"Clear and present danger" covers a lot of ground. Tripoli, anyone?
As for hating America, as long as Amercia exports everything from pork rinds to child pornography, these types will have all the excuse they need to bleed, burn, and kill.
Scott, some of the world's worst war criminals from Nazi Germany WW2 were tried in the Nuremburg war crimes court, with very public hearings and civilized procedure. We can either deal with bad guys in a fashion that defits a civil society, or we can descend to their level.
You say this is war: well there are international protocols that the United States is a signatory to, that cover war. What do *you* recommend that is so different?
If you want to set up a special court system where by evidence that has been collected in a war zone can be presented and the intelligence services can present evidence in a way that doesn't compromise the job they need to do then fine. I'm all for it. But that's not the civilian court system.
Maybe the FBI should get a warrant before they search that compound in Pakistan. Otherwise the evidence gathered there wont be admitted into the future trial.
Did they have a warrant for all those caves?
Is it true that I'm not supposed to call scott a troll?
You really think it is beneficial to call any human evil?
Yes I do. It cuts thought all the nuanced crap people try to thrust into very simple matters. The people that hit a civilian target that collapsed 220 floors and killed 3000 people are evil.
Yes I do. It cuts thought all the nuanced crap people try to thrust into very simple matters. The people that hit a civilian target that collapsed 220 floors and killed 3000 people are evil.
Here, here.
There is no understanding a person that targets children and wives and fathers and innocent people just doing what humans do. They are cowards. If they were so noble and good, why do they not target military targets. There are plenty to choose from.
They can't win if they do, that's why. It is far easier to kill a bunch of working stiffs, unarmed and unsuspecting. Children walking to the store, mothers carrying their babies, fathers picking up something on their way home to the wife. Tellers, cleaners, drivers, you name it. Hell over there they could easily be killing one of their own reletives.
Tell me, why would you possably want to waste your time trying to understand that? And if you do will it stop them from killing anyone you love, if they decide to put their target on them?
Yes I do. It cuts thought all the nuanced crap people try to thrust into very simple matters. The people that hit a civilian target that collapsed 220 floors and killed 3000 people are evil.
Hear, hear from me too. Now lets find out exactly who was responsible for organizing and financing that operation, and find out how and why such a breach of national security happened, while standing down, or ignoring all of the standard military procedures in place for such an emergency. It is absolutely outrageous that firstly, no heads have rolled re. 9-11, and secondly, how the Bush Administration has balked and balked and balked and continues to balk about an independent investigation into 9-11.
There is no understanding a person that targets children and wives and fathers and innocent people just doing what humans do. They are cowards. If they were so noble and good, why do they not target military targets. There are plenty to choose from.
They can't win if they do, that's why. It is far easier to kill a bunch of working stiffs, unarmed and unsuspecting. Children walking to the store, mothers carrying their babies, fathers picking up something on their way home to the wife. Tellers, cleaners, drivers, you name it. Hell over there they could easily be killing one of their own reletives.
Tell me, why would you possably want to waste your time trying to understand that? And if you do will it stop them from killing anyone you love, if they decide to put their target on them?
Do those ten thousand + civilians in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities who have been killed as a result of Mr. Bush ordering high explosives to rain from the skies onto their homes and subdivisions count? They were mums, and dads, and kids, and brothers and sisters, and cousins, and aunts and uncles and wives, and boyfriends and girlfriends, just like we here. Now they are dead, for what? They had nothing to do with 9-11, or any act of terrorism against America, or anywhere else, for that matter. Those civilians killed in Iraq just had the misfortune to be living in the last days of a thug's regime, who was approved and supported by a US administration (Reagan) when he was doing his worst acts. Do the living relatives of those thousands of deceased Iraqi people get your sympathy as well, or are they expendable?
There are thousands of colorful bright yellow unexploded cluster bomb still lying around, which look like toys or those food packets. Kids are picking them up daily and getting killed and maimed. What would *you* think if a foreign invader did that on *your* street? When you talk of "cowards", I agree with you wholeheartedly....9-11 was a cowardly act of the worst order, and so is/was the Iraq "war".
Bin Landen is beyond the legal system. This is not a matter for the civilian courts. This is a war and the military has their own system for dealing with people like bin laden.
I honestly think the best thing that could happen is that all these guys die in a fire fight and we all don't have to deal with it. But at the same time, there have been a lot of imperialistic leaders who aren't considered "evil," even though their deeds are no better than Bin Laden's.
