Latest Swift Boat Ad

[Gypsy]

This will leave a mark. Anyone see it yet? I missed the preview the other night on Hannity and Colmes.


New Swift-Vet Ad Recounts Kerry Making 'Friends' in Paris
By Steve Roeder
Talon News
September 23, 2004

(Talon News) -- In the sixth and latest ad by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) is compared to Vietnam War protester "Hanoi" Jane Fonda as a man the U.S. cannot trust because he, like Fonda, betrayed the U.S. when he met with North Vietnamese communist leaders during the Vietnam War.

"Friends," the most recent television ad by the organization consisting of 254 veterans who served in the Navy at the same time as Kerry, continues their challenge of the Democratic presidential candidate's Vietnam record and activism. With a $1.3 million budget, the ad will air in the five battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, and West Virginia. It also will be shown nationally on cable television networks through the end of the month.

The five-image advertisement, which can be viewed at www.Swiftvets.com, refers to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The ad states:

"Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris."

"Though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prison camps."

"Then he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis."

"Eventually Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to."

"In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?"

Kerry, in a leadership role with "Vietnam Veterans Against the [Vietnam] War," testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.

"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG)".

In 1971, Kerry called a press conference in Washington and urged President Nixon to accept the seven-point surrender plan of Madame Nguyen Thi Binh.

Kerry's campaign said earlier this year that he met with Madame Binh, then the foreign minister of the PRG, a South Vietnamese communist group with ties to the Viet Cong and a top negotiator at the talks. Kerry acknowledged in that testimony that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the "borderline" of what was permissible under U.S. law.

Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book "Unfit for Command," states that Kerry's 1970 meeting with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law. Corsi, who has studied the anti-war movement for over 30 years, indicates that U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953 prohibits a U.S. citizen from going abroad to negotiate with a foreign government.

In "Unfit for Command," Corsi and co-author John O'Neill write, "Had Madame Binh herself been permitted to appear at the July 22, 1971 press conference instead of John Kerry, the most noticeable difference in the argument presented might have been the absence of a Boston accent."

Kerry should be grateful that President Abraham Lincoln was not in office. Said Lincoln of similar actions: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

Kerry's campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, claims that Kerry was in Paris on his honeymoon with his first wife, Julia Thorne. Meehan contends that Kerry, who was still a member of the naval reserves, did not go with the intention of meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders.

However, historian Douglas Brinkley, who authored "Tour of Duty," a book about Kerry's military service, differs. He said Kerry's extensive fact-finding trip to Paris was done after his honeymoon.

"He was on the fringes but he was proud of it," Brinkley wrote. "[H]e wanted to make his own evaluation of the situation."

Just one year earlier, Kerry had made his own evaluation in the Harvard Crimson concerning troop deployment.

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry said. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through [sic] the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

In an interview Tuesday, O'Neill said it would be "unprecedented" for a future commander-in-chief to have met with enemy leaders.

"It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al Qaeda," said O'Neill.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton attempted to discredit the Swift Boat group.

"This is more trash from a group that's doing the Bush campaign's dirty work," Clanton said. "Their charges are as credible as a supermarket rag."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/september/0923_swift_boat_ad_friends.shtml

[Team Sergeant]

This will leave a mark. Anyone see it yet? I missed the preview the other night on Hannity and Colmes.

[/url]


LOLOLOLOLOLOL That's going to hurt.... I wonder if his wife is kicking his ass and asking,

"Did you really F***ing say that???"

Lt. Rassmann what do you think about your hero now?

Team Sergeant

[Gypsy]

He better be careful or Mrs. Ketchup-Face will lump him into the "idiot and/or scumbag" category.

[Radar Rider]

"Their charges are as credible as a supermarket rag." Charges? What charges? It all appears to me to be a presentation of factual events that occurred. Until sKerry comes out and says "That is a lie", or "I did not say that", how can anyone believe otherwise? The truth hurts, don't it John?

[Razor]

Corsi, who has studied the anti-war movement for over 30 years, indicates that U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953 prohibits a U.S. citizen from going abroad to negotiate with a foreign government.

So, can we lock up Jesse "The Piehole" Jackson under this as well? Two birds with one stone.

[Airbornelawyer]

Charges? What charges? It all appears to me to be a presentation of factual events that occurred. Until sKerry comes out and says "That is a lie", or "I did not say that", how can anyone believe otherwise? The truth hurts, don't it John?
They charged him with treason: "In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?" As vile as many of the things Kerry has done are, he is not a traitor.
Corsi, who has studied the anti-war movement for over 30 years, indicates that U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953 prohibits a U.S. citizen from going abroad to negotiate with a foreign government.

So, can we lock up Jesse "The Piehole" Jackson under this as well? Two birds with one stone.As has been discussed elsewhere, the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. 953) is a non-starter. It was enacted in 1799. Since then, exactly two people have been charged with violating it and no one has been convicted. It is very likely unconstitutional.

[brownapple]

They charged him with treason: "In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?" As vile as many of the things Kerry has done are, he is not a traitor.

I disagree. My take on him is that he is a traitor. He has provided aid and comfort to enemies of the United States on three occassions and possibly more.

As has been discussed elsewhere, the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. 953) is a non-starter. It was enacted in 1799. Since then, exactly two people have been charged with violating it and no one has been convicted. It is very likely unconstitutional.

Isn't that decision up to the Supreme Court? How about someone prosecuting Kerry under it and we can see if it can make it to the SC. :D

[Radar Rider]

They charged him with treason: "In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?" As vile as many of the things Kerry has done are, he is not a traitor. That's not a charge, it's just a statement. Whether or not what he did is traitorous is debatable.

[William Hazen]

LOL the Swift Boats Vets are Classic! What a travisty campagin finance reform turned out to be... Forget about the real issues... I think we should put O'Neil and Soros in the Octagon. Whoever wins forgot about getting anything meaningful done the next four years. Barbara Tuchman was right.

William Hazen

[The Reaper]

I think the real story is that a grassroots Republican/conservative group with just a couple of hundred members and a very small budget managed to turn a campaign when the Dems/Libs 527s had 100 times more money, many times more people working for them, and the major media in their hip pockets. Campaign finance reform?

Then CBS takes a weak case that they really wanted to believe and fully intended to sink the POTUS with, self-destructs, stonewalls, and destroys one of their major producers, one of the Big Three evening anchors, their own remaining credibility, and their bottom line. Big media impartiality?

Now it appears that the Klintonistas working for Kerry may not be helping out in the way he hoped they would. There's a shock!

Gotta love the way this is playing out so far.

TR

[Bravo1-3]

Then CBS takes a weak case that they really wanted to believe and fully intended to sink the POTUS with, self-destructs, stonewalls, and destroys one of their major producers, one of the Big Three evening anchors, their own remaining credibility, and their bottom line. Big media impartiality?

Anyone else note that this story was aired on day one of what the Kerry campaign calls "Operation Fortunate Son"?

[William Hazen]

I think the real story is that a grassroots Republican/conservative group with just a couple of hundred members and a very small budget managed to turn a campaign when the Dems/Libs 527s had 100 times more money, many times more people working for them, and the major media in their hip pockets. Campaign finance reform?

Then CBS takes a weak case that they really wanted to believe and fully intended to sink the POTUS with, self-destructs, stonewalls, and destroys one of their major producers, one of the Big Three evening anchors, their own remaining credibility, and their bottom line. Big media impartiality?

Now it appears that the Klintonistas working for Kerry may not be helping out in the way he hoped they would. There's a shock!

Gotta love the way this is playing out so far.

TR

???? All of the Major Media Outlets are owned by Conservative Republicans including CBS whose parent company (General Electiric) has givin tremendous amounts of money to Republican candidates. Bush had rasied the largest amount of money in the history of a presidential campaign. The Potus doen't not need outside help to sink his campaign if folks would just sort through the spin on both sides then his sorry record would speak for itself. I don't see how the liberal media bias comes into play either. Disney (who owns ABC) refused to distribute Farehenhiet 9/11 (which by the way is the larget grossing U.S. Documentry in History and full of it's own lies and distortions) What saddens me is that my own party THE REPUBLICANS have to lie, spin, and rely on fear and personal attacks to win a presidential elecction and we have the worst President in the history of the United States as our candidate. By the way by simply putting "Our Leaders in Congress" into all of his ads The Bush team has managed to circumvent campaign finance reform altogether.

