Cynical Nation

Hey Barry,
Are you ok? Did you wake up thinking Bush is the greatest again? In this post, you make some statements that put you in the category of strong, out of touch with reality, Bush supporters. For instance:

"(Farenheit 911 is a) piece of anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda "

Did you watch the movie??? I did and it was by no means anti-american/pro-terrorist. It was simply anti-Bush. There were some inaccuracies and exaggerations, but it was mostly accurate. And let me put out a disclaimer. I dont like Michael Moore but he is certainly more patriotic than some neocon extremists (i.e. Rumsfeld or Cheney) that have demomized him. Anyway, I am curious if you watched that movie. Did you?

BW, you're a card!

First, you acknowledge that Moore's flick contained "some inaccuracies and exaggerations," (that's being vary charitable, considering that about 80% of the content was "exaggerated and innacurate"), but in your next breath, you claim, "but it was mostly accurate."

How can a film based entirely on fallacies and inaccuracies be "mostly accurate?"

I watched that film...and then I watched Dick Morris' Farenhype 9/11, to cleanse the pallet.

You should check out Farenhype 9/11 as it dutifully chronicles every inaccuracy in the Moore film, and they are legion.

Fact: In the wake of 9/11 the Bush Doctrine, that put America at war with any nation that "harbored, sponsored, or supported international terrorism" PASSED with overwhelming bi-partisan support (much like the Patriot Act).

Fact: Afghanistan's "sin" (the cause of its invasion) was harboring al Qaeda operatives - not the 9/11 al Qaeda members (they all died)...and there was "no proof that Afghanistan had anything directly to do with the attacks of 9/11 either.

Fact: Saddam's Iraq also harbored al Qaeda operatives (the Ansar al Islam camps) and trained terrorists (at Salman Pak).

Saddam's Iraq ALSO steadfastly refused to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - THAT is why Iraq was invaded by Coalition Forces.

Fact: Michael Moore, who opposed BOTH the U.S> invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq is INDEED anti-American and pro-terrorist in his outlook and leanings, just as Lynne Stewart (traitor), John "Taliban Johnny" Walker Lindt (traitor), and al Qaeda traitor Adam Gahdan all are.

JMK,
Thank you for reminding me in your previous post how out of touch with reality you are. But dont worry. The good news is that you have the genius Bush and his competent administration to protect you from dangerous terrorists like Michael Moore :)

Don't deflect BW.

You gob smacked yourself and you're responding by blaming little old me.

Again, "First, you acknowledge that Moore's flick contained "some inaccuracies and exaggerations," (that's being vary charitable, considering that about 80% of the content was "exaggerated and innacurate"), but in your next breath, you claim, "but it was mostly accurate."

"How can a film based entirely on fallacies and inaccuracies be "mostly accurate?"

That's a legitimate question.

And a still unaswered one.

Also, I've noted that you failed to substantively respond to ANY of the following facts;

Fact: In the wake of 9/11 the Bush Doctrine, that put America at war with any nation that "harbored, sponsored, or supported international terrorism" PASSED with overwhelming bi-partisan support (much like the Patriot Act).

Fact: Afghanistan's "sin" (the cause of its invasion) was harboring al Qaeda operatives - not the 9/11 al Qaeda members (they all died)...and there was "no proof that Afghanistan had anything directly to do with the attacks of 9/11," either.

Fact: Saddam's Iraq also harbored al Qaeda operatives (the Ansar al Islam camps) and trained terrorists (at Salman Pak).

Saddam's Iraq ALSO steadfastly refused to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - THAT is why Iraq was invaded by Coalition Forces.

The reason?

Well, it stands to reason that they're all...well...I suppose they're what you'd call "well established facts."

BW Sez: "...Farenheit 911 ...was by no means anti-american/pro-terrorist. It was simply anti-Bush."

Didn't you get the memo, TalibanBlueWind? Anti-Bush now equals anti-American. Been the case for the past 5 years. Thou shalt not criticize Lyndon Baines Bush. Or is it G.W. "Jimmy" Carter?

Fred,
You are right, sorry I forgot. Anti-Bush means anti-american. I am sure JMK would agree.

Actually anti-American is (1) blaming U.S. foreign policy for 9/11 (N.B. G W Bush wasn't responsible for U.S. Foreign policy over the decades leading up to 9/11), (2) sympathizing with America's enemies, ie. "America's invasion of Iraq was a unilateral, UN opposed violation of a sovereign nation," (so was our invasion of Afghanistan and our war in the Balkans) &/or (3) referring to much needed domestic security procedures like the NSA surveillance of international calls and the institution of the Patriot Act as "fascistic" and "violations of Constitutional principles."

Moore's film was NOT nearly as "anti-Bush" as it was anti-American.

He portrayed pre-2003 Saddam's Iraq (the leading state sponsor of international terrorism according to the U.S. State Dept) as an idyllic place, insinuated that the entire world (absent France, Germany, Belgium & Russsia, who put their illicit Iraqi oil contracts ahead of priniciple) were terrorists themselves for invading Iraq.

ALL of that is anti-American. That's why Moore, Sheehan and Soros deserve to be lumped in with the likes of Lynne Stewart, John Walker-Lindt and Adam Gahdan.

Patrick J Buchanan is anti-Bush (and like myself feels he's far from Conservative enough) and PJB is a first rate patriot.

Fred, don't even hand me that tired crap. You know better.

Look, let me 'splain it to you, BW.

Andrew Sullivan: anti-Bush, pro-American.