I hope that this situation gets cleaned up and then we take our troops out of all foreign nations. Of course, this isn't going to happen unless we elect a true believer in peace and prosperity. That is, unless we elect a Libertarian.
Do those ten thousand + civilians in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities who have been killed as a result of Mr. Bush ordering high explosives to rain from the skies onto their homes and subdivisions count? They were mums, and dads, and kids, and brothers and sisters, and cousins, and aunts and uncles and wives, and boyfriends and girlfriends, just like we here. Now they are dead, for what? They had nothing to do with 9-11, or any act of terrorism against America, or anywhere else, for that matter. Those civilians killed in Iraq just had the misfortune to be living in the last days of a thug's regime, who was approved and supported by a US administration (Reagan) when he was doing his worst acts. Do the living relatives of those thousands of deceased Iraqi people get your sympathy as well, or are they expendable?
There are thousands of colorful bright yellow unexploded cluster bomb still lying around, which look like toys or those food packets. Kids are picking them up daily and getting killed and maimed. What would *you* think if a foreign invader did that on *your* street? When you talk of "cowards", I agree with you wholeheartedly....9-11 was a cowardly act of the worst order, and so is/was the Iraq "war".
Wake up.
Bush, did not target those people. The US tageted military or related targets. Huge difference.
Not only that Bush sat in front of the world and annopunced his intentions. SH had 12 years to comply. SH knew what was coming, he could have evacuated his people if that was what he cared about. You could argue that war was what SH wanted.
You are a sick person if you equate SH with this president. If you must then you must also do so for every congressman that voted to authorise this war, including the great white hope, John Kerry.
This is who the world have been dealing with. Saddam is an idiot.
Quote:
"He's turned out to be a pretty wily guy who seems to be enjoying the give and take with his interlocutors," Armitage said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Cooperation. "He sure thinks he's smarter than everyone else, that's for sure."
A BULLETPROOF LandCruiser at high speed bursting out of a tribal compound in Pakistan's South Waziristan region was just the latest infuriating setback in the US's quest to bring down the top of the al-Qa'ida tree.
The car, followed by two armoured vehicles and a phalanx of heavily armed militants able to wipe out dozens of crack troops sent to blast the terrorists from their nest, is believed to have contained Ayman al-Zawahiri, right-hand man to Osama bin Laden.
After mounting speculation that US and Pakistani forces ranged on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border were about to pounce on al-Qa'ida's key planner, a senior Taliban spokesman yesterday made the claim Washington least wanted to hear - that both Zawahiri and bin Laden were safe in Afghanistan.
Bush, did not target those people. The US tageted military or related targets. Huge difference.
He is the commander in chief: the buck stops with him. If you say the military did not intend to target civilians, then they made a damn good job of screwing it up. Ten thousand people killed and over one hundred thousand injured by smart bombs? The US military also targeted civilian infrastructure like power stations, sewage plants, water treatment facilities and the like. Much of this infrastructure is still not functioning. To deliberately target essential civilian infrastructure contravenes the Geneva Convention and as such Bush should be charged as a war criminal and join the likes of Milosevic and Saddam.
[quote]Not only that Bush sat in front of the world and annopunced his intentions. SH had 12 years to comply. SH knew what was coming, he could have evacuated his people if that was what he cared about. You could argue that war was what SH wanted.[//quote]
It looks as if the one telling the truth was Saddam Hussein, and the liars are in the White House. [sarcasm]NICE[/sarcasm]
Quote:
You are a sick person if you equate SH with this president. If you must then you must also do so for every congressman that voted to authorise this war, including the great white hope, John Kerry.
In a democracy, Congress should have known what they were voting for. In this case, they were misled and lied to, and in the climate post 9-11 of not daring to criticize the president for fear of being publicly branded traitors, the majority, like sheep, all got their knee-pads out. If I were a congressperson, I would have made damned sure that the facts being presented were accurate and true, and my decision to send our troops into harm's way was based on solid, sound intelligence and reality, instead of some faith based bullsh*t. John Kerry voted for the invasion because he was lied to, and he didnt bother finding out the truth about Iraq's WMD, which has been publicly available since 1995. Shame on you, John Kerry.