William Hazen

This is a first most folks did not know I was a Republican. LOL

[The Reaper]

???? All of the Major Media Outlets are owned by Conservative Republicans including CBS whose parent company (General Electiric) has givin tremendous amounts of money to Republican candidates. Bush had rasied the largest amount of money in the history of a presidential campaign. The Potus doen't not need outside help to sink his campaign if folks would just sort through the spin on both sides then his sorry record would speak for itself. I don't see how the liberal media bias comes into play either. Disney (who owns ABC) refused to distribute Farehenhiet 9/11 (which by the way is the larget grossing U.S. Documentry in History and full of it's own lies and distortions) What saddens me is that my own party THE REPUBLICANS have to lie, spin, and rely on fear and personal attacks to win a presidential elecction and we have the worst President in the history of the United States as our candidate. By the way by simply putting "Our Leaders in Congress" into all of his ads The Bush team has managed to circumvent campaign finance reform altogether.

William Hazen

This is a first most folks did not know I was a Republican. LOL

And who do you think the Republican nominee should be?

TR

[William Hazen]

And who do you think the Republican nominee should be?

TR

McCain of course.

William Hazen

[Eagle5US]

McCain of course.

William Hazen
Brave like Lion-
Strong like Bear-
Smart like Ranger :D

Eagle

p.s.
Good to see ya Ranger Hazen

[The Reaper]

McCain of course.

William Hazen

A brave man who has served his country honorably, though if that were the only qualification, I would prefer Bob Dole.

You are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else, but I could not support a man who would sell-out my Second Amendment rights like McCain has done.

He strikes me as a Democrat wearing a Republican suit on most policy issues.

If McCain-Feingold represents his policy talent, I think I would pass.

Just my .02.

TR

[William Hazen]

Although a Democrat Garrison Kellior about sums up my feelings. I admire men who speak with common sense and the plain truth above all things

William Hazen God Bless America

We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore

By Garrison Keillor


Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned-and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to todays’. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.

In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another form of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy-the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good. Our beloved land has been fogged with fear--fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time. Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and show over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm. The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger. Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.

[rubberneck]

Anyone else note that this story was aired on day one of what the Kerry campaign calls "Operation Fortunate Son"?

Even more telling is that 12 hours before the forged documents were made public by CBS Terry McCaullife told reporters that Dubya's record was "sugar coated". Interesting that he use this term as it appeared in the phony documents. I wonder why he picked that exact same phrase, yet they want you to believe that they weren't in the loop. I call BS.

[The Reaper]

I quit listening to Garrison Keillor in the 70s.

I see I haven't missed much in the interim.

Kind of like the Ann Coulter of the 60's hippie left, on a taxpayer funded show.

Socialist Workers of the left, unite!!

TR

[William Hazen]

I quit listening to Garrison Keillor in the 70s.

I see I haven't missed much in the interim.

Kind of like the Ann Coulter of the 60's hippie left, on a taxpayer funded show.

Socialist Workers of the left, unite!!

TR

I see you're one of those new Republicans. LOL : :munchin

William Hazen

[The Reaper]

I see you're one of those new Republicans. LOL : :munchin

William Hazen

Actually, since you asked, I am more of a strict Constitutionalist/Federalist with strong tendencies towards Libertarianism and States Rights. Since the Libertarian Party is uncompetetive nationally, I tend to vote on certain key issues in national elections, for supporters of strong national defense, tort reform, and firearms rights, and against pacifism, socialism, nambyism, and welfare.

Are you one of those Liberal Republicans I keep hearing about?

TR

[William Hazen]

Actually, since you asked, I am more of a strict Constitutionalist/Federalist with strong tendencies towards Libertarianism and States Rights. Since the Libertarian Party is uncompetetive nationally, I tend to vote on certain key issues in national elections, for supporters of strong national defense, tort reform, and firearms rights, and against pacifism, socialism, nambyism, and welfare.

Are you one of those Liberal Republicans I keep hearing about?

TR

No sir. :) Independant Since 1988. I became disillusioned with main stream political parties after Iran/Contra and the excesses of the 80's. If Teddy Roosevelt were still alive then I might be a member of the Bull Moose party. As it was I voted for Perot in 1992. I am what you might call a Critical Thinker ( A gift from my Irish Working Class Father). :)

William Hazen

Actually Sir My first Ancestor in America Edward Hazen came here in the 1640's and we Hazen's have been active citizens since before the the country was born. Starting with great 8x uncle Moses Hazen who formed a Ranger Company under Robert Rogers during the French and Indian War. So my "Independance" streak goes pretty far back.

[brownapple]

I am what you might call a Critical Thinker ( A gift from my Irish Working Class Father). :)

William Hazen


It's fairly obvious that Garrison Keillor would prefer to have a Republican Party that was less responsive and popular than the current one. A Republican Party that George McGovern (as liberal as any candidate ever until John Kerry) could have beaten. Instead he has the Republican Party that went through a reformation to make itself credible and competitive, a reformation built around a reformed New Deal Democrat named Ronald Reagan.

As for McCain, when a man can't get the support of his fellow POWs, you have to wonder why. I don't believe that John McCain has an understanding of the freedoms addressed in the Constitution as demonstrated by McCain-Feingold. He may be a good Senator. That doesn't mean he'd be a good President.

[brownapple]

???? All of the Major Media Outlets are owned by Conservative Republicans including CBS whose parent company (General Electiric) has givin tremendous amounts of money to Republican candidates.


And that has absolutely nothing to do with how they cover news.


What saddens me is that my own party THE REPUBLICANS have to lie, spin, and rely on fear and personal attacks to win a presidential elecction and we have the worst President in the history of the United States as our candidate.


"Worst President in the history of the United States"?

Support that.

[William Hazen]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with how they cover news.





"Worst President in the history of the United States"?

Support that.


9/11 happened on his watch

Initially blocked formation of 9/11 Commission & reforms

Homeland Security Act

No WMD

No link between Saddam & Bin Laden

Largest Opium Crop in the history of Afganistan being grown since U.S. liberated the country.

Huge Budget Deficit's

Consumer Debt at record levels

3 billion dollars of foreign capital needed daily to prop up the stock market.

Erosion of the Dollars value against other currencies like the Euro

Lax to no enforcement of existing Trade Agreements

Largest cumalitive trade deficits in U.S. History

Lax to no enforcement of U.S. immigration Laws

Supports Outsourcing of American middle class job's to cheap Foreign Labor Markets

Running political campaign based on fear not substance.

Is the first Republican President to not veto a spending bill since he took office.

Would Kerry do any better? Probably not. Like I said I am an independant voter and to me I am still undecided which one would be the lessor of two evils. The first one to suggest a Marshall type plan for the Middle East may get my attention. The first man to truely speak to the working poor and middle class will get my attention. So far Bush looks let he is going to win and then we are really fucked for the next four years.

In fact my brother Greenhat you could move back from Thailand and try to make a differance. LOL

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with how they cover news.

Support that.

In most of the major U.S. Newspapers this last week...

CBS 60 minutes announced this week that they would not be airing a story on the faulty intelligence used to justify President's insistance that the U.S. was under the threat of imminent attack from Saddam Hussian and his WMD's. Sources close to Ed Bradley and 60 minutes indicated that the news organization was under pressure not to air the segment until after the Presidential Elections and coupled with Dan Rather being duped on forged documents they agreed to shelve the story.

That is one example....

William Hazen

[NousDefionsDoc]

Hazen,
You could always write in "Howard Dean".

[William Hazen]

Hazen,
You could always write in "Howard Dean".