Michael Moore: anti-Bush, anti-American piece of crap.

No, criticizing Bush doesn't make you anti-American. However, when you side openly with the Iraqi insurgents and compare them to the Minutemen, or when you portray Saddam's pre-war Iraq as a happy, kite-flying paradise, or when you're openly mystified as to why OBL attacked New York City since, after all, New York is a blue state (the implication being that bombing a red state would be perfectly understandable) then you've gone way, way beyond simply criticizing the president.

JMK only has a few tired old tricks that he stupidly repeats like an overfed Rush Limbaugh parrot.

OF COURSE the Dems voted for the war. They believed the lies that Bush presented as the truth, even though Bush knew these "facts" were discredited.

JMK should defend rapists. He could tell the jury that the woman AGREED to go out for coffee with his client and the fact that she was instead abducted and raped was immaterial, because she AGREED to go with him!

"Fact: In the wake of 9/11 the Bush Doctrine, that put America at war with any nation that "harbored, sponsored, or supported international terrorism" PASSED with overwhelming bi-partisan support (much like the Patriot Act)." -- JMK

Are we at war with Pakistan? I didn't notice. No wait, I think we are at war with Iraq, and before we occupied their country they really weren't a hotbed of Islamofascism BECAUSE Saddam feared they would assassinate him and take power. He hated them. They hated him.

So, no problem for the Dems here, because they DO support the "Bush Doctrine" that Bush rejects.

"Fact: Afghanistan's "sin" (the cause of its invasion) was harboring al Qaeda operatives - not the 9/11 al Qaeda members (they all died)...and there was "no proof that Afghanistan had anything directly to do with the attacks of 9/11," either."

Wow, JMK drops another 10 IQ points, with so few to spare. Where did Bin Laden live? Where did Al Quida train? Afganistan had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11, unlike Iraq.

That has to be the stupidest attempt yet to find some way of justifying Bush's illegal Corporate war.

"Fact: Saddam's Iraq also harbored al Qaeda operatives (the Ansar al Islam camps) and trained terrorists (at Salman Pak)."

Why lie small, when you can LIE BIG! Saddam and Al Quida were enemies. Saddam was not very religious, and did not believe in having an Islamic State, as he was set on being a dictator.

This is idiotic beyond belief. No weapons of mass destruction, no Al Quida, just an illegal War for Profit.

You're grasping at straws, Rush.

I think the success of (or at least the attention lavished on) the film by Moore the hyperbolic was aided and abetted by the hyperbolic right-wing. I thought it was an interesting movie, agreed with some points, saw the b.s. in other parts. But ain't that what makes the country hum? Criticism, dissent, laughing at our leaders, mocking them, putting out books and movies harshly (and often stupidly) ragging on those in power on the left and right? A little dissent hasn't hurt us yet these past 230 years...
I'd agree on John Walker Lindh and Adam Dahdan--they took the time and made the effort to join our enemies. Moore dissented, Sheehan is angry, Soros finances his dissent. Lynne Stewart is a close call, but I might side with JMK on her.

My tired crap, Barry? Just my way of getting your attention so I could say welcome back from your vacation....I checked and checked this site the past few weeks and saw nothing but a lovely woman in a canoe at the top of the page.
Tom Kean for Senate; Bob Menendez for jail.

> My tired crap, Barry?

Okay, you didn't invent it or anything. ;-)

Speaking of Menendez, I'm beginning to really like my current representative -- the Honorable "Unfilled." After Corzine appointed Menendez to backfill his senate seat, my district was left unrepresented. Now if I can only figure out how to get rid of my senator and governor as well.

Again Barely (anonymous) you show your ignorance.

John Kerry advocated invading Iraq back in 1998.

Hillary Clinton still refuses to agree with those who claim invading Iraq was wrong...because they had the same worldwide Intel that the Bush administration used.

Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's governments have cooperated with the U.S.

OBL was exiled from Saudi Arabia twice, the second time, his assetts were frozen in that country. The U.S. pressured the Sudan into exiling him and freezing his assetts there in 1998.

Both Musharef and the Saudi Royals worry about extremists in those respective countries taking over - we worry about that too. That's why we've offered a luke warm support for those two governments.

Saddam's Iraq harbored al Qaeda operatives (the Ansar al Islam camps), shared a common enemy with al Qaeda (the Kurds) and trained terrorists (at Salman Pak).

Try and read a little more. Saddam had the exact same stance on pan-Islamicists (like al Qaeda) that fellow pan-Arabist, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser had before him.

Nassir worked closely with al Qaeda's founder, Sayyid Qutb, against the British back in the day, then had Qutb hung for insurrection, and was gunned down by Qutb's al Qaeda cohorts.

They still worked together for many years against common enemies.

Read Paul Berman's Terrorism and Liberalism, it's a great book, replete with great historical detail.

That way you could refer to actual history and avoid relying on your "feeeelings" on these matters.

Fred, Soros finances people who call America The world's biggest terrorist" and equate a democratically elected administration to "The Third Reich," that's NOT "dissent," that's very close to sedition.

Ditto Moore and Sheehan (who has called American troops "terrorists").

Dissent is offered by those who disagree with specific policies, acknowledging that we are at war and that the terrorist threat (which Michael Moore still claims "doesn't exist") is very real.

There's a HUGE difference between being anti-Bush and anti-American.

The Soros' the Moore's and many others on the far Left are much more anti-American in their pronouncements than they are anti-Bush.