This is what debka.com is reporting however credible they are:
"DEBKAfile Reports Exclusively: Pakistan red-faced on discovering ?high value? terrorist target its troops surrounded in Waziristan was not bin Laden?s No. 2 Zuwahiri but chief of Pushtun Ahmadi tribal federation. DEBKA sources estimate that any harm to Pushtun chief would spark wholesale tribal war offensive against Pakistan"
He is the commander in chief: the buck stops with him. If you say the military did not intend to target civilians, then they made a damn good job of screwing it up. Ten thousand people killed and over one hundred thousand injured by smart bombs? The US military also targeted civilian infrastructure like power stations, sewage plants, water treatment facilities and the like. Much of this infrastructure is still not functioning. To deliberately target essential civilian infrastructure contravenes the Geneva Convention and as such Bush should be charged as a war criminal and join the likes of Milosevic and Saddam.
In a democracy, Congress should have known what they were voting for. In this case, they were misled and lied to, and in the climate post 9-11 of not daring to criticize the president for fear of being publicly branded traitors, the majority, like sheep, all got their knee-pads out. If I were a congressperson, I would have made damned sure that the facts being presented were accurate and true, and my decision to send our troops into harm's way was based on solid, sound intelligence and reality, instead of some faith based bullsh*t. John Kerry voted for the invasion because he was lied to, and he didnt bother finding out the truth about Iraq's WMD, which has been publicly available since 1995. Shame on you, John Kerry.
Your whole post is filled with lies, so I would guess that makes you a liar, eh?
Congress knew what GWB knew, especially those on the security commitiies. Here is just a small sampling of democrats that thought SH had WMD long before bush came to office:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
These people were not lied to by Bush were they? Then who was it that did the lying? I know you can't answer that one truthfully because it is detrimental to your argument/beleif.
Oops ... Compare these paragraphs from a late afternoon article in the Washington Post to the breathless and wildly over-the-top coverage yesterday on CNN (itals added)...
Several thousand Pakistani army troops have surrounded between 150 and 400 tribal fighters and foreign Islamic guerrillas, some of them associated with al Qaeda, as heavy fighting continued in a remote area near the border with Afghanistan, military officials said Friday.
The intensity of the resistance encountered in the rugged hills of South Waziristan has prompted speculation by some military commanders that the tribal fighters and their foreign allies may be protecting senior al Qaeda figures such as Ayman Zawahiri, an Egyptian physician who is Osama bin Laden's top deputy.
...
Senior Pakistan officials said that the foreign fighters include Chechens, Uzbeks and some Arabs, but they said they had no specific evidence that either bin Laden or Zawahiri was in the area.
"Most recent intelligence inputs do not support the perception that either Osama or Ayman are holed up in that vicinity," said a senior military intelligence officer in Peshawar, the capital of the province in northwestern Pakistan that includes the semi-autonomous tribal area of South Waziristan.
"The idea is to send the strongest message yet to the al Qaeda supporters, but who knows? We may hit the jackpot in the process," the official added.
Who knows?
Anything could happen.
We don't know he's not there! We could hit the jackpot.
Are we in the Hindu Kush or Vegas?
Everybody ran with this story a bit yesterday. But CNN reeeeaaaaaaalllly ran with it, almost certainly because the 'scoop' (or, what shall we call it, maybe the null scoop?) came in an interview CNN's Aaron Brown did with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
This headline in today's Daily Times, a Pakistani paper, sort of sums it up: "CNN ends up with 'much egg on its face'".
(Allow me a moment here to thoroughly relish South Asian English ... Okay, I'm good.)
What made me suspicious about this from the start was the fact that the announcement came right on the day Powell showed up in Islamabad. Helluva coincidence. I'm sure there was a great desire on the part of the Pakistanis to show how thorough a job they are doing hunting al Qaida in the tribal areas. And perhaps this story just got a bit out of control. (What I heard from a very trusted and knowledgable source also led me to believe that CNN was getting way out ahead of the story.)
Maybe he's there. Maybe they'll find him tomorrow. Could be. But for the moment at least I have to agree that CNN does seem to have much egg on its face.
a Pakistani brigade commander has cast doubt on whether al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was being protected by fighters, as Pakistani officials suggested earlier.
He said it was possible al-Zawahiri was being protected, but he said al Qaeda forces could be fighting a pitched battle to protect a local criminal or gangster, who possibly escaped.
Some officials involved in the fighting said they intercepted radio transmissions that indicated the protected individual could be a Chechen or an Uzbek militant.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Oh you mean "root causes"
You really think it is beneficial to call any human evil?