Too Liberal...How about Pat Bucannon instead. He and I are on the same page with my list.

William Hazen

[brownapple]

Why not Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

9/11 happened on his watch

Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's

Initially blocked formation of 9/11 Commission & reforms

Blocked lots of stuff far more important than the 9/11 Commission, classified others. Refused to listen to his FBI Director regarding interning American citizens.

Homeland Security Act

Internment of US Citizens. Social Security Act. New Deal.

No WMD

Lend-Lease.

No link between Saddam & Bin Laden

No link between Algeria and Japan. Or Germany and Japan. Or Italy and Japan. Or France and Japan.

Largest Opium Crop in the history of Afganistan being grown since U.S. liberated the country.

Not even close to the size of the opium crop purchased by the United States from China in 1942.

Huge Budget Deficit's

Same. Significantly larger in adjusted dollars than those today.

Consumer Debt at record levels

Rationing.

3 billion dollars of foreign capital needed daily to prop up the stock market.

Stock Market maintained at a depressed level because of actions of FDR

Erosion of the Dollars value against other currencies like the Euro

Elimination of gold and silver standard.

Lax to no enforcement of existing Trade Agreements

same.

Largest cumalitive trade deficits in U.S. History

Largest uncollected debt in US History.

Lax to no enforcement of U.S. immigration Laws

Enforcement without trial. Internment with no representation, no notification, no contact.

Supports Outsourcing of American middle class job's to cheap Foreign Labor Markets

Supported total socialism (and from 1941 - 1945, the US Economy was socialist).

Running political campaign based on fear not substance.

Same (Since you seem to agree with Kerry that terrorism is not a threat, surely Fascism was not a threat in 1940...).

Is the first Republican President to not veto a spending bill since he took office.

Supported multiple bills and programs that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Would Kerry do any better? Probably not. Like I said I am an independant voter and to me I am still undecided which one would be the lessor of two evils. The first one to suggest a Marshall type plan for the Middle East may get my attention. The first man to truely speak to the working poor and middle class will get my attention. So far Bush looks let he is going to win and then we are really fucked for the next four years.

In fact my brother Greenhat you could move back from Thailand and try to make a differance. LOL

William Hazen

I make a difference here. Compete or die. All the bullshit about outsourcing as if the government has any control of it is just an example of wanting the government to do something about something it cannot realistically have any major effect on (except by tax policy, an area where John Kerry will accelerate outsourcing if not outright moves to overseas basing with the policies he supports). The world is a global market and a global workplace these days. Compete or die.

As for your claim that President Bush is the worst President ever, note the comparisons above. FDR is considered one of the great American Presidents of all time. I can't figure out if you are illustrating you lack of knowledge about US Presidents or your bias in terms of being unable to look at things objectively. One thing though... the charge of "worst President in History" was laid on Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan during their terms. If that is the company that President Bush is to be viewed with, I think he might be OK with that.

That you would still be entertaining thoughts of voting for a man who met and supported enemies of the United States multiple times, a man who attended a discussion of a plot to assassinate US Senators and didn't report it, a man who shred documents about US POWs in SE Asia, a man who failed to attend 73% of the hearings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a man who in 1984 opposed the F14, F15, B1, Sparrow, Phoenix, MX, Tomahawk, Patriot and Aegis Cruiser (among others) makes me wonder about your concern for your brothers.

"Working poor and middle class"? Gee, can you sound anymore like a Marxist, Bill? Class warfare is so boring...

[The Reaper]

Ranger Hazen, I am not sure what the source is for your allegations, but I question their varacity.

Have you been getting your info from Michael Moore?

As GH noted, the POTUS did not cause the 9/11 attacks, or the internet bubble which burst on his predecessor's watch and initiated the economic contraction leading to the recession and deficits. Bush did not pass NAFTA, or the Chinese trade deals. Those started well before he was elected too.

In case you missed it, we are at war, and certain things have to be done, politically advantageous or not. We are simultaneously trying to wage a war and recover from a recession.

I believe that the POTUS may have received some bad advice, but that is only knowable in hindsight and I would not fault him for that.

As GH also pointed out, the global economy is competitive, and you either compete, or die. When manufacturing jobs started fleeing the unprofitable union wages in the NE and Rust Belt, they prospered and the right to work states they arrived in did as well. Now, manufacturing wages in even those states are too high for a global market. It is cheaper to make the items overseas. No amount of protectionism (short of government subsidy) will make our products competitive on an open market when they are similar quality and higher priced. That is how the socialists ran their economies to maintain full employment while manufacturing warehouses full of junk nobody wanted, and they failed. The real key is to figure out what we do beter and exploit that niche. The Swiss sell outrageously priced wristwatches, the Germans sell very pricey high autos, and we market expensive low-tech motorcycles. Obviously, we cannot all make Harleys, but we need to move to market our strengths. Fact is that these mill jobs at relatively low wages need to be replaced by something with a better future. The process is painful. My family is an eighth-generation tobacco farm family, and we are witnessing the end of the small American tobacco farm. It is nostalgic and sad to watch, but it is happening for good reason.

If you really believe all of that screed you listed, you need to do what you can to help your preferred candidate, but I would prefer that you did not slander the President of the United States with your vitriolic rhetoric and attacks here.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

What saddens me is that my own party THE REPUBLICANS have to lie, spin, and rely on fear and personal attacks to win a presidential elecction and we have the worst President in the history of the United States as our candidate.

I am getting here late, as I have been away, but this statement requires quite a bit of explanation. I will continue reading as I assume someone called you out on it . . . .

[Roguish Lawyer]

Too Liberal...How about Pat Bucannon instead. He and I are on the same page with my list.

William Hazen

It makes sense that you like Pat Buchanan. I'm reading lots of angry, unsupported hyperbole.

[Roguish Lawyer]

GH and TR:

Well put! I agree.

[Sacamuelas]

What saddens me is that my own party THE REPUBLICANS have to lie, spin, and rely on fear and personal attacks to win a presidential elecction and we have the worst President in the history of the United States as our candidate....
William Hazen
So your are Republican…
Although a Democrat Garrison Kellior about sums up my feelings
William Hazen
I guess since your a "Republican", then it means there is bipartisan support for this whack job and his attempted deceptions, exaggerations, and distortions, Right??
No sir. Independent Since 1988. I became disillusioned with main stream political parties
William Hazen
:confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
UH OH… I thought you said that you were Republican… NOW you reveal that you are and have been an Independent since 1988???

It looks like you stubbed your toe with those flip-flops Ranger Hazen. Good luck with your candidate.

[William Hazen]

LOL this is too funney...Look you three....I do not know what you're getting out if this but I am used to it if you want to believe the lies you tell yourself go ahead... I wish to believe mine. LOL I stated my opinion based on the facts and none of those facts are in dispute. If you wish to come to different conclusions well that is your right and I respect that. History will be the final judge and you are fools if you think otherwise. My only point in posting on this section of the board is to let you know where I come from and to understand where you come from. If you are here to prove you're "right" and I am "wrong" then you had better reevaluate your reasons for engaging with me because all you're doing is talking to the hand. I came here to present my point of view and to understand yours and thats it.Otherwise.... You will not win and I for one am not stupid enough to believe that I am here to change anybody's point of view. As it is regardless of what you may think of my views I honor and respect yours and I don't need for you to like me . LOL

Again...if you disagree with my reasoning....Talk to the hand.

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

So your are Republican…

I guess since your a "Republican", then it means there is bipartisan support for this whack job and his attempted deceptions, exaggerations, and distortions, Right??

:confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
UH OH… I thought you said that you were Republican… NOW you reveal that you are and have been an Independent since 1988???

It looks like you stubbed your toe with those flip-flops Ranger Hazen. Good luck with your candidate.

Better to Flip Flop then to lie. Flip Flopping implies reasoning at work. Lies impliy insecurity and malice.

