq's oil.
Such a deal! I think "The NeoCons" would support such an idea.
BTW, has anyone read the PNAC, the Plan for a New American Century?
It was drawn up by Rumsfeld and Wolowitz, etc., BEFORE Bush won the election by a squeaker.
The un-anticipated Arab resistance has perhaps put the kebash on this. Bush said our troops would be met by happy people dancing in the streets, throwing flowers at our troops, so glad to see the end of Saddam. He was half right. They danced around our burned corpses, after throwing grenades.
This is no Lebanon.
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Even as the press had a feeding-frenzy over MacEachin’s statement absolving Saddam of ties to Al Qaeda, fresh evidence of malevolent intentions toward the United States that would have made anti-American collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda only natural was supplied by an unlikely source: another old intelligence hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin (search).
According to Putin, his intelligence agencies shared sensitive information with the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks and before the United States went to war with Iraq in March of 2003. According to Putin's intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s regime was crafting plans to execute terror attacks against America, both inside and outside of this country. Thus far, Putin has not elaborated on whether Al Qaeda was also involved with these particular plans. At the very least, however, this information confirms the Bush team’s contention that Saddam dealt deeply in terror and its judgment that to leave Saddam in power would be to invite murderous attacks in the future.
One wonders whether the 9/11 Commission was exposed to the Putin intelligence before it effectively dismissed the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 2001 attacks. For that matter, did they review the information contained in three highly informative books providing “credible evidence†— of at least a circumstantial nature — that Saddam had already acted on his desire to strike this country?
Dr. Laurie Mylroie’s The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks – A Study of Revenge, which concerns the first effort to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993; Jayna Davis’ The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, which concerns the 1995 destruction of the Murrah Building; and Stephen Hayes’ The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, all persuasively support a very different conclusion than that advanced yesterday by Douglas MacEachin.
It is high time that their conclusions, together with arguments like those presented so cogently by Andrew McCarthy, are given at least a fraction of the media attention — and credibility — afforded a statement that so manifestly fails to connect the dots.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
According to Putin, his intelligence agencies shared sensitive information with the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks and before the United States went to war with Iraq in March of 2003. According to Putin's intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s regime was crafting plans to execute terror attacks against America, both inside and outside of this country. Thus far, Putin has not elaborated on whether Al Qaeda was also involved with these particular plans. At the very least, however, this information confirms the Bush team’s contention that Saddam dealt deeply in terror and its judgment that to leave Saddam in power would be to invite murderous attacks in the future.
One wonders whether the 9/11 Commission was exposed to the Putin intelligence before it effectively dismissed the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 2001 attacks. For that matter, did they review the information contained in three highly informative books providing “credible evidence†— of at least a circumstantial nature — that Saddam had already acted on his desire to strike this country?
Dr. Laurie Mylroie’s The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks – A Study of Revenge, which concerns the first effort to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993; Jayna Davis’ The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, which concerns the 1995 destruction of the Murrah Building; and Stephen Hayes’ The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, all persuasively support a very different conclusion than that advanced yesterday by Douglas MacEachin.
It is high time that their conclusions, together with arguments like those presented so cogently by Andrew McCarthy, are given at least a fraction of the media attention — and credibility — afforded a statement that so manifestly fails to connect the dots.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Experts: 'Dirty bomb' attack in U.S. likely
Charles J. Hanley, Associated Press
June 19, 2004 BOMB0619
Terrorists are "all but certain" to set off a radiological weapon in the United States, because it will take authorities too many years to track and secure the radioactive materials of such "dirty bombs," a team of nuclear researchers has concluded.
The U.S. and other key governments took an important step on controls this month, agreeing at the G-8 summit of industrial powers to tighten -- by the end of 2005 -- restraints on international trade in highly radioactive materials.
Yet thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of high-risk radioactive sources are already in use worldwide, with few accurate registries for tracing them, the scientists say. They cite Iraq, where an undetermined number of such sources have gone missing in the postwar chaos.
The findings are being published in a 300-page book, "The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism," the result of a two-year study by the authoritative Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) of California's Monterey Institute of International Studies.
The team also examined the potential for terrorists to steal or build a nuclear weapon but found that less likely than the construction of a radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb.
Unlike warheads designed to kill and destroy through a huge nuclear blast, these radiation weapons -- which thus far no one has employed -- would rely on conventional explosives to blow radioactive material far and wide. A successful bomb could make a section of a city uninhabitable for years.