As for hating America, as long as Amercia exports everything from pork rinds to child pornography, these types will have all the excuse they need to bleed, burn, and kill.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Scott, some of the world's worst war criminals from Nazi Germany WW2 were tried in the Nuremburg war crimes court, with very public hearings and civilized procedure. We can either deal with bad guys in a fashion that defits a civil society, or we can descend to their level.
You say this is war: well there are international protocols that the United States is a signatory to, that cover war. What do *you* recommend that is so different?
If you want to set up a special court system where by evidence that has been collected in a war zone can be presented and the intelligence services can present evidence in a way that doesn't compromise the job they need to do then fine. I'm all for it. But that's not the civilian court system.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe the FBI should get a warrant before they search that compound in Pakistan. Otherwise the evidence gathered there wont be admitted into the future trial.
Did they have a warrant for all those caves?
Is it true that I'm not supposed to call scott a troll?
Originally posted by billybobsky
You really think it is beneficial to call any human evil?
Yes I do. It cuts thought all the nuanced crap people try to thrust into very simple matters. The people that hit a civilian target that collapsed 220 floors and killed 3000 people are evil.
Can you say "bad karma" in Arabic?
Originally posted by Scott
Yes I do. It cuts thought all the nuanced crap people try to thrust into very simple matters. The people that hit a civilian target that collapsed 220 floors and killed 3000 people are evil.
Here, here.
There is no understanding a person that targets children and wives and fathers and innocent people just doing what humans do. They are cowards. If they were so noble and good, why do they not target military targets. There are plenty to choose from.
They can't win if they do, that's why. It is far easier to kill a bunch of working stiffs, unarmed and unsuspecting. Children walking to the store, mothers carrying their babies, fathers picking up something on their way home to the wife. Tellers, cleaners, drivers, you name it. Hell over there they could easily be killing one of their own reletives.
Tell me, why would you possably want to waste your time trying to understand that? And if you do will it stop them from killing anyone you love, if they decide to put their target on them?
Originally posted by Scott
Yes I do. It cuts thought all the nuanced crap people try to thrust into very simple matters. The people that hit a civilian target that collapsed 220 floors and killed 3000 people are evil.
Hear, hear from me too. Now lets find out exactly who was responsible for organizing and financing that operation, and find out how and why such a breach of national security happened, while standing down, or ignoring all of the standard military procedures in place for such an emergency. It is absolutely outrageous that firstly, no heads have rolled re. 9-11, and secondly, how the Bush Administration has balked and balked and balked and continues to balk about an independent investigation into 9-11.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Here, here.
There is no understanding a person that targets children and wives and fathers and innocent people just doing what humans do. They are cowards. If they were so noble and good, why do they not target military targets. There are plenty to choose from.
They can't win if they do, that's why. It is far easier to kill a bunch of working stiffs, unarmed and unsuspecting. Children walking to the store, mothers carrying their babies, fathers picking up something on their way home to the wife. Tellers, cleaners, drivers, you name it. Hell over there they could easily be killing one of their own reletives.
Tell me, why would you possably want to waste your time trying to understand that? And if you do will it stop them from killing anyone you love, if they decide to put their target on them?
Do those ten thousand + civilians in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities who have been killed as a result of Mr. Bush ordering high explosives to rain from the skies onto their homes and subdivisions count? They were mums, and dads, and kids, and brothers and sisters, and cousins, and aunts and uncles and wives, and boyfriends and girlfriends, just like we here. Now they are dead, for what? They had nothing to do with 9-11, or any act of terrorism against America, or anywhere else, for that matter. Those civilians killed in Iraq just had the misfortune to be living in the last days of a thug's regime, who was approved and supported by a US administration (Reagan) when he was doing his worst acts. Do the living relatives of those thousands of deceased Iraqi people get your sympathy as well, or are they expendable?
There are thousands of colorful bright yellow unexploded cluster bomb still lying around, which look like toys or those food packets. Kids are picking them up daily and getting killed and maimed. What would *you* think if a foreign invader did that on *your* street? When you talk of "cowards", I agree with you wholeheartedly....9-11 was a cowardly act of the worst order, and so is/was the Iraq "war".
Originally posted by Scott
Bin Landen is beyond the legal system. This is not a matter for the civilian courts. This is a war and the military has their own system for dealing with people like bin laden.
I honestly think the best thing that could happen is that all these guys die in a fire fight and we all don't have to deal with it. But at the same time, there have been a lot of imperialistic leaders who aren't considered "evil," even though their deeds are no better than Bin Laden's.