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

And Sir Reaper for the record if you're threatening me for so called "Slander" I will make it easy for you. I will not post here in this section. God forbid that someone tell you that Bush Cheney and the whole lot of those conniving thieving bastards are full of shit.I mean hell we all need an echo chamber of yes men... it makes us feel good for we are righteous and they are wrongus!!!! We are at War!!!! On Terror, Drugs, Crime, Poverty, The New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Lakers and we all need to toe the line. LOL

God Bless America

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

"Kalifornia Lib" LOL Someone's insecurity and frustration is showing. :D

That's it I am done here....

William Hazen

[Gypsy]

Better to Flip Flop then to lie. Flip Flopping implies reasoning at work. Lies impliy insecurity and malice.

William Hazen

Hmm. So if he says one thing one day, then another the next...he isn't lying about one?

The only thing he IS consistant with is flip flopping. Flip flopping indicates to me that he cannot decide on what side of the issue(s) he wants to be. I suppose that is because a certain percentage of those who might vote for him lean toward one side of the coin and a certain percentage on the other. Either way he goes he pisses off close to half of his "voting public." Oh what to do...what to do. Every day it is a different position for him.

If he can't take a firm position now on even any one issue, I don't see that he would do so after he might (GOD FORBID) be elected.

Just my .02

[brownapple]

Better to Flip Flop then to lie. Flip Flopping implies reasoning at work. Lies impliy insecurity and malice.

William Hazen

Isn't that exactly what you are doing regarding President Bush? Lying by selective omission and inclusion? Do you think my counter list regarding FDR is an accurate portrayal of his Presidency? You are right though, it does imply insecurity and malice.

[NousDefionsDoc]

"Kalifornia Lib" LOL Someone's insecurity and frustration is showing. :D

That's it I am done here....

William Hazen


Not at all. Unless you are talking about yourself. :D I changed it back for you.

Funny, I didn't know it was contagious...

[Razor]

Ah, the ol' 'seagull' posting technique--swoop in, squak with no real purpose, shit all over everything in sight then fly off.

[William Hazen]

Isn't that exactly what you are doing regarding President Bush? Lying by selective omission and inclusion? Do you think my counter list regarding FDR is an accurate portrayal of his Presidency? You are right though, it does imply insecurity and malice.

Absolutely not...Your so called counterlist has no comparison to Dubya. The Axis were real Allies bound by real treaties in fact Hitler declared war on the U.S. a day or so after Japan attacked and FDR asked for a declaration of war. Saddam was a secular Muslim Dictator hated by Al Qaida and I very much doubt he was plotting with old Uncle Kim in North Korea or Iran. Dubya is so stupid he took away all of Al Qwacky's training bases by invading Afganistan only to hand them a bigger larger base of operations in Iraq...But hey I'll bet your theory has some weight with survivalists and those who dwell in "Left Behind" style Apocalypse Fantasies.

Hell even Bill O'Reilly interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 minutes tonight thinks Iraq was a mistake and says he would never trust the Bush White House Again. Like I said GH you folks can blow smoke up your own asses all you want but this West Texas Emperor is buck naked and has been from the day he took office

I can hold up my hand forever if you guys still want to amuse yourselves :munchin

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

Not at all. Unless you are talking about yourself. :D I changed it back for you.

Funny, I didn't know it was contagious...

LOL good one Doc. How is retirement treating you.

[NousDefionsDoc]

LOL good one Doc. How is retirement treating you.
Wrong Doc. :D

[Sacamuelas]

Wrong Doc. :D
He is very Sneaky for a SF Dude... isn't he Ranger Hazen? :lifter :D

[William Hazen]

He is very Sneaky for a SF Dude... isn't he Ranger Hazen? :lifter :D

Oohhhhh yeeeeess beeeeeery Sneeeeeaky! LOL

William Hazen

[brownapple]

Absolutely not...Your so called counterlist has no comparison to Dubya. The Axis were real Allies bound by real treaties in fact Hitler declared war on the U.S. a day or so after Japan attacked and FDR asked for a declaration of war. Saddam was a secular Muslim Dictator hated by Al Qaida and I very much doubt he was plotting with old Uncle Kim in North Korea or Iran. Dubya is so stupid he took away all of Al Qwacky's training bases by invading Afganistan only to hand them a bigger larger base of operations in Iraq...But hey I'll bet your theory has some weight with survivalists and those who dwell in "Left Behind" style Apocalypse Fantasies.

Hell even Bill O'Reilly interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 minutes tonight thinks Iraq was a mistake and says he would never trust the Bush White House Again. Like I said GH you folks can blow smoke up your own asses all you want but this West Texas Emperor is buck naked and has been from the day he took office

I can hold up my hand forever if you guys still want to amuse yourselves :munchin

William Hazen

Haven't seen where Bill O'Reilly is a military strategist. Have you?

Now, as for my counterlist, maybe one of the lawyers can help us out.

When a cease-fire agreement exists, signed by representatives of all hostile parties, and then is broken by one of the signing nations, is that effectively a declaration of war?

Oh, as for Saddam being hated by Al Queda, I have always found it interesting that people can read others minds and tell who they hate and how much. Was Saddam hated by Al Queda as much as the United States? More than the United States? Less than the United States? Just curious, since you have this insight into the emotional status of Al Queda. Have you considered applying for a job with the State Department? I'm sure that gift would be useful in diplomatic negotiations, don't you think?

[Roguish Lawyer]

WH:

What specifically should the President have done differently, in your opinion?

[William Hazen]

WH:

What specifically should the President have done differently, in your opinion?

A reasonable question deserves a reasonable answer. When I get the chance I promise to answer this before the end of the day.

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

Haven't seen where Bill O'Reilly is a military strategist. Have you?

Now, as for my counterlist, maybe one of the lawyers can help us out.

When a cease-fire agreement exists, signed by representatives of all hostile parties, and then is broken by one of the signing nations, is that effectively a declaration of war?

Oh, as for Saddam being hated by Al Queda, I have always found it interesting that people can read others minds and tell who they hate and how much. Was Saddam hated by Al Queda as much as the United States? More than the United States? Less than the United States? Just curious, since you have this insight into the emotional status of Al Queda. Have you considered applying for a job with the State Department? I'm sure that gift would be useful in diplomatic negotiations, don't you think?

Thank you GH for your appreciation of my diplomatic skills. Al Qwacky's dislike of Saddam and all Secular Arab governements is a matter of public record. The information is out there and perhaps instead of assuming my prowess as a mind reading diplomat you can do a little fact finding yourself. :)

William Hazen

[NousDefionsDoc]

'Al Quacky'?

[Bravo1-3]

To address one point:

The 9-11 Report does not say that there was no involvment between Iraq and Al Queda. It says Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11. I will find the specific citations, but it does say that there was a relationship between the two.

"My enemies enemy is my friend" is a statement with origins in the middle east.

[brownapple]

Thank you GH for your appreciation of my diplomatic skills. Al Qwacky's dislike of Saddam and all Secular Arab governements is a matter of public record.


Actually, it's not.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I have read that bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam using mujaheddin, and that he was really pissed that the Saudis preferred Desert Shield, then Desert Storm, to a proper muslim defense. He and other Salafi jihadists want to expel all infidels from "muslim lands," impose sharia in "muslim lands," and then eventually impose sharia globally. Saddam, while possibly a temporary ally against the West, was an enemy of the Salafi jihadists just as the Egyptian government was and is.

AL and Jimbo, please correct me if I am wrong.

:munchin

[brownapple]

An enemy? The very information you just posted indicates that he was less of an enemy than the westerners who came to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait.

More importantly, is "enemy" the correct choice of words? Does it match the cultural meanings that would be attached to fellow Muslims who needed to be "brought to the light"?

I expect that making conclusions about emotional responses based on limited information and without cultural understanding and a strong knowledge of the language are foolish exercises. I have neither the language skills or the cultural knowledge for the region (or specifically for OBL) to make even a guess, but I do have enough exposure to be aware that using western cultural assumptions is a poor assumption.