WASHINGTON — There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

Barry, how do I get rid of my Congressman? An empty seat does more to represent me than a filled one.
There are rumors floating around that the Democratic powers-that-be will replace Menendez a la Torricelli. Nothing in NJ surprises me.

Barry,
I could argue that some of the actions of the extreme right are very antiamerican despite being pro-Bush. Want some examples:

Ann Coulter: pro-Bush, big-time antiamerican (as an example, she exhibited vitriolic hate for the widows of victims of 911).

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell: pro-Bush, anti-american (want to destroy traditional values of american tolerance) and many others...

Michael Moore is an idiot, but he is not anti-american. Sheehan the same.

I agree that Saddam Hussein most likely didn't have any direct relationship with EITHER OBL or Zarqawi.

The same can't be said of his very direct involvement with the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq.

He shared a common enemy with those camps (the Iraqi Kurds) and had meetings with them in Baghdad.

The al Qaeda members who conducted the 9/11 attacks apparently acted independently and had "no direct connections" to the rest of al Qaeda and certainly NONE with the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

Still, that's no reason, in my view, to take a second look at the "Bush Doctrine," or reconsider reclassifying international terrorism as "a criminal justice issue."

> Barry, how do I get rid of my Congressman? An empty seat does more to represent me than a filled one.

Ditto. I think you just have to get rid of the old one, by hook or by crook. Unlike empty senate seats, they will stay vacant until the next election.

> I could argue that some of the actions of the extreme right are very antiamerican despite being pro-Bush.

I'm sure you could, and I would probably agree with you. I disagree with you about Sheehan, though. Her very public embrace of Hugo Chavez alone is enough to question her "idiotic but patriotic" label.

JMK: "The al Qaeda members who conducted the 9/11 attacks apparently acted independently and had 'no direct connections' to the rest of al Qaeda and certainly NONE with the Taliban government of Afghanistan."

Whose quotation marks within are they, yours or someone else's? No connection? I'll have to take another look at yesterday's video showing bin laden hanging out with 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.

No one ever directly linked Afghanistan's Taliban government to al Qaeda's activities.

And al Qaeda itself has shown itself to operate exactly as IT has claimed, via a network of independent cells that act autonomously.

The Lackawanna Six from upstate NY have been jailed for attending an al Qaeda training camp post-9/11. Thousands of others have attended such al Qaeda camps pre-9/11 and themselves had NOTHING to do with the attacks that day.

That doesn't make those people any less dangerous, or any less our enemies.

Al Qaeda itself has taken credit for evolving this "loose confederation of global jihadists." The world's major law enforcement and Intelligence agencies have confirmed that this is how that organization works.

No one ever directly linked Afghanistan's Taliban government to al Qaeda's activities.

JMK,
You are COMPLETELY out of touch with reality. The Taliban provided safe heaven for Bin Laden. As far as I know Bin Laden organized the attacks.

Why do you fail to acknoweledge basic and established facts? You are almost as bad as Geroge W. Bush when it comes down to terrorism-related issues.

JMK: "No one ever directly linked Afghanistan's Taliban government to al Qaeda's activities."

Hmmm, then why did we overthrow the Taliban?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZEASPflbb2M&refer=us

JMK -- Read it and weep, liar.

What a wingnut. Are you posting from a mental hospital, JMK?

>

Why is it that these threads drift so quickly from the original premise into the usual badinage between liberals and conservatives?

Let me try to get us back to the original topic [please see Barry's fine work at top]

We conservatives are up in arms about this potential censuring with talk show hosts (you know who) going ballistic over this 'Stalinist' threat to freedom of speech.

Well, what exactly did we do with CBS when they tried to show the Reagan biopic?

If memory serves, pretty much the same that Clinton and the Dems are doing now with ABC.

We drove it off of CBS and onto a subsidiary cable station of Viacom.

And then patted ourselves on the back for saving the reputation of Ronaldus Magnus.

Amazing how our side doesn't seem to recall that little factoid.

I am a conservative but I am not oblivious to double standards and selective memories...by either side.

Hypocrisy knows no political party.

Fair enough, mal, but the left did not stand idley by as the right forced CBS to cave on the Reagan thing.

More importantly: Does anyone really believe Taylor Hicks was the best singer on American Idol 5? I don't think so.

"No one ever directly linked Afghanistan's Taliban government to al Qaeda's activities. (JMK)
JMK,
You are COMPLETELY out of touch with reality. The Taliban provided safe heaven for Bin Laden. As far as I know Bin Laden organized the attacks.

Why do you fail to acknoweledge basic and established facts? You are almost as bad as Geroge W. Bush when it comes down to terrorism-related issues.
the primary enemy in this "war on terror" (WoT) are the rogue states that have harbored, sponsored and otherwise assisted international terrorism.

That (the "Bush Doctrine") is the basis for our military WoT.

Even today the bulk of Democrats still acknowledge that as the correct stance. The far-Left (the Moore's, Sheehan's, Soros', etc) do not...those adle brained dolts still insist, "There is no terrorist threat."

JMK,
What can I say? It seems that you are advocating that Saddam was responsible for 911 and not Bin Laden. Is that it?

I hope you realize that not even Bush, Cheney and the rest of neocon extremists do not believe that. Sorry, but your opinions are not based on reality. At least not the reality of planet earth.

"We conservatives are up in arms about this potential censuring with talk show hosts (you know who) going ballistic over this 'Stalinist' threat to freedom of speech.

