Working Man
Member
Mongo, get it right.... its "crush" not "smash" (that's for the Hulk)
and lets not forget "see them driven before you" that part is important. Our
problem here is they keep turning around and coming back.
These aren't the WMD you were looking for......
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
Mongo, get it right.... its "crush" not "smash" (that's for the Hulk)
and lets not forget "see them driven before you" that part is important. Our
problem here is they keep turning around and coming back.
GTSteve03
Member
How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi or funded by Iraqi money again?
Yeah, thanks.
Yeah, thanks.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Mongo,
I musta missed the part where they tied the chemical weapons in Iraq to the Saudi nationals that flew the airplanes into the trade center.
One has nothing to do with the other. That's the problem.
I musta missed the part where they tied the chemical weapons in Iraq to the Saudi nationals that flew the airplanes into the trade center.
One has nothing to do with the other. That's the problem.
Dravur
Member
It is amazing to me...
That before we went over to Iraq and haven't found the large stores of chemical weapons that EVERYONE, including all of the Demorats were darn sure were there. but yet, those with short memories don't seem to remember that Bill Clinton, et al also swore up and down that Saddam had the weapons and he was the most dangerous dude on the planet.
It is only after someone actually DID something and found that they had either been moved or were not there when these same rats come scurrying out of their holes to create the Bush Lied bumper stickers, conveniently forgetting their previous stand. They figure, Heck, the public won't remember that I stated there were WMDs also. The public is too short sighted to remember that.
Face it, The Demorats are invested in the United States defeat. If it is bad for the country, it is good for the demorats. I truly wonder if we had these types of blissninnys during the second world war. I wonder what the world would have been like if thise crop of whiners had been in power then. My guess is the British would be speaking German now.
That before we went over to Iraq and haven't found the large stores of chemical weapons that EVERYONE, including all of the Demorats were darn sure were there. but yet, those with short memories don't seem to remember that Bill Clinton, et al also swore up and down that Saddam had the weapons and he was the most dangerous dude on the planet.
It is only after someone actually DID something and found that they had either been moved or were not there when these same rats come scurrying out of their holes to create the Bush Lied bumper stickers, conveniently forgetting their previous stand. They figure, Heck, the public won't remember that I stated there were WMDs also. The public is too short sighted to remember that.
Face it, The Demorats are invested in the United States defeat. If it is bad for the country, it is good for the demorats. I truly wonder if we had these types of blissninnys during the second world war. I wonder what the world would have been like if thise crop of whiners had been in power then. My guess is the British would be speaking German now.
GTSteve03, ya seen this one? Iraq is connected to the FIRST attempt to bring down the WTC.
But that doesn't count either, does it?
And of course, USA Today is a well-known Bushco neocon mouthpiece.....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."
Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced. He asserted that the campaign in Iraq is striking at terrorists involved in the attacks. Cheney also disclosed the new evidence about the 1993 suspect on the program, but he did not name Yasin.
Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.
Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture. The bureau questioned and released him in New York shortly after the bombing in 1993. After Yasin had fled to Iraq, the FBI said it found evidence that he helped make the bomb, which killed six people and injured 1,000. Yasin is still at large.
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.
The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established.
But that doesn't count either, does it?
And of course, USA Today is a well-known Bushco neocon mouthpiece.....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."
Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced. He asserted that the campaign in Iraq is striking at terrorists involved in the attacks. Cheney also disclosed the new evidence about the 1993 suspect on the program, but he did not name Yasin.
Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.
Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture. The bureau questioned and released him in New York shortly after the bombing in 1993. After Yasin had fled to Iraq, the FBI said it found evidence that he helped make the bomb, which killed six people and injured 1,000. Yasin is still at large.
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.
The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
I don't think anybody will disagree with the fact that Saddam had chemical weapons.
Anyone who thought that mad dictator had destroyed them is a fool.
So yes he had them.
Now. Were they the WMD that the American people were lead to believe would be a threat to us over here or possibly Israel?
Were they some how tied into the actions of 9/11?
