|
|
Post by marysia on Jun 21, 2004 14:01:43 GMT -5
The sad thing is that the polls right now are about 50-50. That means half of the people in this country are either stupid or greatly misinformed.
If Algore or Kerry were president in 2001, Saddam would still be in Kuwait, not just terrorizing his own people. He might even be in Saudi Arabia by now.
I'll never understand how people can be so blind.
[/color][/quote] uhm, on the GOre thought -- from one "military man's" perspective -- it was good gore didn't get in - don't need a president assisiginated. my facial reaction must have been severe because he then said - well that's what would have happened : ) good news on the vote front -- the military and fed ex have come up with a procedure to ensure our sailors and soldiers will actually have their votes counted in this election! |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Jun 21, 2004 15:13:16 GMT -5
Would this be the same comission of which Jamie Gorelic, the person responsible for the wall of silence between CIA and FBI, is a member? This comission has credibility how?? Gorelic is not the only member of this comission. As for me, excerpts the actual testimony and interviews I've watched on PBS Newshour has been most enlightning. Laura, you are an intelligent person. I tell you what... I challenge you to read COVER to COVER: The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson ...and then I'd be interested in hearing your position on the Bush administration, as well as the history of influence and subsequent policies our Republican presidents and others (such as Cheney) have led this government to practicing. |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 22, 2004 7:31:47 GMT -5
Gorelic is not the only member of this comission. As for me, excerpts the actual testimony and interviews I've watched on PBS Newshour has been most enlightning. Laura, you are an intelligent person. I tell you what... I challenge you to read COVER to COVER: The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson ...and then I'd be interested in hearing your position on the Bush administration, as well as the history of influence and subsequent policies our Republican presidents and others (such as Cheney) have led this government to practicing. No, but she should have been testifying as a witness instead of sitting in judgment of the witnesses.
She has much to hide and I believe that's why she was on the commission. Her job was to protect Clinton from his wrong doings, or at least to cover them up so he wouldn't get the exposure.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 22, 2004 19:45:47 GMT -5
9/11 Chair Hamilton Slams Media Distortions Newsmax.com June 18, 2004 Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al Qaida, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions. "The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq. Hamilton's comments followed a deluge of mainstream reports falsely claiming that the 9/11 Commission had discredited the Bush administration's claim of longstanding links between Baghdad and bin Laden.But the Indiana Democrat said the press accounts were flat-out wrong."There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report."There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants." Atom, only the blind or the stupid would believe there were no connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
There is ample evidence that Saddam was helping Al Qeada if anyone wishes to see the truth.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see later on that there were actually connections between Saddam and 9/11. It's just that there is no evidence at this time.
[/color][/quote] THERE IS NO AMPLE EVIDENCE. This story about finding a man in both hussain's ragime and Al Quida is false. THE CIA already put it to rest. CIA officials have stated that the man in Hussain’s military and the man in Al Quida, although they have SIMILER names, are NOT the same man. They concluded “these are two very different people.” - Vincent Canostraro, former CIA terrorist chief. A CURRENT CIA official agreed speaking on conditions of anonymity (NPR Radio). The CIA already dismissed this. The Whitehouse is simply trying to play this up because THEY are loosing the debate of why they went to war. So gene, WHERE IS THIS AMPLE EVIDENCE?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 22, 2004 19:49:10 GMT -5
WRONG! WHERE is it said? ?? WorldNetDaily? Michael Savage? Ha ha ha ha ha ha Come on, if you are going to make an oulandish statement, show YOUR source! It's quite obvious which idiots have their heads in the sand. Ha ha h aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha |
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Jun 22, 2004 20:48:47 GMT -5
Onion, Yes that is from worldnetdaily, but it is true that there was a "John Doe #2" and that the man was of Arabic descent. However, being Arabic doesn't make one an Iraqi, nor does it make one under Saddam's control and/or regime. AND, isn't it convenient that no one wants to acknowledge the fact that there was MORE to OKC until it suits their needs to do so? This info was readily available as early as April 19, 1995 - the day of the bombing - and yet was supressed by officials. Many testified that they saw this other man, but officials actually threatened people and/or talked them OUT of speaking about the John Doe.  Back then, we weren't looking to go to war, I suppose... Doesn't it seem odd to kill a man claiming he is the one responsible, (Tim McVeigh) and yet here we are a few years later trying to pin it on Saddam? Shouldn't we have gotten all the facts before executing McVeigh, then? Or else, leave Saddam out of it? Or even better...what I REALLY love: While Saddam is responsible for anybody in his country and/or of arabic descent...George Bush Jr. isn't even responsible for validating the "intelligence" info he utilizes in his daily work and/or commands! It is a "valid" excuse for Bush (and administration) to claim that the "error" is someone else's fault (i.e. CIA, FBI, Military personnel, soldiers, other country, terrorist....  ), but then we PIN everything that even occurs near the land of Iraq, or the person may have visited Iraq once years ago, or they LOOK like an Iraqi....that is ALL Saddam's responsibility and fault! |
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Jun 22, 2004 21:43:21 GMT -5
Here is the court case that was filed claiming that there was Iraqi involvement in OKC bombing. I am still looking for either the results of this case, or at least the follow up (the judge gave the plaintiff until May 2003 to provide evidence of the claim to proceed with the case...she didn't believe it either ) www.judicialwatch.org/cases/86/complaint.htmlI haven't found any follow up though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 22, 2004 23:54:38 GMT -5
One can SPECULATE that Iraq had some involvement. But that IS what it is, speculation. Atomheart said:
Now I ask, WHERE is the evidence that Saddam IS connected to the Oaklahoma City bombing???