The fear of such weapons grew in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Qaida and Russia's Chechen rebels have shown an interest in highly radioactive material.
The study notes steps taken by the U.S. government, including:
• An order sent to operators of sterilizing irradiators last year, instructing them to strengthen security against theft and attack. These large, powerful devices hold immense amounts of lethal radioisotopes.
• Research to develop a substitute for cesium chloride, a talc-like powder that could spread deadly radioactivity widely and insidiously in a blast. Experts consider it the most worrisome material in use.
• Approval of sale of Prussian blue, a drug that counteracts ingested cesium. The U.S. military is "fast-tracking" research into drugs to treat a broader array of radioactive poisons.
The United States alone has an estimated 2 million licensed radioactive sources, thousands of them high-risk, the CNS reports. Because of disjointed licensing by federal and state agencies, no complete registry exists. Transfers are not always noted, and sources go astray.
The Energy Department says it has collected and secured 7,500 "disused" sources and expects to handle thousands more in the next few years.
Physicist Charles Ferguson, a lead author of the CNS book, was cautious in praising the G-8 move. "The devil is in the details," he said in an interview. "The bureaucracies will have to stay on top of this to get it done."
In many "end user" countries, the domestic regulation of radiological sources is "fragmentary" at best, the study says.
"So many potent radioactive sources are now used in medicine, industry, and research around the world, and so many have fallen outside regulatory control, that it will be many years, if ever, before secure custody of these items can be achieved," it concludes.
As a result, it says, "a radiological attack appears to be all but certain within the coming years."
Return to top
Charles J. Hanley, Associated Press
June 19, 2004 BOMB0619
Terrorists are "all but certain" to set off a radiological weapon in the United States, because it will take authorities too many years to track and secure the radioactive materials of such "dirty bombs," a team of nuclear researchers has concluded.
The U.S. and other key governments took an important step on controls this month, agreeing at the G-8 summit of industrial powers to tighten -- by the end of 2005 -- restraints on international trade in highly radioactive materials.
Yet thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of high-risk radioactive sources are already in use worldwide, with few accurate registries for tracing them, the scientists say. They cite Iraq, where an undetermined number of such sources have gone missing in the postwar chaos.
The findings are being published in a 300-page book, "The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism," the result of a two-year study by the authoritative Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) of California's Monterey Institute of International Studies.
The team also examined the potential for terrorists to steal or build a nuclear weapon but found that less likely than the construction of a radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb.
Unlike warheads designed to kill and destroy through a huge nuclear blast, these radiation weapons -- which thus far no one has employed -- would rely on conventional explosives to blow radioactive material far and wide. A successful bomb could make a section of a city uninhabitable for years.
The fear of such weapons grew in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Qaida and Russia's Chechen rebels have shown an interest in highly radioactive material.
The study notes steps taken by the U.S. government, including:
• An order sent to operators of sterilizing irradiators last year, instructing them to strengthen security against theft and attack. These large, powerful devices hold immense amounts of lethal radioisotopes.
• Research to develop a substitute for cesium chloride, a talc-like powder that could spread deadly radioactivity widely and insidiously in a blast. Experts consider it the most worrisome material in use.
• Approval of sale of Prussian blue, a drug that counteracts ingested cesium. The U.S. military is "fast-tracking" research into drugs to treat a broader array of radioactive poisons.
The United States alone has an estimated 2 million licensed radioactive sources, thousands of them high-risk, the CNS reports. Because of disjointed licensing by federal and state agencies, no complete registry exists. Transfers are not always noted, and sources go astray.
The Energy Department says it has collected and secured 7,500 "disused" sources and expects to handle thousands more in the next few years.
Physicist Charles Ferguson, a lead author of the CNS book, was cautious in praising the G-8 move. "The devil is in the details," he said in an interview. "The bureaucracies will have to stay on top of this to get it done."
In many "end user" countries, the domestic regulation of radiological sources is "fragmentary" at best, the study says.
"So many potent radioactive sources are now used in medicine, industry, and research around the world, and so many have fallen outside regulatory control, that it will be many years, if ever, before secure custody of these items can be achieved," it concludes.
As a result, it says, "a radiological attack appears to be all but certain within the coming years."
Return to top
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
of course this is all mere speculation! 😉
too many sources point to the truth...i think you have difficulty seeing it.sentrido said:
look at the way your media distorted the 9/11 report....bush never claimed saddam had any connection to 9/11....never.... but they go on record as claiming he did and its an outright lie.a boldface democrat distortion.