[Airbornelawyer]

I have read that bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam using mujaheddin, and that he was really pissed that the Saudis preferred Desert Shield, then Desert Storm, to a proper muslim defense. He and other Salafi jihadists want to expel all infidels from "muslim lands," impose sharia in "muslim lands," and then eventually impose sharia globally. Saddam, while possibly a temporary ally against the West, was an enemy of the Salafi jihadists just as the Egyptian government was and is.

AL and Jimbo, please correct me if I am wrong.

:munchin
I used to work with the man who commanded the mujahideen contingent in Desert Storm, Gen. Yahya Nauroz. Gen. Nauroz, one of the nicest men you'll ever meet, was Chief of Army Operations before the Communist coup. A staunch royalist, Gen. Nauroz detested the Afghan Arabs and most of the Islamists among the mujahideen such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Separately, I suppose, bin Laden may have made a grand offer of support, but recent revisionism aside, bin Laden was practically a nobody in the Afghan-Soviet War. He threw money at various causes and financed documentaries glorifying the Afghan Arabs, but he had little field experience and no following in the country. After the Soviet withdrawal, as the communists retreated from more of the countryside, the Arabs tried to set up their own fiefdom in Kunar province, but enjoyed no local support.

All of that, of course, is irrelevant to whether Saddam and bin Laden would or would not have worked together, which seems to be the underlying bone of contention. Of course Bin Laden hated Saddam and Arab fascists of his ilk. My guess is he actually hated and/or feared him more than he did the Egyptian government. Mubarak and his circle have no greater goal than preserving and maintaining their own power. Saddam offered an alternative vision to Arabs, a fascism of the traditional form rooted in the concept of an Arab Volk, which directly competed with the non-ethnic vision of Islamists of all stripes.

So it would have to have been an alliance of convenience. But like the Nazi-Soviet Pact, or even the Anglo-American alliance with the Soviets, the fact that it is an alliance of convenience, a temporary expedient until the next phase of the world struggle, doesn't make it less real. And there is extensive documentation of the contacts and the offers to work together. Media and political spin to the contrary, all the 9-11 Commission ruled out was a formal operational relationship between AQ and Iraq, and prior Iraqi involvement in the planning of 9-11. And even that narrow conclusion is subject to some controversy.

And as I have noted elsewhere, one does not have to go back to the Second World War to see an example of these alliances of convenience. The argument, such that it is, was that a secular Ba'athist regime like Saddam's and Islamist radicals like Bin Laden's al-Qa'ida would never work together. Yet close by in the Middle East we have (and have had for more than two decades now) a strong "alliance of convenience" between... a secular Ba'athist regime (Syria) and Islamist radicals (Iran and the Iranian terrorist proxy in Lebanon, Hizbullah). Syria and Iran had common enemies - Iraq and Israel - and consequently found common cause. Similarly, Iraq and al-Qa'ida had common enemies - the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies.

Syria's Ba'athists and Iran's Shi'ite Islamists have little to no problems working together, despite religious/ideological differences. And with Syria, you have an even greater complication. Syria's Ba'athist Party is nominally secular, but its base of power is among the Alawite sect. Alawis are a highly secretive offshoot from Sevener Shi'ites. Like another Sevener offshoot, the Druze of Lebanon, they are considered heretics or apostates by many Muslims, Sunni and Twelver Shi'ite alike (of course, many Sunnis consider all Shi'ites heretical). To the extent the Twelver Shi'ite Islamists of the Iranian Revolution and Hizbullah consider the Syria rulers to be religious at all, they consider them to be worse than Christians and Jews. Not accepting Muhammad's prophecy is far less of a crime than turning away from it (Iran's Baha'is have also learned this lesson to their detriment). Yet they hold their noses and work together.

As for al-Qa'ida's willingness to find common cause with Saddam's regime, another factor to remember is that in the wake of DS/DS, Saddam explicitly moved toward Islamism. Most gave it little credibility, since it involved mainly token gestures like putting "Allahu Akbar" on the Iraqi flag and having a Qur'an written in his own blood, but it did also involve material support to Hamas and other Islamist terrorists, as well as rallying his own Saddam Fedayeen with Islamist propaganda. Certainly, bin Laden wouldn't have believed Saddam had a road-to-Damascus conversion, but he would have welcomed Saddam's help - inadvertent as well as advertent - to his own interests.

To say Iraq and al-Qa'ida did not work together is to deny a mound of evidence of cooperation of varying degrees. To say Iraq and al-Qa'ida would not work together is to defy logic.

PS: all of this is for the most part irrelevant to Iraq's place in the Global War on Terror. Even had Saddam and al-Qa'ida actively worked against each other or had no record of cooperation, it wouldn't make a difference regarding the terrorist leg of our casus belli against the Iraqi regime. The GWOT is not an act of revenge for 9-11, such that the only legitimate targets are al-Qa'ida and anyone conspiring with them. The events of that September morning three years ago awakened us to a threat that we no longer had the luxury to avoid dealing with. The lesson of 9-11 was that we cannot wait for the terrorist threat to become imminent, because by then it may be too late. Saddam's terrorism and support for terrorism are well-documented; even had he no direct connection to al-Qa'ida, his own terrorist history and connections, and his possession of far worse destructive capabilities than al-Qa'ida, made him an intolerable threat.

[Roguish Lawyer]

An enemy? The very information you just posted indicates that he was less of an enemy than the westerners who came to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait.

More importantly, is "enemy" the correct choice of words? Does it match the cultural meanings that would be attached to fellow Muslims who needed to be "brought to the light"?

I expect that making conclusions about emotional responses based on limited information and without cultural understanding and a strong knowledge of the language are foolish exercises. I have neither the language skills or the cultural knowledge for the region (or specifically for OBL) to make even a guess, but I do have enough exposure to be aware that using western cultural assumptions is a poor assumption.

I don't know if "enemy" is the right choice of words or not, but I don't think it really matters. The point is simply that bin Laden and other Salafi jihadists want fundamentalist regimes throughout the Middle East, and they want those regimes to replace secular regimes like those in Egypt. Recall that al Zawahiri and other key players in al Qaeda came from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which sought to destroy the regime in Egypt.

All of this being said, the fact that al Qaeda and Saddam were opposed to one another in various respects does not mean they did not share a hatred for the United States, or that they would not work together towards common goals. It seems to me that "enemies" (or whatever other term you want to use) quite often work together when it is in their interest to do so, so the existence of tension between Saddam and al Qaeda does not -- at least in isolation -- mean that one cannot justify the invasion of Iraq.

The sources for what I posted above are various books written by individuals who speak Arabic and study the culture of the region. Some of the books were recommended by individuals who post here and who I have come to respect. The best one is Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman.

Edited to add:

Well, I see that while I was taking forever to type this, AL posted a more eloquent version of my second paragraph. Nice work, AL, as always. :)

[echoes]

Thank you GH for your appreciation of my diplomatic skills. Al Qwacky's dislike of Saddam and all Secular Arab governements is a matter of public record. The information is out there and perhaps instead of assuming my prowess as a mind reading diplomat you can do a little fact finding yourself. :)

William Hazen

Sir, if you say you can read minds, I believe you. :)

and..."Al Quacky"...classic, even though I have no clue!

Holly

[William Hazen]

I don't know if "enemy" is the right choice of words or not, but I don't think it really matters. The point is simply that bin Laden and other Salafi jihadists want fundamentalist regimes throughout the Middle East, and they want those regimes to replace secular regimes like those in Egypt. Recall that al Zawahiri and other key players in al Qaeda came from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which sought to destroy the regime in Egypt.

All of this being said, the fact that al Qaeda and Saddam were opposed to one another in various respects does not mean they did not share a hatred for the United States, or that they would not work together towards common goals. It seems to me that "enemies" (or whatever other term you want to use) quite often work together when it is in their interest to do so, so the existence of tension between Saddam and al Qaeda does not -- at least in isolation -- mean that one cannot justify the invasion of Iraq.

The sources for what I posted above are various books written by individuals who speak Arabic and study the culture of the region. Some of the books were recommended by individuals who post here and who I have come to respect. The best one is Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman.