|
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 23, 2004 7:05:32 GMT -5
Onion, Yes that is from worldnetdaily, but it is true that there was a "John Doe #2" and that the man was of Arabic descent. However, being Arabic doesn't make one an Iraqi, nor does it make one under Saddam's control and/or regime. AND, isn't it convenient that no one wants to acknowledge the fact that there was MORE to OKC until it suits their needs to do so? This info was readily available as early as April 19, 1995 - the day of the bombing - and yet was supressed by officials. Many testified that they saw this other man, but officials actually threatened people and/or talked them OUT of speaking about the John Doe. Back then, we weren't looking to go to war, I suppose... Doesn't it seem odd to kill a man claiming he is the one responsible, (Tim McVeigh) and yet here we are a few years later trying to pin it on Saddam? Shouldn't we have gotten all the facts before executing McVeigh, then? Or else, leave Saddam out of it? Or even better...what I REALLY love: While Saddam is responsible for anybody in his country and/or of arabic descent...George Bush Jr. isn't even responsible for validating the "intelligence" info he utilizes in his daily work and/or commands! It is a "valid" excuse for Bush (and administration) to claim that the "error" is someone else's fault (i.e. CIA, FBI, Military personnel, soldiers, other country, terrorist.... ), but then we PIN everything that even occurs near the land of Iraq, or the person may have visited Iraq once years ago, or they LOOK like an Iraqi....that is ALL Saddam's responsibility and fault! Has the leg that was found wearing fatigues ever been connected to any of the victims of the OKC bombing?
I wonder who that was? [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Jun 23, 2004 15:08:53 GMT -5
Yes that is from worldnetdaily, but it is true that there was a "John Doe #2" and that the man was of Arabic descent. However, being Arabic doesn't make one an Iraqi, nor does it make one under Saddam's control and/or regime. Here's a link to an article about John Doe #2 that isn't from WorldNetDaily since you and idiot boy think that's not a reliable source. www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1678779The article states that John Doe #2 may very well be Hussain Hashem Al Hussaini who's photograph is a perfect match to the sketch of John Doe #2. And it is an absolute FACT that Al Hussaini has a tattoo on his upper left arm indicating that he was a member of Saddams elite Republican guard. |
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Jun 23, 2004 15:56:13 GMT -5
Here's a link to an article about John Doe #2 that isn't from WorldNetDaily since you and idiot boy think that's not a reliable source. www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1678779The article states that John Doe #2 may very well be Hussain Hashem Al Hussaini who's photograph is a perfect match to the sketch of John Doe #2. And it is an absolute FACT that Al Hussaini has a tattoo on his upper left arm indicating that he was a member of Saddams elite Republican guard. I'll check that out, but that still doesn't say anything about why the feds wouldn't listen back in 1995 when many were testifying about this John Doe #2, and why they only admit that there even WAS a John Doe #2 when it suits their purposes and agenda. And I never said that worldnetdaily wasn't a valid source, but they are definitely a biased one. I found a LOT of info on there myself, and I just seek further validation, because on at least a FEW of their articles, they get a little wrapped up with the excitement and don't bother to check the facts and/or the whole truth. IE, the lady who was fired for failure to remove her cross...she was given the option of tucking it into her shirt, and refused. She wasn't fired for wearing it..she was fired for insubordination. Nothing stopped her from WEARING it...and that point was basically overlooked by the author of the article who was too quick to shout INJUSTICE...DISCRIMINATION in big bold letters, but didn't bother to slow down and realize that the lady involved HAD other options, she just chose to ignore them. As a matter of fact, the school in question there gave her REPEATED nice requests to simply tuck it into her collar (A PERFECTLY REASONABLE REQUEST, as many Christians will quickly claim that there children are being indoctrinated if a buddha were being worn, or a Islamic icon sat on the desk. ) Either way...This whole thing about suddenly being interested in John Doe #2 cracks me up. I posted on him quite a few times back when 9-11 first happened, and everyone blew it off. NOW, because it "backs" their points, everyone insists it is SO factual and SO obvious... Why didn't ya all care when it was first known about? Isn't it important that others were involved just for the investigation of the OKC? Or only when it supports our own terrorism? Politics sickens me...  |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Jun 23, 2004 16:39:47 GMT -5