Were they enough of a threat for us to invade Iraq?
The answer is a big fat NO.
Therin lies the problem.
Anyone who thought that mad dictator had destroyed them is a fool.
So yes he had them.
Now. Were they the WMD that the American people were lead to believe would be a threat to us over here or possibly Israel?
Were they some how tied into the actions of 9/11?
Were they enough of a threat for us to invade Iraq?
The answer is a big fat NO.
Therin lies the problem.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Thank you Hillbilly... and Working Man, we will hear their lamentations in November...
GTSteve03
Member
And this proves what, exactly?
Even Bush wouldn't say there was a link.
I'm still failing to see the connection to 9/11.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Can't get anymore conclusive that that!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
WMD
Only 500?
Chemical...and particularly biological weapons...aren't known as "The Poor man's Nuke" por nada.
Envision, if you will...a truck such as the one that McVeigh set off...loaded with a like amount of explosive, and topped off with a half-ton of a nerve agent or Anthrax or Smallpox...or somethin' really nasty like Ebola...detonated at the height of the noon hour in Midtown Manhattan or the City of Lost Angels. Maybe a cocktail of all the above.
The Windy City would also offer a good fallout spread.
Well...One down and 499 to go.
Think about it...and think about how "secure" our southern border is and will become when the Nafta Super Highway is in full swing.
Wonder how many people are on the streets at noon in one of our major cities on a given week day...
Only 500?
Chemical...and particularly biological weapons...aren't known as "The Poor man's Nuke" por nada.
Envision, if you will...a truck such as the one that McVeigh set off...loaded with a like amount of explosive, and topped off with a half-ton of a nerve agent or Anthrax or Smallpox...or somethin' really nasty like Ebola...detonated at the height of the noon hour in Midtown Manhattan or the City of Lost Angels. Maybe a cocktail of all the above.
The Windy City would also offer a good fallout spread.
Well...One down and 499 to go.
Think about it...and think about how "secure" our southern border is and will become when the Nafta Super Highway is in full swing.
Wonder how many people are on the streets at noon in one of our major cities on a given week day...
Camp David
member
GTSteve03 said:
Most agree with you GTSteve... I am afraid that it will take a dirty bomb detonated in NYC before people "see the connection"...
In the days after 09/11/01 threats were determined and addressed; now five years later people divorce those threats, thinking that they fail to "see the connection"... but when a million or so Americans perish from a chemical release these same people will be front and center saying "Why didn't our government address the threat?"
The question comes down to this in terms of terrorism: Do we act against perceived threats or wait until the threat materializes and Americans die then act?
The prior administration did not act against Al Qaeda because it did not "see the connection" during the nineties between Al Qaeda and terror and 3,000+ Americans died. Now this administration has acted and many second guess those actions.
We have prevented terrorism domestically since 09.11.01 so the current policy seems wise and this adminstration does "see the connection" and for that we can only say, "Thank God."
GTSteve03
Member
The prior administration was not in office on 9/11/01. Our current administration did nothing to prevent terrorism until they were forced to react to 3000 lives lost on their watch.
Now, they're still refusing to go after the man and the organization that are responsible for those attacks, who do not currently reside in Iraq.
Camp David
member
GTSteve03 said:
Perhaps you missed all the action for the last five years by the US Army and the US Marines in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border... would you be more satisfied if we nuked the country to kill Osama bin Laden, or neutralized the guy in a mountain cave (AS WE HAVE DONE)!
Thin Black Line
Member
Considering that our own DOE said the so-called nuke rods could not be
capable of enriching uranium and this disagreement/debate between them
and other elements of the intel community was not made public outside
the Top Secret intelligence estimate provided to a handful of politicians on
the Hill, then "Houston, we have a problem." Basically, these guys told their
buddies "Vote for the use of force." They did. Too bad we didn't have
more Missouri type "show me" people on the Hill, but the atmosphere at the
time (like I still whiff to this day) was "You're either with us or against us."