Edited to add:

Well, I see that while I was taking forever to type this, AL posted a more eloquent version of my second paragraph. Nice work, AL, as always. :)

The correct answer is they DID NOT. Even Cheny flip flops on the issue stating at various times that they "worked together" to "they had a relationship." A central tenet of Republican Political Stratagy in this election is to link the invasion of Iraq with the GWOT. If in the public's mind ( or so the pundit theory goes) Kerry can separate the two it may be to his adavantage as Bush wins hands down when it comes to handling the War of Terror but that is definately NOT the case with his handling of the war in Iraq and most of the major polls seem to infer this.

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

RL I do not forget that I owe you a post. As for Al Qwacky well thats my play on words since they are a bunch of fucking religeous nuts and deserve to burn in hell for enternity courtesy of the Free World. I thought it would be an appropritate description and I have been calling them that since this whole thing started. :)

William Hazen

[Roguish Lawyer]

RL I do not forget that I owe you a post.

Good, because you do! LOL

[brownapple]

The correct answer is they DID NOT.


You know Bill, it is amazing how you have this insight into exactly what Saddam Hussein and Al Queda have done and haven't done. Heck, it sounds like you know what they did better than they did... or at least at the same level of knowledge as the very top people in their organization. I am curious as to how you come to these "carved in stone" answers?

[William Hazen]

You know Bill, it is amazing how you have this insight into exactly what Saddam Hussein and Al Queda have done and haven't done. Heck, it sounds like you know what they did better than they did... or at least at the same level of knowledge as the very top people in their organization. I am curious as to how you come to these "carved in stone" answers?

GH you escape me. I have the same information that you have availible to me and I read all of it. That and at little common sense seem to work just fine. There is no concrete evidence NONE ZERO NADA that Saddam and Al Qwacky ever worked together other then perhaps this disinforamtion that the U.S. Intelligence service bought hook line and sinker from Ahmed Chalalbi.

William Hazen

[Sacamuelas]

This statement comes from the 1998 federal indictment of Usama bin Laden, prepared by the Clinton administration's Justice Department in conjunction with the State Department.

"In addition, Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

No factual link between Iraq and al qaeda??? THIS is all a Republican conspiracy to you??? :rolleyes:

[William Hazen]

This statement comes from the 1998 federal indictment of Usama bin Laden, prepared by the Clinton administration's Justice Department in conjunction with the State Department.

"In addition, Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

No factual link between Iraq and al qaeda??? THIS is all a Republican conspiracy to you??? :rolleyes:

Have you actually read the posts here before you replied? Your dates and times don't quite jibe...

A. The indictment was published in 1998.
B. Where is the documentation that supports the statement?
C. When did we invade Iraq?
D. At the time we invaded Iraq was there hard current intelligence that there was an agreement between OBL & Hussian or any kind of working relationship? I heard there are claims of intelligence again provided by Chalabi but that information has since been discredited.

Based on your logic when are we going to attack Japan? You know they might be planning something....and then there's that Gulf of Tonkien Incident...but that guy was a Democrat so there goes your conspiracy theory. You know.... People who have a different/opposite point of view might just be citizens with a right to disagree.

So any one here who posts a opposing point of view is a Conspirecy Theorist, Crazy, A wacked out liberal from Kalifornia? It makes me thank God my father raised me the way he did....

I hope you don't get frustrated with the fact that is possible to disagree and have a civil discussion at the same time.

William Hazen

[Sacamuelas]

Nothing taken personally on my side.

I am not going to keep going in circles with you though.

Good luck, liar, flip flopper and Kalifornian Lib :p ;) :lifter HAHA

[brownapple]

at little common sense

Common sense isn't common. As you are illustrating. Sounds to me like you are choosing the answers you want.

Regarding "hard" intelligence... most intelligence is probabilities, as I am sure you are aware. Not definite answers at all...but somehow you are able to come up with definite answers.

Would you have been calling for "hard" intelligence to show the existence of concentration camps in 1943? There was none at that time. Didn't mean they didn't exist.

[Roguish Lawyer]

WH:

I am still waiting for that reply you promised.

:munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

Here ya go (http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3)

No reading required.

[William Hazen]

Here ya go (http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3)

No reading required.

Nor explaination need. These intelligence sources were none other than Ahmed Chalabi and his operatives. How about looking deeper into Radio America's Website AFTER the invasion. Some interesting stuff there.

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

WH:

I am still waiting for that reply you promised.

:munchin

Well I am going to reply after the first debate but other than that my response is an obvious one. I would not have invaded Iraq. I am giving some thought to what I would have done differently and I will share it with you here by the weekend. I want to hear what both of them have to say first.

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

Common sense isn't common. As you are illustrating. Sounds to me like you are choosing the answers you want.

Regarding "hard" intelligence... most intelligence is probabilities, as I am sure you are aware. Not definite answers at all...but somehow you are able to come up with definite answers.

Would you have been calling for "hard" intelligence to show the existence of concentration camps in 1943? There was none at that time. Didn't mean they didn't exist.

Man you continue to crack me up. Raw Intelligence is probabilities true and there was an admitted Intelligence failure in both 9/11 and Iraq. In 1943 there was definately hard intelligence that concentration camps exsisted your continued attempts to use WWII anologies does not fit. But hey that's just my interpretation of your intelligence :D

William Hazen

Some of you just don't get it.... I am just as "right" as you are LOL

My hand is very amused. :)

[brownapple]

In 1943 there was definately hard intelligence that concentration camps exsisted


Bill, you really need to find some decent history to read.

No, there was not. There were lots of rumors, some claims by refugees, but NO HARD INTELLIGENCE. Not one bit of it.

Of course, the more amusing thing is that you believe that whether Iraq and Al Queda were working together is of any consequence.

A few things for you to consider:

1. Saddam Hussein founded and supported terrorist groups.

2. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the United States had no viable base of operations in the Middle East.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Nor explaination need. These intelligence sources were none other than Ahmed Chalabi and his operatives. How about looking deeper into Radio America's Website AFTER the invasion. Some interesting stuff there.

William Hazen


Was OIF initiated based on intelligence available before it was initiated or after? If you are sayinmg what I think you are saying, thjis may be the most incredible thing I have ever seen. Are you actually trying to use post operation intelligence to criticize pre-operation actions? Is that how they taught you to hotwash? Would you appreciate being critiqued by those standards?

You are regurgitating lib talking points straight off the memo. Are you saying that nothing has been found post operation that validates what was said prior?

[William Hazen]

Was OIF initiated based on intelligence available before it was initiated or after? If you are sayinmg what I think you are saying, thjis may be the most incredible thing I have ever seen. Are you actually trying to use post operation intelligence to criticize pre-operation actions? Is that how they taught you to hotwash? Would you appreciate being critiqued by those standards?

You are regurgitating lib talking points straight off the memo. Are you saying that nothing has been found post operation that validates what was said prior?

There were plenty of folks who insisted that the intell coming out of Iraq was dubious at best. What lib talking points are you reffering to? That's your only defense forget the facts or logic just call me a liberal and that will make it all right. LOL

[William Hazen]

Bill, you really need to find some decent history to read.

No, there was not. There were lots of rumors, some claims by refugees, but NO HARD INTELLIGENCE. Not one bit of it.

Of course, the more amusing thing is that you believe that whether Iraq and Al Queda were working together is of any consequence.

A few things for you to consider:

1. Saddam Hussein founded and supported terrorist groups.

2. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the United States had no viable base of operations in the Middle East.

Ya got me. :rolleyes: Just those two points alone are justification for duping the American public into invading Iraq. LOL

William Hazen

[brownapple]

Ya got me. :rolleyes: Just those two points alone are justification for duping the American public into invading Iraq. LOL

William Hazen

Interesting choice of language. Taking lessons from "Pravda"?

