quote:

Originally posted by funhouse_1970:
What a sad bunch of posts. Left and Right bickering while the real terrorists are priming the pump for the next self-inflicted terrorist attack.

My wake-up call: Watch for another 9/11-WMD experience by Paul Craig Roberts (a conservative who worked for Reagan)

Be afraid of the Al-CIA-DUH boogy man!

The terrorists aren't coming, they're here . . . in Washington

Loving the Online Journal...

A question:

Did Thom ever find any experts from NIST (or anybody) to debate for the Official Conspiracy Theory side (i.e. the 9-11 Commission Report) ? They're a scared bunch of propagandists.

Maybe he could arrange a debate between Greg "Leftgatekeeper" Palast and Dr. Stephen Jones?

Open Letter to Greg Palast

Vehmgericht

quote:

Originally posted by Epimanes:

quote:

Originally posted by funhouse_1970:
What a sad bunch of posts. Left and Right bickering while the real terrorists are priming the pump for the next self-inflicted terrorist attack.

My wake-up call: Watch for another 9/11-WMD experience by Paul Craig Roberts (a conservative who worked for Reagan)

Be afraid of the Al-CIA-DUH boogy man!

The terrorists aren't coming, they're here . . . in Washington

Loving the Online Journal...

A question:

Did Thom ever find any experts from NIST (or anybody) to debate for the Official Conspiracy Theory side (i.e. the 9-11 Commission Report) ? They're a scared bunch of propagandists.

Maybe he could arrange a debate between Greg "Leftgatekeeper" Palast and Dr. Stephen Jones?

Open Letter to Greg Palast

Should this kind of speech be tolerated?

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the eleventh; malicious lies that attempt to sift the blame away from the terrorists themselves; away from the guilty

Vehmgericht

quote:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox : "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore : "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger , Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry : "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards : "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin : "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons -inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After the 2000 election:

When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.

( This essay is based on a Patriot Alert (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=340) that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)

quote:

Originally posted by BrentBozo:
GG: Anyone really familiar with the situation knows Bill Clinton killed even more Iraqis than did George W. Bush. Clinton did it through draconian sanctions.


Neither fact of which excuses the international crimes of unjustified aggression against Iraq that have been committed by the United States.

The "last resort" position of the cornered US conservative is usually to say the Dems are just as bad. Which is not even a defense.

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7,_2003
Embedded NPR journalists relay reports from a top official with the 1st Marine Division that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered 20 medium range BM-21 missiles armed with warheads containing deadly sarin and mustard gas that are "ready to fire."

• The NBC team detected a false positive. This seems utterly absurd.
  
• The unidentified military spokesperson misstated the information. This is very hard to believe.
  
• The reporter misunderstood the report. 20 missiles armed with nerve gas and blister agent, and ready to fire is kind of hard to misinterpret.
  
• The report was intentional Public Diplomacy. Now we are entering into the realm of the plausible.
  
• The report is accurate. People claim that Rumsfeld would have faxed the confirmation report to every news outlet on the planet, had WMD been discovered. So who would have been under a direct threat from a mobile launcher armed with such weapons? New York? DC? Frisco? Anchorage?
  

Vehmgericht

quote:

There are a few different possible explanations for the report.

quote:

Originally posted by GG:

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons -inspection process."


Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

quote:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12054520/the_10_worst_congressmen/8
THE CONSPIRACY NUT CURT WELDON (R-PA.)
"Curt Weldon has outlived his usefulness to the country," says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "He's seeing ghosts and conspiracies."

Vehmgericht

quote:

Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman:

quote:

There are a few different possible explanations for the report.

what about the report is a propaganda lie meant to build support for the war?

quote:

Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman:
sort of like the jessica lynch rescue? even she testified that the pentagon and white house 'beefed' up the story. while her comrads were injured/killed and jessica herself was injured, the government lied about the way she was 'rescued'. she was in an unguarded hospital, where several iraqis were taking care of her wounds.

quote:

Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman:
how about the tillman incident? according to the pentagon/white house, tillman died while fighting terrorists. but it turns out that he was actually battling other friendly soldiers and he got hit and killed by friendly fire. even though the government knew that, they still played up the 'go joe' angle for their propaganda. it took the tillman family and several congressmen to get to the bottom of that lie.

quote:

Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman:
so even this little WMD missile thing can be another lie and propaganda ploy. its bush's way of trying to tie 911 to iraq to al quida.

Vehmgericht

quote:

Originally posted by BrentBozo:
A medium-range launcher is range of just a few hundred miles, correct?

My guess is that the instance was one of "public diplomacy". If it had really been true, Rummy would've run with it.

Vehmgericht

quote:

Originally posted by Epimanes:

quote:

Originally posted by leftysergeant:
As long as I can remember knowing how to read, and I am 60 years old now, I remember reading newspaper articles on the fact that Islam was spreading world-wide faster than was Christianity AND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Fundie Christians have been making a holy war against everyone who does not believe their far-out doctrines for centuries.

Is it possible that people who are not Fundie Christians have made pretense to being such in order to stir up strife or act as agents provocateur? Is it possible that, say, arms merchants or privatized armies such as Blackwater might contribute financially to, or otherwise foster a militant faction within (Fundamental) Christianity in order to stir up business, as it were?

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:

Well, I wonder really what impels people to join big congregations. There's the possibility of family tradition, but there's also the possibility of business contacts and social networking for the pursuit of the big green, and there's also the possibility of some sort of genuinely spiritual awakening and following of some sort of charismatic figure or group. The more I watch the by-play in the media and on boards like this, I kind of think the big green rules almighty.

I'm thinking of cost-benefit analysis from a venal parishioner's perspective, one who has some control over whether his child will be on the front lines, and one who has some sort of insider connections to the gravy train that emerges from far flung military campaigns and the war profiteering that ensues from them.

I think the Bible thumping takes place in hierarchies. To illustrate the idea, I'll focus on two levels, the bottom and the top, to begin to develop what I'm thinking of spiritual motivations that might flow from religious community.

At the bottom level, somehow the front line folk need pride in sending their children to combat. At the top level, somehow the string pullers need some sense of moral righteousness about their forays into new territory. Whether they need a church to give them this "peace of mind" is another question, but it seems to be of some help in resolving doubt about aggressive actions.

quote:

True, Fair, and Forgiving

Reflections on the Book of Matthew

Pounding hoofs upon the high road
In the wind blown rainy night
So bitter cold and lonely
A fugitive in flight

Burn the chaff left from the harvest
Kill the seed you didn't sow
Feign to play the good lord
Whom you may never know
Outcast as the leper
The one who disagreed
Stayed true to his convictions
Your word he wouldn't heed

Chasing down the road to extinction
All that doesn't fit in your vision
Of the world the way you think it should be

I will not be made in your image
I will not conform to your rule
I will never pay you my homage
I will not be played for a fool

You are the mortal enemy
Of everything I want to be
And all I want to be
Is all I'll ever be
For all I want to be
Is me

I can look into the high heavens
And for myself use my own eyes
To see you don't behold the true image
Why hide your ignorance with your lies

You know your power is derived from deception
The blind man in control of perception
As your lead your sheep on to destruction

There were many who were with me
They swore that they agreed
But as the darkness fell
I saw my allies flee

At one point I recall
You were standing next to me
Singing your own song
Of how we'll all be free

Was that the disguise
Of the predator as sheep
Scheming to deceive
And slay me as I sleep?

Vehmgericht