"Well, what exactly did we do with CBS when they tried to show the Reagan biopic?" (Mal)
criminal justice system was inadequate to deal with international terrorism...THAT'S what the CIA is supposed to be for.

No CIA Team should've had to get permission from a nitwit like Sandy Berger, they should've been sent in with the directions to "fix this problem."

Let that field then decide on what the best manner of "fixing" that problem will be. A rocket attack, a quick Special Forces blits attack...those are details that the American media and the American people are best left in the dark over.

The fact is that the CIA could have and would have "fixed" the al Qaeda problem early on if they'd been given the autonomy to run the operations necessary.

The biggest failure of the Clinton administration was the minimalizing a ignoring of a gathering terrorist threat.

That is the stuff for DOCUMENTARIES not DOCU-DRAMAS.

JMK,
What can I say? It seems that you are advocating that Saddam was responsible for 911 and not Bin Laden. Is that it?

I hope you realize that not even Bush, Cheney and the rest of neocon extremists do not believe that. Sorry, but your opinions are not based on reality. At least not the reality of planet earth.
"you are advocating that Saddam was responsible for 911."

Again, NO, Ayman al-Zawahiri is NOT Saddam Hussein.

You seem to espouse the inane view that (1) al Qaeda is our primary enemy in this WoT and (2) al Qaeda is a criminal organization commiting criminally prosecutable crimes.

Neither of those is the case.

As much of a waste that Madeleine Albright was, she did acknowledge one basic truth, "We could not convict Ussama bin Laden in a U.S. court."

The enormity of the problem of radicalized Islam, with its support from various rogue nations is simply beyond the scope of the U.S. criminal justice system. Even then NYC's FBI Director Fox acknowledged that, in the wake of the first WTC bombing in 1993.

With both the criminal justice method and the diplomatic method having failed us, 9/11 left us only the military option available.

The "military option" demands a national enemy and that's why the "Bush Doctrine" rightfully targets those nations that harbored, sponsored and assisted international terrorism as our primary enemies in this war.

Afghanistan was one of about six terror sponsoring nations, a list that included Iraq, the leading nation on the U.S. State Dept's list of terror sponsoring nations between 1992 & 2003), Syria, Iran, the Sudan among others.

I hope this clears things up for you a bit.

JMK, you are one long-winded liar.

If Clinton ignored the grave terrorist threat, then why wasn't Bush right on it? He had absolute power starting in 2000, a rubber stamp congress, he could have done anything.

9-11 happned on BUSH'S WATCH -- stop trying to spin it. It didn't happen on Clinton's watch, it happened on Bush's watch.

Reagan could have taken terrorism seriously after over 200 marines died in a bombing.

Blame it on Reagon, you ignorant boob.

"If Clinton ignored the grave terrorist threat, then why wasn't Bush right on it? He had absolute power starting in 2000, a rubber stamp congress, he could have done anything." (Barely Hanging)
"He had absolute power starting in 2000, a rubber stamp congress..." that are, well, incredibly, even staggeringly ignorant.

G W Bush didn't take office in 2000. He wasn't President for even a single day in all of 2000.

In point of fact, Bush assumed the Presidency on January 20th, 2001. That's about THREE WEEKS into the FOLLOWING YEAR.

Facts are your friend Barely, or at least they should be.

Clinton ignored a relentless war being waged against America for eight long years.

The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, followed by the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole attack, two U.S. Embassies in Africa brought down, the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco in Somalia...all part of a relentless war waged against America and American interests by the global forces of pan-Islamic jihadism and the rogue nations that harbored, sponsored and supported that movement.

In 1998 Clinton rightfully considered invading Iraq. John Kerry supported that invasion and was outraged when the administration decided on a bombing campaign, one Kerry called, "Not enough," while requesting that the full scale invasion at least be tabled.

They were right in their inclinations, but failed to act decisively.

The Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebabnon was indeed Reagan's greatest mistake.

Clinton should've learned from that lesson. We left Lebanon on 1983 and the jihadists were emboldened, but after that message should've been learned, we cut and ran from Somalia and ignored this relentless war against the U.S. by the globalized forces of radicalized Islam.

You can see why the 9/11 Commission excoriated the Clinton administration so much more harshly than it did the Bush administration, can't you?

It's because the Clinton administration ignored this war for 8 YEARS, while Bush ignored it for eight months!

Whenyou don't even care enough to get even the most basic facts straight (Bush taking office in 2000), it's little wonder the rest of your opinions and assumptions are so sloppily thought out.

"No one ever directly linked Afghanistan's Taliban government to al Qaeda's activities." (JMK)
"Hmmm, then why did we overthrow the Taliban?" (Fred)
(Fred)


Afghanistan was invaded for refusing to hand over the al Qaeda operatives within their borders.

They were charged and convicted by the current U.S. administration of "harboring al Qaeda."

The "Bush Doctrine" justifies that alone as a cause for war.

There exist no direct links between Afghanistan's Taliban and al Qaeda that could hold up in a U.S. court, just as surely as there are no direct links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda that would stand up in any U.S. courts.

But Saddam's Iraq also harbored the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps. Those camps shared a coomon enemy with Saddam's Iraq, the Iraqi Kurds.

The problem America faced was defined by Madeleine Albright when she said, back in 1998, "We couldn't convict bin Laden of any crimes in an American court."

Yes, the American criminal justice system was inadequate to the problem of State financed international terrorism.

Diplomacy had failed for over a half century in that region and with Saddam's Iraq for over a decade and thirteen ignored UN Resolutions.