[NousDefionsDoc]

There were plenty of folks who insisted that the intell coming out of Iraq was dubious at best. What lib talking points are you reffering to? That's your only defense forget the facts or logic just call me a liberal and that will make it all right. LOL

All intel is dubious at best unless it comes from your own sources. And even then it is subject to interpretation, POV, political bias, etc. What's your point? That we should be 100% certain of all the facts before we launch?

It would seem to me that you are attempting to use hindsight to qualify actions taken at the time. This is one of the pitfalls historians are both most warned against and most guilty of. In order to judge whether the decision, any decision was the approrpriate one - you must attempt to only factor in what was known at the time by those making the decision. How was the intel coming out of Nazi Germany in 1940? How was the intel coming out of Japan in 1942? Have a lot of our own agents in there did we?

Here's an example:
Was Al-Zawahiri not known to be a senior AQ operative? Did he not go to Iraq and have his leg amputated? Was he not there at the leisre and under the protection of the SH regime? Was SH not a complete dictator? Therefore is it unreasonable to estimate that SH knew of and ordered this protection? And since AZ was senior, is it further reasonable to estimate that AQ was receiving assistance from SH? In fact, does this not qualify as SH assistance for AQ?

Now, let's say that AZ is wounded in Afghanistan. Then we learn that he had his leg amputated in Canada under the free health care system. Would it not be reasonable to estimate that the Canadian government knew and aided him?

What I see is that there a lot of people insisting now that the intelligence coming out of Iraq was dubious at best. Not then. All you have to do is read what the left was saying about Iraq at the time. They saw the intelligence and read the same qualifiers as everyone else. Would you like me to post the comments made by Kerry, Shrillary Clinton, etc.? Seems like a waste of bandwidth, but I will if you would like me to.

[William Hazen]

Interesting choice of language. Taking lessons from "Pravda"?

Wow that Thai Stick you're smoking must be pretty good ...the hand is amused :munchin

William Hazen

I know I know you have to smoke Thai Stick in order to deal with all the non-Birch Society emembers in this world.

Gosh how far do you think this thread will go with you talking to my hand and your fey attempts at insult GH??? Till that weed runs out or what...

You're not hoping the coming Rapture is going to bail you out are you? LOL

[William Hazen]

All intel is dubious at best unless it comes from your own sources. And even then it is subject to interpretation, POV, political bias, etc. What's your point? That we should be 100% certain of all the facts before we launch?

It would seem to me that you are attempting to use hindsight to qualify actions taken at the time. This is one of the pitfalls historians are both most warned against and most guilty of. In order to judge whether the decision, any decision was the approrpriate one - you must attempt to only factor in what was known at the time by those making the decision. How was the intel coming out of Nazi Germany in 1940? How was the intel coming out of Japan in 1942? Have a lot of our own agents in there did we?

Here's an example:
Was Al-Zawahiri not known to be a senior AQ operative? Did he not go to Iraq and have his leg amputated? Was he not there at the leisre and under the protection of the SH regime? Was SH not a complete dictator? Therefore is it unreasonable to estimate that SH knew of and ordered this protection? And since AZ was senior, is it further reasonable to estimate that AQ was receiving assistance from SH? In fact, does this not qualify as SH assistance for AQ?

Now, let's say that AZ is wounded in Afghanistan. Then we learn that he had his leg amputated in Canada under the free health care system. Would it not be reasonable to estimate that the Canadian government knew and aided him?

What I see is that there a lot of people insisting now that the intelligence coming out of Iraq was dubious at best. Not then. All you have to do is read what the left was saying about Iraq at the time. They saw the intelligence and read the same qualifiers as everyone else. Would you like me to post the comments made by Kerry, Shrillary Clinton, etc.? Seems like a waste of bandwidth, but I will if you would like me to.

It may seem I am using hindsight and I do agree about the nature of the intelligence but there was plenty of official doubt in both NIE's givin to Bush BEFORE the War. In fact Cheny circumvented all the official intelligence channels by creating his own little Intel Office within D.O.D. to counteract these doubts and to spin up the WMD and Al Qwacky info to Bush. One thing I will give Bush is that he acted faithfully on the information he was givin and that is the danger of living inside the echo-chamber of yes men. All of this is a matter of public record and the info came from within Bush's own adminstration. But of course all those folks for expressing thier doubts became persona-non-grata inside the administration and when they went public they were subject to personal attacks (hmmmmmmmmm I sense a kind of weird deja-vu LOL) So if you're going to post comments so could try to be objective about and include Bill Richardson & Richard Clarke and Colin Powell and George W Bush himself as he was quoted in Farenheit 9/11. LOL

William Hazen

Here we are 100 billion dollars later with thousands of lives affected and the last 12 months saw more Terrorist Attacks around the world than the previous Ten Years combined and I am told daily that I am not safe So I ask you...Is the country going in the right direction?

I can hear it now...Well in the short term we've (insert terrorist body count here) but over the long haul we will prevail blah blah blah blah

I can also hear (especially here) Hazen you Traitor, Coward, Commie, Kook blah blah blah all because I choose not to be in lock step with the party line.

Folks we are going to be cleaning up this mess that Bush & Co started for 10 fucking years at least with no clear victory at the end of it.

I guess no one will hang out with me after I've said this but you know what ...you don't like it...Then move to another country. Let's see what happens at the debates.

William Hazen

[NousDefionsDoc]

Stop playing the martyr, it doesn't suit you.

You say all this is a matter of public record, I disagree. You quote NIEs as if you have access to all of it, you don't. You and they are citing partial sources, because most of this information is classified. You and they are judging the administration by thinking you know what they know and have access to what they have - you don't.

Yes, there were concerns expressed, as there should be. That is what makes us good, we argue.


in Farenheit 9/11. LOL
At last it comes out. Excellent. Next time just say up front "I think Michael Moore makes documentaries." and save me the effort.

Do have a very SF Day. :)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Connect Dots (http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html)

[William Hazen]

Stop playing the martyr, it doesn't suit you.

You say all this is a matter of public record, I disagree. You quote NIEs as if you have access to all of it, you don't. You and they are citing partial sources, because most of this information is classified. You and they are judging the administration by thinking you know what they know and have access to what they have - you don't.

Yes, there were concerns expressed, as there should be. That is what makes us good, we argue.



At last it comes out. Excellent. Next time just say up front "I think Michael Moore makes documentaries." and save me the effort.

Do have a very SF Day. :)

Gosh I guess you must know something I don't .... LOL and who are they??? And you are judging the administration as though you have the very same access you tell me I don't have. LOL Micheal Moore made a propaganda piece and like all good propaganda pieces there was more than a grain of truth to it and no different than the swift boat ads. But of course the swift boats have your approval while anything that opposes your point of view is obviously misinformation.

Denile is not a river in Egypt

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

Connect Dots (http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html)

Yawn..... More like Connect the Dunces...Like I have said...Not substanciated link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussian existed showing them to be working together against the United States unless using your logic we should show the Taliban visiting Texa's and being praised by Dubya while he was Govna of Texas hmmmmmm Dubya and The Taliban working together.....

You might want to check your sources as Steve Emerson is dubious at best along with most of the web sites mentioned as sources in the articles.



William Hazen

[William Hazen]

Here Doc this might help... a recent news article from two very obscure sources

MSNBC and The 9/11 Commission

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

And another obscure source (note the date.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

William Hazen

By the way Doc... My cousin Steven Genovese died that day at the WTC. He and his entire company Cantor-Fitzgerald were wiped out. He left behind a wife and two children and you can bet damn well that I read every word in that report and watched every minute of public testimony. So you might not want to try and pass me off as some cry baby liberal.

[brownapple]

Why don't you use the report itself, Bill? Because that isn't what it says. And I doubt very much that you followed every minute of the hearings, since some were classified.

But let's even say you are right, and there is no connection to Al Queda. Never was one claimed. There was a connection to terrorism claimed.

Are you going to claim that Saddam Hussein had no connections to terrorist groups?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Shrillary

LMAO

I like it.