The WHOLE premise at the time was that there was an IMMINENT THREAT of
a WMD being used in the US and Condi and others kept harping about the
"mushroom cloud" going off somewhere in CONUS if we didn't do something
about it NOW. We now find out that this was never the case, that others
were aware of this but it was kept from the American people. As usual, the
plutocracy made the decision for We The People.
Now, before the keyboard commandos begin tapping their flaming tendrils
of pablum at me, bear this in mind: Given the information publicly available
at the time, I, too, was in favor of using force to stop Saddam. Also keep
this in mind: I WENT TO IRAQ as a result. Did YOU feel strongly enough
about it to do the same at the time? So while you are busy defending a
position that many in the position to know are NOT at this time, maybe you
should reconsider where you're still at and catch up.
The issue was Imminent Threat. There was not. Intelligence to the contrary
was not shared, discussed, or even debated by the majority of people who
were responsible to represent us and cast a VOTE. Is that America? I guess
so. Again, they're ALL LIARS.
Saddam's Iraq has long had ties to international terrorism.
Remember Abu Abbas? He was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. Remember Leon Klinghoffer? He was the 69 year old American Jew that was handicapped and wheelchair bound, that Abbas' hijackers shot in the head and threw overboard.
Abu Abbas had been living in a safehouse in Baghdad for the past 20 years until US forces killed him.
Saddam paid money to families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Saddam gave direct material support for the FIRST WTC attack.
None of these facts are in dispute, but conveniently covered up by the communist media.
If John Forgery Kerry or Al Bore had been president, rest assured Osama Bin Ladin wouldn't be cowering in a cave somewhere. He'd be living it up in Uncle Saddam's Palace #9.
Remember Abu Abbas? He was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. Remember Leon Klinghoffer? He was the 69 year old American Jew that was handicapped and wheelchair bound, that Abbas' hijackers shot in the head and threw overboard.
Abu Abbas had been living in a safehouse in Baghdad for the past 20 years until US forces killed him.
Saddam paid money to families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Saddam gave direct material support for the FIRST WTC attack.
None of these facts are in dispute, but conveniently covered up by the communist media.
If John Forgery Kerry or Al Bore had been president, rest assured Osama Bin Ladin wouldn't be cowering in a cave somewhere. He'd be living it up in Uncle Saddam's Palace #9.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Only if that dirty bomb is connected to Iraq.
General assertions on terrorist threats to the US is not the topic here.
Its the connection of Iraq to those threats of the past and possibly the future through the use of WMD's which was the basis for our invasion of Iraq.
If that is what we base our actions on then is not N. Korea, China, former parts of the Soviet Union, Iran, Syria, etc all percieved threats wheather they do it directly or sell weapons to those that do?
Do we invade those countries as well?
Our resources are so thin right now that the likes of a larger power such as N Korea or China would run us over like a garden snake with a lawn mower.
Our meddling in Middle Eastern countries affairs to secure oil for our thirsty country and our support for Israel has made us a target for terrorism.
MCgunner
Member
Simple, politics. The more the left carped this line, the lower Bush's ratings got as they convinced more and more people with this propaganda. I think if Bush HADN'T invaded, his political opposition would be chastising him for THAT!
I always thought of it from the military perspective. We had no way in to Afghanistan when we invaded. We had to put paratroopers in there. Once we invaded Iraq, we had boots on the ground right in the middle of the hornet's nest. We can invade into Syria from there or Iran. We can strike anywhere in the middle east in force now. Early in the war, there was much talk of carrying on into Syria. If we had, we might have found the rest of the stock pile that didn't get left behind.
And I was unaware that Serin would degrade. I know mustard will over time. And, what about those mobile labs the found and the water during the invasion from the river that tested positive for blister agents I think. Sounded like they were dumpin' somethin' in the water to get rid of it, sounded like. And, how 'bout that serin warhead the BGs tried to set off in Baghdad just after the war when the IEDs started going off?
All that WMD BS aside, though, two things are evident. We are on the ground there among the bad guys and we're fighting them THERE and not HERE. While I'd like to cap a few of these Mullahs and soldiers of Allah myself, I'd as soon my wife don't get blown up at the supermarket.