The military option, first advanced in 1998, had to be reconsidered after 9/11/01 and the military option requires a nation as an enemy and that's the purpose the "Bush Doctrine" served, to focus the military option on those rogue nations that had harbored, sponsored and supported international terrorism.

Afghanistan harbored (refused to turn over) al Qaeda operatives withinj their borders and Iraq was suspected of having and devloping WMDs by virtually ALL the world's Intelligence agencies and had also had the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps within its borders.

Still, it took Saddam's refusal to fully comply with UN Resolution 1441 (the 14th such Resolution) fot the American & British led coalition to invade Iraq.

If anything, the invasion of Iraq was held to a higher standard than that of Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't get the benefit of years of negotiations and over a dozen UN Resolutions ignored before they were invaded.

"But Saddam's Iraq also harbored the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps. Those camps shared a coomon enemy with Saddam's Iraq, the Iraqi Kurds.

JMK,
Stop repeating this republican propaganda lie that completely distorts the facts. Ansar al Islam were terrorists and alqaeda sympathizers. But what you fail to say is that they there were in an area outside Saddams control. They were ENEMIES of Saddam. Similarly, Bin Laden was considering Saddam an "infidel" because he was secular. Your efforts to still try to make up links between Saddam and Alqaeda when the whole world now knows they never existed is out of touch with reality. Just accept the truth as it is based on facts. Saddam had NOTHING to do with Alqaeda or 911 and going into Iraq was a disastrous error of the Bush administration that made us weaker. Thats the simple whole truth.

The Ansar al Islam camps shared a common enemy with Saddam's Iraq - the Iraqi Kurds.

Saddam Hussein had precisely the same kind of relationship that fellow pan-Arabist, Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nassir had with the pan-Islamicists, most notable Sayyid Qutb (the founder of al Qaeda) - Nassir and Qutb personally despised each other and like most pan-Islamists, Qutb hated the secular pan-Arabist, BUT they both had a far larger enemy in common that dwarfed the animus they had for each other.

Nassir used Qutb to help chase the British from Egypt and then promptly had Qutb hung for insurrection. A few years later, some of Qutb's cohorts gunned Nassir down while he was giving a public address.

It's not at all un-natural for humans to cooperate with enemies against a far bigger common enemy and then go back to war with each other.

Moreover, Saddam's Iraq was NOT invaded over WMDs, even though UN Resolution 1441 was about WMD inspections and oversights. That's really of no consequence for matters of this discussion.

The fact is that Britain, Italy and the Czechs all intercepted Intelligence that pointed to Saddam's Iraq purchasing "yellowcake" (weapons grade) Uranium from Niger.

That charge has never been debunked and England still stands by it.

In fact, even that Liberal bastion, the Washington Post said, ""Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials....He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy."

In short, Saddam's Iraq had to be forced to comply with 1441.

The UN was given 18 MONTHS post-9/11 to negotiate Saddam into compliance.

When negotiation failed, the military option was the last resort and the American & British led coalition invaded Iraq after Saddam Hussein refused to comply with 1441.

As I'd earlier said, "If anything, the invasion of Iraq was held to a higher standard than that of Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't get the benefit of years of negotiations and over a dozen UN Resolutions ignored before they were invaded.

no connection between al-qaeda and the Taliban....bin ladne had no hand in planning 9/11...al-qaeda+Saddam=perfect together

Geez, let the dissembling begin.

no connection between al-qaeda and the Taliban....bin laden had no hand in planning 9/11...al-qaeda+Saddam=perfect together

Geez, let the dissembling begin.

It seems mal and without feathers "wins" this round as they tried to keep with the subject at hand and not let their egos get in the way.
This is what happens when people are more involved with being right than doing right.
BW and BH just accept that not everyone will hate W like you do. JMK, I would not be surprised if Hussein knew and kept his mouth shut, but it was OBL who funded the terrorists.
And I like Rush. Geddy is cool.

"I would not be surprised if Hussein knew and kept his mouth shut"

Rachel,
Unfortunately that statement of yours reflects ignorance...I would suggest you follow the events and the news more closely before you draw conclusions. Sorry.

P.S. I dont hate W. I just think he is completely incompetent and certainly a low weight for the job.

Wow, way to focus on a typo instead of me trashing your lies, JMK.

At least you admit that terrorism is REAGAN'S FAULT, because he refused to invade Iraq after the Marine barracks were bombed in Saudi Arabia.

Smell the desperation in the air as Limbaugh and Hannity now have to sell the idea that Saddam bin Laden and Osama Hussein planned 9-11 together in Bhagdad. Cheney and Rice were both trying to sell that lie this weekend.

Despite the 9-11 Commission report and every other fact ever discovered, all of which uniformly say OSAMA HATED SADDAM AND SADDMAN HATED OSAMA, and that they both planned to kill each other, JMK, Cheney, Limbaugh, Rice, and Hannity now have to whore the Rove talking point of "Iraq was connected to Al Quida, Iraq was part of 9-11!"

This is all they have left. If America won't swallow this sack of shit, the hijacked Conservative movement comes undone, which is truly sad. It is always sad when good ideas supported by honest hard-working people are grabbed by cynical, power-hungry criminals like Bush.

Bush was never a conservative, he was just a rich Eastern frat boy who dodged the draft, abused drugs and alcohol, failed in business, had daddy protect him after his insider trading (twice), and faked being "born again" and "conservative" after Rove decided to groom him. Then again, this is who appeals to pseudo-conservatives like JMK, and he will tell any lie to protect him, so I guess it isn't all that tragic. They deserve each other, and share in the failure.