[William Hazen]

Why don't you use the report itself, Bill? Because that isn't what it says. And I doubt very much that you followed every minute of the hearings, since some were classified.

But let's even say you are right, and there is no connection to Al Queda. Never was one claimed. There was a connection to terrorism claimed.

Are you going to claim that Saddam Hussein had no connections to terrorist groups?

You are so desperate to win a point..Of course he had a connection to terrorists he also shook the hand of Donald Rumsfeld during the 80's when WE supported him against Iran. Did he actively or covertly plot to attack the United States in cooperation with Al Qwacky? NO! Was he a bad guy? Yes! To the ends justify the means??? That is Bushes explaination as it was Johnson's at the Gulf of Tonkien. Presidents lie to the American Public Republican and Democrat...I don't like it because they don't directly pay for those lies but our sons and daughters sure do!

Some guy in a Neocon think tank comes up with the idea we should "drain the swamp" by invading Iraq under the guise of The Great War on Terror because as everyone knows Democracy always comes at the point of a gun right? Yet BEFORE the War Iran seemed headed towards Democracy and Liberalization. Bush had a road map for Peace in the Middle East and he was putting pressure on Sharon and Arafat to come to terms. Oh but we did get Qwackdaffy back in the fold since he lost the lawsuit over flight 9whatever and he needs the money. We bombed him once too...

Meanwhile some dupes here buy the Swift Boat ads hook line and sinker as gospel but when Micheal Moore spews stuff.... look out the liberal media consipricy! Like a Great person once said..."The first casualty of war is truth." And most men are little boys stuck in thier cowboy and indian world. You'in is wid us or You'in agaaaainst us....I am so happy Bush is getting the on the job training he needs to figure this out. Hey everyone I LOVE Cowboys and Indians! I am from (moved to) Texas!

William Hazen

[Roguish Lawyer]

Wow that Thai Stick you're smoking must be pretty good ...the hand is amused :munchin

William Hazen

I know I know you have to smoke Thai Stick in order to deal with all the non-Birch Society emembers in this world.

Gosh how far do you think this thread will go with you talking to my hand and your fey attempts at insult GH??? Till that weed runs out or what...

You're not hoping the coming Rapture is going to bail you out are you? LOL

Mr. Hazen:

You are entitled to your opinions, and a little rhetoric here and there is acceptable, but you are dancing dangerously close to -- if not crossing -- the line between discussion and personal attacks. Please do not cross that line if you wish to continue to post here.

Thank you, and I am still waiting for your promised response to my question.

[William Hazen]

Mr. Hazen:

You are entitled to your opinions, and a little rhetoric here and there is acceptable, but you are dancing dangerously close to -- if not crossing -- the line between discussion and personal attacks. Please do not cross that line if you wish to continue to post here.

Thank you, and I am still waiting for your promised response to my question.

Understood. When someone slanders me as a liberal or hints that I am communist I guess I can get a little personal. Actually I have already answered the question in my previous posts.

To Summerize If were Bush in 2002 I would have
1. Finished OEF
2. Do not invade Iraq
3.Support the liberilization of democracy in Iran and the moderate Mullahs
4. Pursue the already established road map to peace in the middle east
5.Secure our borders and points of entry.
6.Hold the intelligence and Federal LE accountable for 9/11 by supporting the reforms.
7.Focus on the economy and my record there as a manager

William Hazen

[BamBam]

Jesus Christ sounds like a few people got thier feathers ruffled. Just being an ol country boy from the great State, Texas I don't care if you're not smart enough to vote for GW, or that you favor someone I consider a traitor, or you might even want to waste your vote and select Nader, hell, thats what makes this country great, you have a choice. You have the right to screw that choice up. You just shouldn't take all this politcal BS so personal. However it is quite amusing to read.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Understood. When someone slanders me as a liberal or hints that I am communist I guess I can get a little personal. Actually I have already answered the question in my previous posts.

To Summerize If were Bush in 2002 I would have
1. Finished OEF
2. Do not invade Iraq
3.Support the liberilization of democracy in Iran and the moderate Mullahs
4. Pursue the already established road map to peace in the middle east
5.Secure our borders and points of entry.
6.Hold the intelligence and Federal LE accountable for 9/11 by supporting the reforms.
7.Focus on the economy and my record there as a manager

William Hazen
1. Finished it? What do you mean finished it?
2. Why not?
3. How? There is no such thing as a moderate mullah.
4. It is being pursued, as much as it can be. I thought the roadmap pertained to Israel?
5. Ridiculous. How many 9-11 terrorists crossed over the border illegally? We weren't attacked by mexicans or Canadians.
6. I believe that is being done. To simply blanket implement the recommendations of one committee is a knee jerk reaction. Is that what you are advocating?
7. How much impact/responsibility does the POTUS have on the US economy? Other than taxes, I don't see it.

[Guy]

ROTFLMMFAO! :D

This is one of those...

"Awe fuck it! You ain't changing me and, I ain't changing you scenarios."

or...

"Ya'll can figure that shit-out in the office...meanwhiles...these SOB's are try to kill me."

or...

"MOTHERFUCKME...that shit was entirely too close."

or...

"This ain't got shit to do with politics...fuckit were here and I'm trying to get home."

or...

"Aww fuck no...not fuckin again"?

or...

"If Kerry gets elected...I'm not leaving the country again...ya'll can kiss my ass."

or...

"Doc you ready? Like I have a fuckin choice...Jesus here we go again."

LMMFAO! :D

[BamBam]

Guy, I bet my dog can whip your dog

[Team Sergeant]

Wow that Thai Stick you're smoking must be pretty good ...the hand is amused :munchin

William Hazen



Hazen,

This is your last warning. You know who I am and you know I don't take this sort of crap from anyone.

Get personal again and I will ban you. Clear enough for you?

TS

[Guy]

Guy, I bet my dog can whip your dog

Hell...My toy poodle is meaner than my minature schnauzer. :confused: The toy poodle attacks a rottweiler...need I explain who won. :rolleyes:

Now my cat is a different story, that SOB is retarded! I put on flight gloves and long sleeve shirts when I mess with him and neither dog messes w/him.

[BamBam]

Hell I think the mini pen can out run all of them, cause that what he does best when it comes fighting, unless you mess with the grandson, then it's a different story.

[Guy]

Hell I think the mini pen can out run all of them, cause that what he does best when it comes fighting, unless you mess with the grandson, then it's a different story.

Those little dogs are wierd...highly protective. My toy poodle(female) has this, "I'm here to protect you persona."

[William Hazen]

Hazen,

This is your last warning. You know who I am and you know I don't take this sort of crap from anyone.

Get personal again and I will ban you. Clear enough for you?

TS

OK, I'm a dickhead ban me.

William Hazen

[brownapple]

Understood. When someone slanders me as a liberal or hints that I am communist I guess I can get a little personal. Actually I have already answered the question in my previous posts.

To Summerize If were Bush in 2002 I would have
1. Finished OEF

Finished it how?

2. Do not invade Iraq

OK...

3.Support the liberilization of democracy in Iran and the moderate Mullahs

How do you do that without Iraq?

4. Pursue the already established road map to peace in the middle east

Worked really well for President Clinton, didn't it? Of course, the dead at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, in a field in Pennsylvania, etc. might disagree...

5.Secure our borders and points of entry.

East Germany was never able to secure their borders. South Korea has never been able to secure her borders, even with US assistance. What makes you think that the United States can "secure" our borders?

6.Hold the intelligence and Federal LE accountable for 9/11 by supporting the reforms.

Accountable? Did an intelligence agency attack the WTC? Did a Law Enforcement agency? Exactly what are you holding them accountable for?

7.Focus on the economy and my record there as a manager

Hmmmm....another FDR perhaps?

[Guy]

OK, I'm a dickhead ban me.

William Hazen

Bill,

You were out of line with that comment to GH...need I say more?

[Team Sergeant]

Bill,

You were out of line with that comment to GH...need I say more?

I agree Guy.

This thread is closed. Someone can start another and leave out the personal attacks.

Team Sergeant