As to the comment of Bush's inattention to second amendment issues? Bush is strongly pro-second amendment. When we got rid of Ma Richards here, finally, and Bush got elected governor, we FINALLY got a carry permit bill through that the Democrats couldn't veto, like Ma Richards did. Would you prefer Kerry or Hillary or John Dean or Schumer or Teddy the alcoholic be president? How well would our second amendment rights be doing then? Were you around when Fraulein Reno was attacking Mt Carmel or Randy Weaver's house making America safe for soccer moms????
MrTuffPaws
Member
Look like it was nothing but pre '91 stuff. Nice play up to the elections.
carebear
Member
FTF said:
What mission?
Hmmmm, that would be the military mission that was palpably and clearly accomplished at the time of his statement. I'll restate it in case anyone missed it.
The mission at that time was the defeat of the Iraqi Army and the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. Nothing more.
Remember, the WMD's and terrorism etc. were merely the justifications for invading Iraq, the mission the war was started to accomplish was Saddam's removal from power.
There are (very) good arguments that the justifications for the mission (the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam) turned out to be wrong or overstated, and that the consequences of Saddam's removal ("mission accomplishment") were tragically and, in hindset, quite stupidly overlooked or mishandled; but it is puerile (and non-contextual) to use the "Mission Accomplished" statement as some sort of "I'm so snarky and ironic" indictment of those other failings.
It was a statement that was factually based and objectively correct in context. Perhaps folks could concentrate more on the real issues and spend less time trying to be clever.
GTSteve03
Member
Perhaps those last five years of action in Afghanistan would have amounted to something had not most of the military been shifted over to a quagmire in Iraq. Funny how the military has spent all that time in Afghanistan and still can't oust the Taliban or get the people to like us. There was rioting in the capital just last month and Al Qaeda sure seems to be influencing the locals.
And Osama is still hiding in Pakistan where WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO GO. And still putting out messages. And yet we don't invade Pakistan because they harbor terrorists. Why? Because they actually have real live WMDs(nuclear, oops I mean nukular weapons.)
gunsmith
member
GTSteve03
Does this mean you think we need to invade Pakistan?
Does this mean you think we need to invade Pakistan?
I have never heard a corpse ask if the weapon that killed it was old or not.....
The liberal media just can not look at a story with out trying their best to put a dark lining on it. :banghead:
Watch Fox News. It keeps my blood pressure down.
The liberal media just can not look at a story with out trying their best to put a dark lining on it. :banghead:
Watch Fox News. It keeps my blood pressure down.
GTSteve03 said
They gave shelter to members of Al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan. In fact the late Abu Zarqawi was recooperating from his wounds received in Afghanistan at the invitation of Saddam Hussein's regime. We made clear if you give aid and comfort to the terrorists then you were an enemy of the United States. The attack was justified on many levels, not just WMD.
Here is an editorial letter I wrote on the subject of the war a week ago.
Defending measures taken in protecting the USA
Recently on these pages we were treated to another
diatribe attacking the President, the war, Fox News
and a NSA program that is just a watered down version
of Bill Clinton's Eschelon program.
First let us deal with the President and Iraq. Once
again, every western and even Russian and Chinese
Intelligence services believed the Iraqis had a WMD.
We are currently translating a huge amount of
documents indicating they did. We have found some
weapons and production facilities ignored by most of
the press. Fox News has shown some of it. Upon
arriving in Iraq we did not find the overwhelming
evidence expected for the simple reason the build up
to the war allowed Saddam time to move the weapons. We
know from Iraqi Colonel Georges Sada that the Iraqi
government moved many of the weapons to Syria. Think
of it this way. If you think your kids are smoking
cigarettes up in their room and you go storming up the
stairs to check, they hear you and have pitched the
cigarettes out the window, thus when you arrive there
is no cigarette in the room, it does not mean it was
not there. The smoke may be quickly dissipating but
you know they had it. The smoke had not completely
cleared in Iraq upon our arrival either. The nuclear
centrifuges found in Scientists gardens, the Sarin gas
plant with perfume bottles, mustard gas artillery
shells, and the thousands of dead Kurds that were
gassed in the 1990s are proof he had them.
