Surprise, Surprise, Calling for a Democrat to resign from the biast left side of the 9-11 commission. The witch hunt starting to back fire on them! The Dems are the biggest hypocrites in the world with whats been going on, blaming Bush for not preventing 9-11 and then lining up Rumsfield in front of a firing squad and pull the trigger. The left has reached a new low in more than 1 way! Link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117103,00.html Your skeletons will come to the surface sooner or later and here it comes quote: During Tuesday's proceedings, Attorney General John Ashcroft (search) pointed out that a 1995 memo written by Gorelick during her tenure as a second in command at the Justice Department helped build the "walls" that, according to Ashcroft's testimony, prevented the FBI from being able to effectively communicate and go after terrorists.
Well, I'm not a Democrat and won't try to justify any of their statements. But lies and evasive answers are are being spread about by both parties. Last year, Republican President George Bush told the American people that "We know Saddam has weapons of mass distruction" and Republican Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld added "And we know where they are!" We believed it and went to war, but both statements were lies. Last night, Republican President George Bush, regarding the August 6th report, refused to characterise it as a warning that Al Quaida might strike, stating that it was mainly history about the 1997-99 attacks overseas. Well, we can't look at the report because it is still classified by the administration. Good thing he wasn't testifying under oath. Last week Condoleeza Rice unexpectedly testified to the 9/11 commission that the classified title of the report was "Osama Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Within the United States". I assume its contents didn't deviate too much from the topic. Did he lie?
Are you saying that because of the title of the pdb means 9-11 could've been prevented? I see on the news that 9-11 people are now starting to stand up for Rice and the Bush administration compared to the ones the dems are courting. I don't understand how you can prevent something from happening when you don't know any details like time and place.
Every other major world leader and intelligence agency believed the exact same thing about Saddam Hussein and his weapons. Were they all lying Red? You cannot say Bush and Rumsfeld knew what everyone else did not know and lied about it without some other form of corroborating evidence. That's a pretty harsh accusation, and I assume you have something else with which to back it up. Now maybe Rumsfeld went out on a limb saying that we knew where they were. Maybe he thought that we knew where they were. Maybe Hussein was bluffing us these last few years. It was a pretty good bluff, since every intelligence agency in the world believed right up until the war that he had something.
No, I don't think 9/11 was absolutely preventable. But I am disturbed by how much intelligence the FBI and CIA had before 9/11 (flight schools, student visas, covert warnings of "something very big"). The August 6th report should have made the administration stop and put all of the pieces together. Then with a great deal of luck there might have been an outside chance to roll up the cell before 9/11. This was exactly how the Millenium bombings were thwarted -- smart counter-terrorism planning and pure luck. Well, no WMD's have been found. Administration and independent sources have documented this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1054339,00.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-30-weapons_x.htm The administration stood up there and said "we know they have them and we know where they are." In fact, they did not and they knew not. They took us for chumps. Even Bill O'Reilly stated last year that if no WMD's were found in Iraq, he would never believe this administration again. I'm with Bill on this one. Either: 1. They lied 2. They were gullible (their own intelligence people lied to them) or . . . 3. They were foolish (they didn't know what they were talking about) I do not think Bush and Rumsfeld are gullible fools. But I don't trust these guys. I think they lied.
I've said it once, and I will say it again. I don't give a **** whether there were WMD's there or not. People like to rely on that as a crutch to oppose the war, while they forget how many other great things have happened for the Iraqis. People think too much in the short term and see the deaths over the weekend as the apocalypse. You have to look to the long term and see the positive things that are going to happen for these people. Yeah, we didn't find WMD's. But the fact of the matter is that Saddam has had them before and had the mindset to have them again. Anyone else remember the chemical scare in New York and other big cities when Saddam "supposedly" had the capabilities to release chemical weapons? Did he? No. Could he have? Possibly? I don't care what he did or if he did, I think he was ruthless and had the capabilities to do something horrific one day....That's justification for this war enough....
I hate to jump in on this, but that is not justification for war. If so we would be at war with North Korea, Cuba, maybe even the Sudan (where the atrocities that have been occurring for over 20 years there makes Saddam's reign look like Sesame Street). I am a democrat, but I supported the war at first because I believed what the President said about WMD's. Now I think Bush purposely mislead the American people, and now we seem to be in a war that from a military perspective we may be winning, but from a PR perspective we seem to be losing. We don't seem to have a plan for Iraq, we don't seem to be able to secure the country, and now we can't leave. I'm too young to make a comparison to Vietnam and right now the situations are not even nearly the same, but if things in Iraq continue the way they are now, eventually Americans will turn against Bush. I do think Bush will win in November, but I hope his administration comes up with a better plan to deal with Iraq.
Freddy, I will agree with you that we needed a better plan in Iraq especially now with the foreigners coming into the country to stir up more trouble. However, Other countries making Saddams reign look like Sesame Street? I would say Hitler treated his own people better than Saddam treated his. Then, Bush purposely mislead the American people? There is no doubt that it was known by the UN, Clinton Admin and the Bush Admin as well that there were WMD's in Iraq. People don't hide things if there isn't anything to hide, that doesn't make sense. Its funny how all these people are saying there is no WMD's in Iraq. I hope there found 1 day or traced to Iran, Syria then all the real fools can realize how wrong they were. The bottomline for me is everyone that is against the war in Iraq always brings up the WMD issue but don't touch the terrorist issue we found there. I know you don't think we're safer now but I think we are because a "Hitler" is gone.
Once again, to all the people who think Pres. Bush lied to the the American people about WMD, I'll ask the simple question: Why would the man lie about WMD, and then NOT plant WMD in Iraq to cover his ass? Cops plant weapons on suspects all the time and keep it quiet...why would you think Pres. Bush would have a more difficult time planting weapons and keeping it quiet than the average street cop would? Believe it or not, you'd probably actually have more cause to be suspicious of a con job if they HAD found WMD.
Rollin' on the floor, laughing my ass off. Let me get this straight. You object that some people could distrust George Bush and think he has lied. Yet, you feel him perfectly capable of malfeasnace, deceit, international crime, and reprehensible morality by "planting WMD in Iraq to cover his ass!" That's your defense of Bush's trustworthyness? I rest my case, mon ami.