"bin laden had no hand in planning 9/11"...(Fred)

Post a single article that indicated OBL planned ANYTHING.

I have no less than a dozen that indicate he is the organizer and financial backer of al Qaeda, while Ayman al-Zawahiri is THE planner.

We have no more evidence that Afghanistan's Taliban was INVOLVED in the planning of the events carried out by al Qaeda, than there is evidence of Iran's involvement with international terrorism.

"JMK, I would not be surprised if Hussein knew and kept his mouth shut, but it was OBL who funded the terrorists." (Rachel)
YES I agree that it indeed was bin Laden who funded al Qaeda - the terrorists who attacked us.

He was also a key organizer and leader. The point that some have taken issue with me over is what role he played in any planning.

Most accounts, as most analysts say that he had very little to do with any planning and that it was his right-hand man, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, who planned most of al Qaeda's terrorist events.

Both al-Zawahiri and OBL are evil, intent on doing harm to America and the West.

"Wow, way to focus on a typo instead of me trashing your lies, JMK." (BH)
http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Terrorist-Authorized/dp/0393326713/sr=1-1/qid=1158024529/ref=sr_1_1/103-3539468-2619845?ie=UTF8&s=books

The first WTC bombing was an "act of unconventional warfare."

The USS Cole bombing and the attacks on the two U.S. Embassies in Africa were "acts of unconventional warfare." All of these and more such acts were ignored by the Clinton administration for eight years.
"At least you admit that terrorism is REAGAN'S FAULT, because he refused to invade Iraq after the Marine barracks were bombed in Saudi Arabia." (BH)
that terrorism wasn't Bill Clinton's fault, but failing to engage in the relentless war being waged against America and American interests over that eight year period, sure WAS.

The war began in earnest in 1993 with that first WTC bombing.

"Most accounts, as most analysts say that he had very little to do with any planning and that it was his right-hand man, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, who planned most of al Qaeda's terrorist events."

"...than there is evidence of Iran's involvement with international terrorism."

BARTENDER, I'll have what he's having.

What do you take issue over concerning the planning operations of al Qaeda being the domain of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Fred?

In other words, what evidence, even a single article that would credit the money-man and organizer (OBL) with strategy and planning?"

Articles like;

The Second Most Wanted Man

(Ayman Al-Zawahri May Be Mastermind Behind Al Qaeda)

March 21, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607481.shtml

CBS) While the name Osama bin Laden has become synonymous with terrorism, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, the man most intelligence analysts believe is the brains behind bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization, is considered the world's second most wanted man...

...I think if bin Laden is the chairman of the board of that organization, Ayman al-Zawahri is the actual CEO of this organization,” says Fandi. “He is the al Qaeda itself.”
March, 2004, that's pretty old news! I believe, since you've asserted that you believe OBL to be the al Qaeda's strategist and terror-planner, it's encumbent upon you to offer up some evidence to back up that claim. After all, the burden of proof lies with the one making the charge.

I've asserted that most analysts believe al-Zawahiri to be the strategist of al Qaeda...and offered up one of many articles that would support that view...and a piece from CBS News of all places.
"...We have no more evidence that Afghanistan's Taliban was INVOLVED in the planning of the events carried out by al Qaeda, than there is evidence of Iran's involvement with international terrorism."....yes, I believe THAT'S the entire statement.

I'm not the only one who said that!

Madeleine Albright and then Director of the FBI's New York Office (James M. Fox) both acknowledged that there was not enough evidence to try and convict bin Laden in American court.

We couldn't convict the Taliban of being intimately involved with al Qaeda's planning, nor Iran's current government of the same...at least NOT in a U.S. court of law.

I agree with FBI Director Fox and Madeleine Albright on that point.

You apparently don't, again, please explain why. Perhaps you have some new evidence. I'm open to that possibility and I'm certainly open to hearing it.

The March 2004 piece--two-and-a-half years after 9/11, way after Zawahiri had become more prominent. That is pretty old news, you're right. Maybe Dr Z was top dog, or at least ascendent, by that time, but we're talking 9/11/2001, not 3/2004.

And the Albright and Fox quotes? From when, 1998?

You're making the claims that: 1.bin Laden wasn't calling the shots in mid-2001 and 2.Iran is not tied to int'l terrorism.

Prove it ain't so, Joe. What's next, Syria and Iran aren't allied?

"The March 2004 piece--two-and-a-half years after 9/11, way after Zawahiri had become more prominent. That is pretty old news, you're right. Maybe Dr Z was top dog, or at least ascendent, by that time, but we're talking 9/11/2001, not 3/2004."
"Ayman al-Zawahiri was born to a prominent middle class family in Maadi, Egypt, a suburb of Cairo, and was reportedly a studious youth. His father was a pharmacologist. By fourteen he had joined an Islamist group called the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin), and had become a student and follower of Sayyid Qutb (al Qaeda's titular founder)....by the 1980s he journeyed to Afghanistan to participate in the mujahideen resistance against the Soviet Union's occupation. There he met Osama bin Laden, who was running a base for mujahideen called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK); both of them worked under the tutelage of the Palestinian Abdullah Yusuf Azzam; later when the MAK fractured al-Zawahiri joined bin Laden in organizing the al-Qaeda group.