Either way...This whole thing about suddenly being interested in John Doe #2 cracks me up. I posted on him quite a few times back when 9-11 first happened, and everyone blew it off. NOW, because it "backs" their points, everyone insists it is SO factual and SO obvious... Why didn't ya all care when it was first known about? Isn't it important that others were involved just for the investigation of the OKC? Or only when it supports our own terrorism? Politics sickens me... Well, I don't remember you talking about John Doe #2 before. Now, Im not saying that your making that claim up it's just that I probably wasn't paying attention or I would have taken you seriously and not have "blown you off". |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 24, 2004 7:10:41 GMT -5
Well, I don't remember you talking about John Doe #2 before. Now, Im not saying that your making that claim up it's just that I probably wasn't paying attention or I would have taken you seriously and not have "blown you off". Has there been any talk of the leg that was found? [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 24, 2004 7:14:47 GMT -5
I'll check that out, but that still doesn't say anything about why the feds wouldn't listen back in 1995 when many were testifying about this John Doe #2, and why they only admit that there even WAS a John Doe #2 when it suits their purposes and agenda. And I never said that worldnetdaily wasn't a valid source, but they are definitely a biased one. I found a LOT of info on there myself, and I just seek further validation, because on at least a FEW of their articles, they get a little wrapped up with the excitement and don't bother to check the facts and/or the whole truth. IE, the lady who was fired for failure to remove her cross...she was given the option of tucking it into her shirt, and refused. She wasn't fired for wearing it..she was fired for insubordination. Nothing stopped her from WEARING it...and that point was basically overlooked by the author of the article who was too quick to shout INJUSTICE...DISCRIMINATION in big bold letters, but didn't bother to slow down and realize that the lady involved HAD other options, she just chose to ignore them. As a matter of fact, the school in question there gave her REPEATED nice requests to simply tuck it into her collar (A PERFECTLY REASONABLE REQUEST, as many Christians will quickly claim that there children are being indoctrinated if a buddha were being worn, or a Islamic icon sat on the desk. ) Either way...This whole thing about suddenly being interested in John Doe #2 cracks me up. I posted on him quite a few times back when 9-11 first happened, and everyone blew it off. NOW, because it "backs" their points, everyone insists it is SO factual and SO obvious... Why didn't ya all care when it was first known about? Isn't it important that others were involved just for the investigation of the OKC? Or only when it supports our own terrorism? What terrorism? Are you speaking of Ruby Ridge or Waco? [/color] Politics sickens me... The answer lies in who was running the country in 1995.
Janet Reno's top priority was sheilding Clinton from his activities and hiding the facts. Terrorism wasn't on his mind. It was Monica and others like her that was his priority. [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Jun 24, 2004 11:50:54 GMT -5
First what leg are you talking about...you keep throwing it out without saying a thing further about what the heck you are talking about...you obviously want us to ask...so spill it. Let me know what you are talking about....
Second our terrorism that I am talking about is Afghanistan and Iraq, not Waco or Ruby Ridge (in reference to what I mentioned above). No one cared to hear about John Doe #2 back when we wanted the "truth" about OKC. Just quick, KILL tim mcveigh.
NOW that it supports our illegal war, quick SPILL the connections, the half lies and half truths. Mcveighs dead, not like he can dispute or validate it. Nice how that works...then we go back and say "really, he was working for Iraq"...blan blah blah, because it supports what WE WANT the public to believe.
Politics is sick. No one wants truth...only convenience and marketing propaganda.
|
|
?
Back then, we weren't looking to go to war, I suppose... Doesn't it seem odd to kill a man claiming he is the one responsible, (Tim McVeigh) and yet here we are a few years later trying to pin it on Saddam? Shouldn't we have gotten all the facts before executing McVeigh, then?
), but then we PIN everything that even occurs near the land of Iraq, or the person may have visited Iraq once years ago, or they LOOK like an Iraqi....that is ALL Saddam's responsibility and fault!