Her confidence in the United Nations is illogical.
What have they gotten right? That impotent, expensive,
debating society is so corrupt and incompetent it
should be disbanded. They are a threat to our national
sovereignty. The sight of blue helmeted UN soldiers
watching while doing nothing about the slaughters in
Darfur, Rwanda, East Timor, etc in recent years should
give no one great confidence in letting them handle
anything to do with our national security.
This month the UN is starting their “Small Arms and
Light Weapons conference” aimed at confiscating the
world’s privately held firearms. All this while the
controversy about Kofi Annan’s security team illegally
sneaking Heckler & Koch MP5 Submachine guns into the
United States has not cooled down. The typical
hypocrisy that I should not own a gun but people like
Kofi Annan and Teddy Kennedy need heavily armed
security teams irritates the blazes out of me.
The NSA program watching phone numbers is not illegal.
The CIA is prohibited from domestic espionage, NSA is
not. I ask, what harm is there in a computer looking
at what phone is calling another phone domestic or
foreign? The phone company already does this for
billing purposes. Nothing is flagged or looked at
until a phone call is made to a known phone number
that is connected to an Al Qaeda cell. How is that
illegal? We need to connect these dots to head off
another attack in our country. Lives depend on this.
Unless you are a terrorist or helping the enemy you
have nothing to fear from this program.
Ms. Wilkin tells us the President going to war with
Iraq was illegal. Rubbish! Under the terms of the 1991
Armistice we had the right to resume hostilities with
the first breaking of the agreement by the Iraqis. The
first time they fired on Coalition aircraft in the no
fly zone we had the right to go in to Iraq. They fired
on our planes often in the 90s and Clinton let them
get away with it. They also gave sanctuary to fleeing
Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, like the late Abu Musab
Al-Zarqawi, who became the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,
killed on June 7th. This war was justified on many
levels and much earlier than when we finally went in.
Now I ask the readers to remember this. It was
liberals who were in power in the 90s who ignored
these problems with the Muslim radicals. They treated
it as legal problem. Bill Clinton refused on several
occasions to take Bin Laden in to custody. It is well
documented that he was offered to us by Sudan and
Qatar. Clinton’s dereliction of duty landed us in the
mess we are in. It has cost thousands of American
lives. President Bush is doing his best to keep
another attack from happening here. Frankly I get sick
of liberals standing in the way of our progress and
security. One must remember home grown opponents can
be a threat. Recent events in Canada show us that your
native born population can be a threat. It does make
one wonder why people stand in the way of defending
our country. When the next attack happens in our
country, just remember who have done their best to
block protecting the nation and have allied themselves
with our enemies by doing so...liberals.
They gave shelter to members of Al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan. In fact the late Abu Zarqawi was recooperating from his wounds received in Afghanistan at the invitation of Saddam Hussein's regime. We made clear if you give aid and comfort to the terrorists then you were an enemy of the United States. The attack was justified on many levels, not just WMD.
Here is an editorial letter I wrote on the subject of the war a week ago.
Defending measures taken in protecting the USA
Recently on these pages we were treated to another
diatribe attacking the President, the war, Fox News
and a NSA program that is just a watered down version
of Bill Clinton's Eschelon program.
First let us deal with the President and Iraq. Once
again, every western and even Russian and Chinese
Intelligence services believed the Iraqis had a WMD.
We are currently translating a huge amount of
documents indicating they did. We have found some
weapons and production facilities ignored by most of
the press. Fox News has shown some of it. Upon
arriving in Iraq we did not find the overwhelming
evidence expected for the simple reason the build up
to the war allowed Saddam time to move the weapons. We
know from Iraqi Colonel Georges Sada that the Iraqi
government moved many of the weapons to Syria. Think
of it this way. If you think your kids are smoking
cigarettes up in their room and you go storming up the
stairs to check, they hear you and have pitched the
cigarettes out the window, thus when you arrive there
is no cigarette in the room, it does not mean it was
not there. The smoke may be quickly dissipating but
you know they had it. The smoke had not completely
cleared in Iraq upon our arrival either. The nuclear
centrifuges found in Scientists gardens, the Sarin gas
plant with perfume bottles, mustard gas artillery
shells, and the thousands of dead Kurds that were
gassed in the 1990s are proof he had them.