On February 23, 1998, he issued a joint fatwa with Osama bin Laden under the title "World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders", an important step in broadening their conflicts to a global scale."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

OBL has never been credited with any planning of any terrorist events. He IS a money-man and an organizer, not a strategist.
"You're making the claims that...Iran is not tied to int'l terrorism."
we can no more PROVE that Iran was tied directly to terrorism (there are no direct links between Hezbollah and Iran...we believe they support Hezbollah...we feel we KNOW they are, but we haven't much actual proof that would stand up in any court) than we can prove intimate ties between the Taliban and al Qaeda or Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.

That does not mean or even imply that such ties do not exist, merely that we'd be hard pressed to prove them in any court of law.

The Bush Magical Mystery Political Capital Tour

by Walter Brasch

http://www.opednews.com

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and the rest of the gang that thinks they're a war cabinet supporting the man who thinks he's a war president used the fifth anniversary of 9/11 to tell the world how great they are.

In speech after speech, all meant to boost their neocon candidates' chances for re-election in two months, they dominated the news media to proclaim that under their watch there have been no more attacks on American soil. They looked directly into the cameras and told us that because Americans are fighting in Iraq, the terrorists aren't in New York City. For their part, the establishment media willingly disseminated the PR.

What wasn't stated in the rah-rah political boosterism was that the massive babbling was nothing more than sleight-of-hand distortion. The sleeping Bush–Cheney administration before 9/11 had begun to reduce the effectiveness of FEMA, cut back funding for the FBI counterterrorism operations, failed to act upon a number of FBI warnings about potential terrorists already in the United States, and disregarded substantial and significant warnings of the impending attack. Even one month before 9/11, President Bush apparently didn't do much with a Presidential Daily Brief that was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.," and then stood flat-footed when first told about the 9/11 attacks. But then his advisory council, largely composed of his father's advisors, regrouped and led him into at least the appearance of being presidential.

To strike the terrorist base camps, Bush ordered troops into Afghanistan to tear down the Taliban regime that protected the al-Qaeda terrorists, and vowed to capture Osama bin Laden. Five years later, the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the "Big Ear" NSA have admitted that the trail to bin Laden is cold. But, there are about 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, which under American control again leads the world in growing opium.

In Iraq are about 150,000 American troops because the war president and his war cabinet wanted to invade Iraq, and lied to the American people. Even knowing substantial evidence to the contrary, they blatantly told us that Saddam Hussein had ties to 9/11 and al-Qaeda. They said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The establishment media unquestioningly channeled the message.

The non-combatant "White House Warriors" who planned to "shock and awe" the world with a swift military strike, claimed American troops would be welcomed by the Iraqis who would give them joyful praise and even flowers, much like the liberated French gave conquering Americans in World War II. They claimed the war, which has now cost Americans about than $440 billion, would be financed by oil revenue. What they didn't tell Americans is that there are no oil revenues, and that American oil-based corporations have had massive windfall profits to be added to millions of taxpayer-provided dollars that have either been misplaced, unaccounted for, or can't be traced.

Because of diversion of funds, equipment, and supplies into the Iraq war, combined with the placement of the National Guard and their materiel in Iraq, America is less protected against hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters.

For his part, Donald Rumsfeld refused to allow the military to plan for a post-war occupation. "In his own mind, he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out," Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, who was in charge of the Logistics War Plans Division, told Orin Kerr of the Hampton Roads (Va.) Daily Press this month. Rumsfeld "said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war," and threatened to fire anyone who argued for post-war planning, said Gen. Scheid.

The military weren't the only ones threatened. In Bush Speak, enhanced by almost every talk-show mouth and right-wing politician, and led by the draft-dodging Dick Cheney, refusal to buy into the Bush–Cheney propaganda was equated with refusal to "Support the Troops." Those who questioned the Bush–Cheney administration were branded "cut and run cowards"; they were called unpatriotic, even treasonous, accused of "aiding the enemy."

It was those "unpatriotic traitors" who questioned why the Bush–Cheney administration was methodically shredding the Constitution. They opposed the excesses of the USA PATRIOT Act, opposed renditions, opposed torture of prisoners, challenged the suppression of First Amendment rights of free speech, spoke out against the Administration's quashing of Fourth Amendment rights of privacy, and the Fifth and Sixth amendment rights of due process, and the eight amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

The war in Iraq has now cost more than 3,000 American lives, caused more than 20,000 injuries, thousands of them permanent. At least 41,600 civilians and others in the combat zones have been killed, according to the nonpartisan estimates of Iraq Body Count, which keeps detailed data on all deaths in Iraq.

To continue to instill fear into Americans, the Bush–Cheney Administration has used the fifth year anniversary of 9/11 to tout the $20 billion spent on airport security, but hasn't acknowledged the vulnerability of the nation's ports, railway or bus systems. While praising the new multimillion dollar counterterrorism building and all the agencies working within it, it hasn't acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security has become a bungling bureaucratic nightmare. And, underneath all of the blustering and braggadocio is still a domestic reality-health care, the environment, and protection of all Americans against workforce exploitation and poverty is of secondary importance to this Administration.

Two days after his election in 2004, George W. Bush told America he "earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." He said, "That's what happened in the-after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election-and I'm going to spend it."

For several months after 9/11, Americans were united in their grief. Almost the entire world, including countries with a majority of its population Muslim, was America's ally. President Bush and his war cabinet squandered that good will by their arrogant jingoistic deceitfulness and stupidity, and are now on a nationwide tour to invoke the memory of 9/11 and try to hammer-lock the nation into believing that they needed to give up some Constitutional and fundamental rights in order to be safe. The President has spent all of his political capital and has put America into debt.