UN says yes indeed they are and were WMD's....'
i'm awaiting sunday morning to see the talking heads try and keep the lie alive over saddam-9/11.....should be good.
but of course if you read the 9/11 report....its all speculation.
see you later on..... 😉
i don't think so at all. B)
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Can you tell which one is Gomer and which one is Kerry?
I'll give you a hint, Gomer is the one with the sensible political platform... ...Sha-zam!
I'll give you a hint, Gomer is the one with the sensible political platform... ...Sha-zam!
NeedForSpeedNFS
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 0
Ive been reading alot of posts on here, and have refrained from replying because of much info that people are just NOT understanding.KCFlyer said:
I refer to the quote above
KC, are you aware of the fact that the 9/11 commissions' findings on Iraq were a whole paragragh in a 12 page document???? 1 WHOLE PARAGRAPH!!!
You are completely ignorant if you truly believe that President Bushs' justification for war against Iraq was for a Sadamm,Al Queda,9/11 connection. This administration NEVER tried to "pin" 9/11 on Sadamm's Iraq! Did they suggest there was a possible connection, along with Al Queda? Most certainly!!! there is a HUGE difference there!! Plain and simple, the reason we went to Iraq was to PREVENT another 9/11!!! Intel at the time given to the administration from our Intel people, along with OTHER COUNTRYS agencys agreed with this. With this commission report out, why are the headlines of all these news organizations not screaming about WMD's????? Hmmmmm??? Instead, they are all saying, incorrectly, "NO SADAMM/AL QUEDA LINK". Again, this is NOT why we are in Iraq!!!!
Before you spout off on here after listening to Dan Blather, or Tom Brokenjaw,or reading a NY Times article, do yourself a favor and READ the commission report yourself. Maybe, just maybe you'll see the light, your brain will function properly, and you will be able to make an informed decision. A decision not based on your HATRED of President George W Bush, and ANYTHING Republican, but a decision based on the reality of the world in which we now live. The reason, if I may remind you, was 9/11, so dont even try to say it was Bush taking us to war!!!!
NeedForSpeedNFS
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 0
Speculation did NOT get us into Iraq. Flawed intelligence given to the Administration forced us to act!!! There is a difference, get it correct. Flawed intel,by the way, beause our intelligence agencies were completely decimated under the Clinton Administration. Especially, agents "in the field", or "bad guys". Now, before all you Bush haters attack me, I'm not blaming 9/11 on Clinton.....Just pointing out a fact!!!! All the info is out there, go find it.. read it... learn it.... become informed, dont be a tool,(or fool), of the POLITICAL Democrat machine!!!!!!sentrido said:
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,582
- Reaction score
- 1,455
NeedForSpeedNFS said:
Whoa big fellow... while I do come from a family of democrats, the first presidential election I voted in was 1976. I voted for Ford for the very reason he lost the election....the pardon of Nixon. Even at that young age, I recognized that the pardon forced Congress to focus on the country, not prosecuting Nixon on criminal charges. Took real cajones to do that. In 1996 I voted for Dole over Clinton. And not because of any "American Spectator" articles about Clinton, Hillary, Vince Foster, or Paula Jones. Mostly because, living in Dole's home state, I knew the kind of man he was. In 1992, I voted for Perot. You might recall that way back then, Perot was warning of Saddam's chemical, nuclear, and biological threat. That's when he really DID possess the chemical weapons. That's back when we could have prevented his using them on his own people. But do you recall how the republicans dismissed Perot as a looney? As a matter of fact, in 30 years, I've only voted for one democrat for president. If you look at my state local and national voting record, you'd see a nice mix of dems and reps down the list....I vote by what I believe to be the better candidate...not down a straight party line.
I consider myself pretty informed. I do not consider myself either liberal or conservative. I do not have the word "megadittos" in my vocabulary. And I disagree with the actions of our president. I agreed when Bush attacked Afghanistan in the days following 9/11. Because he WAS going after those responsible. I suppose that made me a "patriotic Amuricahn" back then. And I vehemently opposed his invasion of Iraq. Now that makes me a bleeding heart, Bush hating liberal. If most of you would think independantly, you might be able to have an unbiased view of the events in the middle east. But most support Bush because he has an elephant by his name on the ballot. That's really sad. His war on terror so far has increased terrorism... hasn't protected any of our freedoms..in fact, HIS administration is threatening many of our freedoms...and it hasn't made the US any less vulnerable to terrorist attack. All it's done is turn our former allies against us. Great job.