I hope that this situation gets cleaned up and then we take our troops out of all foreign nations. Of course, this isn't going to happen unless we elect a true believer in peace and prosperity. That is, unless we elect a Libertarian.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Do those ten thousand + civilians in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities who have been killed as a result of Mr. Bush ordering high explosives to rain from the skies onto their homes and subdivisions count? They were mums, and dads, and kids, and brothers and sisters, and cousins, and aunts and uncles and wives, and boyfriends and girlfriends, just like we here. Now they are dead, for what? They had nothing to do with 9-11, or any act of terrorism against America, or anywhere else, for that matter. Those civilians killed in Iraq just had the misfortune to be living in the last days of a thug's regime, who was approved and supported by a US administration (Reagan) when he was doing his worst acts. Do the living relatives of those thousands of deceased Iraqi people get your sympathy as well, or are they expendable?
There are thousands of colorful bright yellow unexploded cluster bomb still lying around, which look like toys or those food packets. Kids are picking them up daily and getting killed and maimed. What would *you* think if a foreign invader did that on *your* street? When you talk of "cowards", I agree with you wholeheartedly....9-11 was a cowardly act of the worst order, and so is/was the Iraq "war".
Wake up.
Bush, did not target those people. The US tageted military or related targets. Huge difference.
Not only that Bush sat in front of the world and annopunced his intentions. SH had 12 years to comply. SH knew what was coming, he could have evacuated his people if that was what he cared about. You could argue that war was what SH wanted.
You are a sick person if you equate SH with this president. If you must then you must also do so for every congressman that voted to authorise this war, including the great white hope, John Kerry.
"He's turned out to be a pretty wily guy who seems to be enjoying the give and take with his interlocutors," Armitage said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Cooperation. "He sure thinks he's smarter than everyone else, that's for sure."
Saddam 'enjoying' interrogation
So its going to be twisted, spun, rewritten 14 times, to serve the leadership agenda?
The car, followed by two armoured vehicles and a phalanx of heavily armed militants able to wipe out dozens of crack troops sent to blast the terrorists from their nest, is believed to have contained Ayman al-Zawahiri, right-hand man to Osama bin Laden.
After mounting speculation that US and Pakistani forces ranged on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border were about to pounce on al-Qa'ida's key planner, a senior Taliban spokesman yesterday made the claim Washington least wanted to hear - that both Zawahiri and bin Laden were safe in Afghanistan.
"He may have slipped the net," the official said.
The Australian
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wake up.
Bush, did not target those people. The US tageted military or related targets. Huge difference.
He is the commander in chief: the buck stops with him. If you say the military did not intend to target civilians, then they made a damn good job of screwing it up. Ten thousand people killed and over one hundred thousand injured by smart bombs? The US military also targeted civilian infrastructure like power stations, sewage plants, water treatment facilities and the like. Much of this infrastructure is still not functioning. To deliberately target essential civilian infrastructure contravenes the Geneva Convention and as such Bush should be charged as a war criminal and join the likes of Milosevic and Saddam.
[quote]Not only that Bush sat in front of the world and annopunced his intentions. SH had 12 years to comply. SH knew what was coming, he could have evacuated his people if that was what he cared about. You could argue that war was what SH wanted.[//quote]
It looks as if the one telling the truth was Saddam Hussein, and the liars are in the White House. [sarcasm]NICE[/sarcasm]
Quote:
You are a sick person if you equate SH with this president. If you must then you must also do so for every congressman that voted to authorise this war, including the great white hope, John Kerry.
In a democracy, Congress should have known what they were voting for. In this case, they were misled and lied to, and in the climate post 9-11 of not daring to criticize the president for fear of being publicly branded traitors, the majority, like sheep, all got their knee-pads out. If I were a congressperson, I would have made damned sure that the facts being presented were accurate and true, and my decision to send our troops into harm's way was based on solid, sound intelligence and reality, instead of some faith based bullsh*t. John Kerry voted for the invasion because he was lied to, and he didnt bother finding out the truth about Iraq's WMD, which has been publicly available since 1995. Shame on you, John Kerry.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ten thousand people killed and over one hundred thousand injured by smart bombs?