America is divided, more so than during the Vietnam War. The Bush–Cheney legacy won't be that they stopped terrorism, but that they played upon fear to promote a political agenda that fractured a country almost as much as the Civil War ever did.

Give me some credit, JMK. Well aware of Zawahiri's history with al-Qaeda. But was he the leader, the face, the financier or the agenda-setter, planner or shot-caller in any way of the group on 9/11? No way. From what I've read, he was deferential to bin Laden, as he should hve been because Osama was numero uno.

"JMK. Well aware of Zawahiri's history with al-Qaeda. But was he the leader, the face, the financier or the agenda-setter, planner or shot-caller in any way of the group on 9/11? No way."
(Fred)
"Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, the man most intelligence analysts believe is the brains behind bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization...

"...I think if bin Laden is the chairman of the board of that organization, Ayman al-Zawahri is the actual CEO of this organization,” says Fandi."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607481.shtml

Considering that you mistakenly believed that I somewhere claimed "Iran is not tied to int'l terrorism," isn't it also possible that you mistakenly presumed OBL to be al Qaeda's primary strategist, when most analysts bgelieve al-Zawahiri to have long been al Qaeda's primary strategist?

"There is not a single source that has ever credited bin Laden with being 'al Qaeda's planner or strategist,' EVER.

"That was, according to all credible analysts, al-Zawhiri's job."

And these credible analysts are....who?

I'm trying to find a mention by Bush in the days after 9/11 where he says, "Zawahiri: Dead or Alive."

I've almost forgotten the whole point of this multi-day exercise...Regardless, it doesn't discount the fact that both OBL and Dr. Z are still out there, that the search is going nowhere, and that the Afghan war was not yet satisfactorily concluded before we rushed into Iraq on the wings of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's stupidities.

[Allow me now to brace for the inevitable cyber-yelling, putdowns and excessive capital lettering and bold-face type rebuttal.]

Why are you continuing to fight this hopeless battle Fred?

G W Bush is NOT an Intelligence analyst.

Who are they, these Intel analysts?

I suppose most work, or have worked for agencies like the NSA, ONI or the CIA.

Once again, ""Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, the man most intelligence analysts believe is the brains behind bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization...

"...I think if bin Laden is the chairman of the board of that organization, Ayman al-Zawahri is the actual CEO of this organization,” says Fandi."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607481.shtml
"In 1996, he was considered the most credible threat and a highly lethal terrorist who could strike against the USA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

We didn't "rush to war" with Iraq. Iraq was given 18 loooong months post-9/11 to comply with the UN's "Last Chance Resolution" 1441.

When both UN & U.S. negotiations failed, the last option (the military one) was employed.

I don't follow your last statement, since I've been far more cordial and respectful than you have...and you've been wrong on a number of different points throughout this thread.

No personal insults or snide remarks from my side just linked articles and pure facts, with the key points boldened for easy reading.

All along, I've offered you facts and you've responded with dubious personal opinions, sprinkled with some occasional ad hominum attack.

From this end, hope springs eternal, I'm not expecting "more of the same from you," I'm expecting and hoping for some factual links and maybe even some civility.

Wikipedia as a source?

Loggerheads would be the best description of the situation. So I shall call it a draw and move on to some other fun topic...like the Mets.

When neocons like JMK are left with nothing but semantics and technicalities "You can't PROVE Santa Claus doesn't exist!" then you have won.

The sad spectacle of Bush politicizing 9/11 to get out his message (Saddam bin Laden and Osama Hussein planned the attack in Iraq!) was a similar testament to the bankruptcy of the dying neocon movement.

Two things:

(1) Wikpedia has been impeached as a source?!

When?

Did they besmirch themselves with a Walter Duranty or a Jayson Blair?

I asked you to come up with a single source that would credit OBL as being "the architect of 9/11."

You couldn't...but I did post two sources that showed otherwise.

and (2) "Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, the man most intelligence analysts believe is the brains behind bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization...

"...I think if bin Laden is the chairman of the board of that organization, Ayman al-Zawahri is the actual CEO of this organization,” says Fandi," DIDN'T come from Wikpedia....(gulp!)...it came from CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607481.shtml

Bush never directly linked either Hussein or Iraq to 9/11, BH. Perhaps you should've read a transcript of his 9/11 address so you'd know that.

9/11 itself can't help but be politicized!

America ignored a relentless war being waged against it and it's vital interests (oil & Israel) by a global fascistic cultist movement, supported by various Arabic & Muslim rogue states, for almost a decade, from the first WTC attack back in 1993.

Much as I'm loathe to use sources that continuously degrade themselves, I've often posted pieces here from dubious sources like the NY Times (Duranty and Blair) and CBS ("Rathergate").

I do that especially when I can't find an appropriate News Max or FoxNes source. (sarcasm)

Actually, I use sources like the NY Times, WaPo and CBS News with some caution and trepidation, and with full knowledge of their all too obvious and blatant political biases.

Surely NewsMax, FoxNews and WorldNet Daily are equally biased in the other direction, but none of those sources have yet made up the news. None of them have yet gone the Walter Duranty-Jayson Blair route.

The quotes INSIDE any of those sourced pieces are from named government sources (I try not to quote from pieces using un-named sources)...so whether that quote comes via the NY Times or NewsMax, the news source is superfluous, as it's the direct source of the quote that's key.