Her confidence in the United Nations is illogical.
What have they gotten right? That impotent, expensive,
debating society is so corrupt and incompetent it
should be disbanded. They are a threat to our national
sovereignty. The sight of blue helmeted UN soldiers
watching while doing nothing about the slaughters in
Darfur, Rwanda, East Timor, etc in recent years should
give no one great confidence in letting them handle
anything to do with our national security.
This month the UN is starting their “Small Arms and
Light Weapons conference” aimed at confiscating the
world’s privately held firearms. All this while the
controversy about Kofi Annan’s security team illegally
sneaking Heckler & Koch MP5 Submachine guns into the
United States has not cooled down. The typical
hypocrisy that I should not own a gun but people like
Kofi Annan and Teddy Kennedy need heavily armed
security teams irritates the blazes out of me.
The NSA program watching phone numbers is not illegal.
The CIA is prohibited from domestic espionage, NSA is
not. I ask, what harm is there in a computer looking
at what phone is calling another phone domestic or
foreign? The phone company already does this for
billing purposes. Nothing is flagged or looked at
until a phone call is made to a known phone number
that is connected to an Al Qaeda cell. How is that
illegal? We need to connect these dots to head off
another attack in our country. Lives depend on this.
Unless you are a terrorist or helping the enemy you
have nothing to fear from this program.
Ms. Wilkin tells us the President going to war with
Iraq was illegal. Rubbish! Under the terms of the 1991
Armistice we had the right to resume hostilities with
the first breaking of the agreement by the Iraqis. The
first time they fired on Coalition aircraft in the no
fly zone we had the right to go in to Iraq. They fired
on our planes often in the 90s and Clinton let them
get away with it. They also gave sanctuary to fleeing
Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, like the late Abu Musab
Al-Zarqawi, who became the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,
killed on June 7th. This war was justified on many
levels and much earlier than when we finally went in.
Now I ask the readers to remember this. It was
liberals who were in power in the 90s who ignored
these problems with the Muslim radicals. They treated
it as legal problem. Bill Clinton refused on several
occasions to take Bin Laden in to custody. It is well
documented that he was offered to us by Sudan and
Qatar. Clinton’s dereliction of duty landed us in the
mess we are in. It has cost thousands of American
lives. President Bush is doing his best to keep
another attack from happening here. Frankly I get sick
of liberals standing in the way of our progress and
security. One must remember home grown opponents can
be a threat. Recent events in Canada show us that your
native born population can be a threat. It does make
one wonder why people stand in the way of defending
our country. When the next attack happens in our
country, just remember who have done their best to
block protecting the nation and have allied themselves
with our enemies by doing so...liberals.
griz
Member
Do you think those weapons, weapons even the pentagon says are useless, are the ones we were looking for when we went in three years ago? I don't.
I don't hate Bush. I am not a Democrat, an evil liberal (or even a liberal LOL), a pacifist, a bliss ninny, or any of the endless names that people get called when they disagree with the Republican party. But I don't agree that Iraq was a threat to us. And I am sorry that an opinion like that is so offensive to so many people on this board.
Let's stay on the high road.
For anyone questioning my comments on Sarin gas in perfume bottles. Here is the link to the story.....think about it. Who could Saddam possibly had in mind to get these nasty little things. Fox news had the footage showing this plant and the perfume bottles. This appeared in their special on the "Oil for Food program" and UN corruption that was done last year.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147047,00.html
Fox news had the footage showing this plant and the perfume bottles. This appeared in their special on the "Oil for Food program" and UN corruption that was done last year.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147047,00.html
- Status