Source for data, please.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Fox is reporting on this now.
it
Could be UBL or Zawaheri (spelling I know)
This is what debka.com is reporting however credible they are:
"DEBKAfile Reports Exclusively: Pakistan red-faced on discovering ?high value? terrorist target its troops surrounded in Waziristan was not bin Laden?s No. 2 Zuwahiri but chief of Pushtun Ahmadi tribal federation. DEBKA sources estimate that any harm to Pushtun chief would spark wholesale tribal war offensive against Pakistan"
Originally posted by sammi jo
He is the commander in chief: the buck stops with him. If you say the military did not intend to target civilians, then they made a damn good job of screwing it up. Ten thousand people killed and over one hundred thousand injured by smart bombs? The US military also targeted civilian infrastructure like power stations, sewage plants, water treatment facilities and the like. Much of this infrastructure is still not functioning. To deliberately target essential civilian infrastructure contravenes the Geneva Convention and as such Bush should be charged as a war criminal and join the likes of Milosevic and Saddam.
In a democracy, Congress should have known what they were voting for. In this case, they were misled and lied to, and in the climate post 9-11 of not daring to criticize the president for fear of being publicly branded traitors, the majority, like sheep, all got their knee-pads out. If I were a congressperson, I would have made damned sure that the facts being presented were accurate and true, and my decision to send our troops into harm's way was based on solid, sound intelligence and reality, instead of some faith based bullsh*t. John Kerry voted for the invasion because he was lied to, and he didnt bother finding out the truth about Iraq's WMD, which has been publicly available since 1995. Shame on you, John Kerry.
Your whole post is filled with lies, so I would guess that makes you a liar, eh?
Congress knew what GWB knew, especially those on the security commitiies. Here is just a small sampling of democrats that thought SH had WMD long before bush came to office:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
These people were not lied to by Bush were they? Then who was it that did the lying? I know you can't answer that one truthfully because it is detrimental to your argument/beleif.
Shame on you.
Oops ... Compare these paragraphs from a late afternoon article in the Washington Post to the breathless and wildly over-the-top coverage yesterday on CNN (itals added)...
Several thousand Pakistani army troops have surrounded between 150 and 400 tribal fighters and foreign Islamic guerrillas, some of them associated with al Qaeda, as heavy fighting continued in a remote area near the border with Afghanistan, military officials said Friday.
The intensity of the resistance encountered in the rugged hills of South Waziristan has prompted speculation by some military commanders that the tribal fighters and their foreign allies may be protecting senior al Qaeda figures such as Ayman Zawahiri, an Egyptian physician who is Osama bin Laden's top deputy.
...
Senior Pakistan officials said that the foreign fighters include Chechens, Uzbeks and some Arabs, but they said they had no specific evidence that either bin Laden or Zawahiri was in the area.
"Most recent intelligence inputs do not support the perception that either Osama or Ayman are holed up in that vicinity," said a senior military intelligence officer in Peshawar, the capital of the province in northwestern Pakistan that includes the semi-autonomous tribal area of South Waziristan.
"The idea is to send the strongest message yet to the al Qaeda supporters, but who knows? We may hit the jackpot in the process," the official added.
Who knows?
Anything could happen.
We don't know he's not there! We could hit the jackpot.
Are we in the Hindu Kush or Vegas?
Everybody ran with this story a bit yesterday. But CNN reeeeaaaaaaalllly ran with it, almost certainly because the 'scoop' (or, what shall we call it, maybe the null scoop?) came in an interview CNN's Aaron Brown did with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
This headline in today's Daily Times, a Pakistani paper, sort of sums it up: "CNN ends up with 'much egg on its face'".
(Allow me a moment here to thoroughly relish South Asian English ... Okay, I'm good.)
What made me suspicious about this from the start was the fact that the announcement came right on the day Powell showed up in Islamabad. Helluva coincidence. I'm sure there was a great desire on the part of the Pakistanis to show how thorough a job they are doing hunting al Qaida in the tribal areas. And perhaps this story just got a bit out of control. (What I heard from a very trusted and knowledgable source also led me to believe that CNN was getting way out ahead of the story.)
Maybe he's there. Maybe they'll find him tomorrow. Could be. But for the moment at least I have to agree that CNN does seem to have much egg on its face.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...14.html#002730
a Pakistani brigade commander has cast doubt on whether al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was being protected by fighters, as Pakistani officials suggested earlier.
He said it was possible al-Zawahiri was being protected, but he said al Qaeda forces could be fighting a pitched battle to protect a local criminal or gangster, who possibly escaped.
Some officials involved in the fighting said they intercepted radio transmissions that indicated the protected individual could be a Chechen or an Uzbek militant.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...eda/index.html
Maybe they're protecting Zawahiri, or maybe they are just protecting that last donut in the staff lounge.