Fred Thompson's amnesty plan

[Protected]

In his own words Fred explains his plans to reward illegal aliens. This is not a decade old clip, it is from a 2007 interview with fox news. After the people rallied to stop John McCain's amnesty bills with thousands of letters and emails to their representitives, Fred Thompson put on a pair of his best flip-flops and suddenly changed his tune. Like a true cookie cutter Washington insider Fred will do anything to fool the people to get elected.

To sum it up...thinking back to the John Kerry flip-flops...Fred Thompson was for amnest before he was against it. Sounds about right. http://youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs

[9mmRifle]

sounds like another scam

[budgie]

Fred who? Thompson what? Is this guy still on the radar?

[gaijinsamurai]

Fred who? Thompson what? Is this guy still on the radar?

x2. At this point, I don't think many people really give a sh*t about what Old Fred has to say.

[ThatHistoryDude]

First of all this guy is so far out of the race whats the point of even posting this?

And second all he said was what most people already realise that once we can stop the influx of illegals we have to do something to deal with the ones already here. Most sane people know that deporting 10 million+ isnt going to happen so we need to deal with that fact.

[Protected]

First of all this guy is so far out of the race whats the point of even posting this?

And second all he said was what most people already realise that once we can stop the influx of illegals we have to do something to deal with the ones already here. Most sane people know that deporting 10 million+ isnt going to happen so we need to deal with that fact.

This is about Thompson's flip-flopping to get votes. In a recent debate Thompson is criticizing Rudy for letting illegals stay in the country, and just pay fines... (see clip below) Thompson was promoting almost the exact same thing as Rudy just last year! (see clip here)http://youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs
Here is Thompson's latest words..http://youtube.com/watch?v=sk1sXpaUo00

[budgie]

Again however the guy is so far out of the race it is moot at this point. Besides only democrats flip-flop, didn't you know that? It's kind of like a middle-school name-calling session: if you say someone else stinks, then they can't possibly say the same about you. Rove 101.

[mohica]

To the uninformed or more likely misguided, Thompson IS the best guy for the job. He is not beholden to anyone.

[packetloss]

Just because he lacks politcal IOUs - does NOT make him the best man for the job.

I never really understood the problem with amnesty. Havent americans always had an amnesty type program? ie. Cubans who make it to the beach are safe, etc?

Lock the door, then work on cleaning up the house. The guests who dont break **** and help keep things organized can stay. The jerks can get the hell out.

[mohica]

I think you Canadians might want to check your own borders with the unbridaled migration of Islamic peoples to your country as a stepping stone to get to ours. You allow them or at least did so up to not long ago, to enter Canada with no identicfication as long as the claim was political asylum. You have no idea who they are or what their intentions are.

Unlike Canada, no, the US has never had an amnesty "program" when it comes to immigration. There are immigration laws, statutes, and prodcedures to follow by individuals seeking to legally enter this country to work and live.

Cuba on the other hand is a completely different scenario about which you have no clue, so butt out.

FYI, Thompson IS the best guy for the job, irrespective of your commentary about polictal IOU's. The guy is smarter, more savvy, and has a more commanding precence over the others. If the nimrods in this country are looking for flash, you are not gonna get it from him.

[packetloss]

Cuba on the other hand is a completely different scenario about which you have no clue, so butt out.

Wow. Simmer down. I was ASKING for clarification - Im not sure, and frankly I DONT CARE. However, this election and all its tiny little bumps are neverendingly forced down our throats (as canadians this is especially true - its all over our stations AND american stations (CTV Newsworld at this point has been running almost the last 2 full hours of airtime as US election conversation)). So its nice to ask in a 'political discussion' forum as to how it works. Dont be so combatitive. It's weird. This affects more than just you - and this forum contains a lot more than just americans.



FYI, Thompson IS the best guy for the job, irrespective of your commentary about polictal IOU's. The guy is smarter, more savvy, and has a more commanding precence over the others. If the nimrods in this country are looking for flash, you are not gonna get it from him.

A 'commentary' it was not. However, pointing out a senator with less than 10 years in office has less political liability than some of the lifers that are now competing is not such a far fetched concept, now is it?

Your points about his intelligence, savvy and presence are incredibly subjective (commentary).

I was asking about factual issues with a factual program (amnesty) when you have other programs that closely resemble the same ideas. If youd like we can have a seperate conversation about canadian immigration laws if youd like. Lets not redirect the conversation.

Now, i ask again:

How is the cuba amnesty different? (wetfoot/dryfoot) If you get onshore, you get asylum. I realize adding 'escaping communism' makes it a political escape more than an illegal immigration. Is that the particular caveat in that situation? Is it simply due to the limit of visas permitted?

Now like i said - What is the problem with amnesty. Set a list of standards (who cares what they are, just agree on them) and follow them. The crappy ones who make no progress, deport. The ones that are hear and productive and give all of their information - Whats wrong with letting them stay if they follow the rules of the program and be successful americans?

If no amnesty - how does someone like you suggest to clean up illegal immmigration? The completely realistic idea of shipping everyone home and having them all reapply? Can you do it without getting personal, deferring the conversation to other topics, and generally insulting the intelligence of anyone who wries a post you disapprove of?

Edit: nevermind. facts are foreign to you.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112129

[mohica]

Wow. Simmer down. I was ASKING for clarification - Im not sure, and frankly I DONT CARE. However, this election and all its tiny little bumps are neverendingly forced down our throats (as canadians this is especially true - its all over our stations AND american stations (CTV Newsworld at this point has been running almost the last 2 full hours of airtime as US election conversation)). So its nice to ask in a 'political discussion' forum as to how it works. Dont be so combatitive. It's weird. This affects more than just you - and this forum contains a lot more than just americans.

Sorry, a bit wound up this morning. Too much coffee. I just get tired of people from other countries telling us what is best for us. Try watching FOX if the Canadian Gov't isn't still censoring it's citizens by not allowing it. You will get much better and fairer coverage of all issues, not just the US election.





A 'commentary' it was not. However, pointing out a senator with less than 10 years in office has less political liability than some of the lifers that are now competing is not such a far fetched concept, now is it?

Nope, but more importantly I think it speaks of his personal integrity, and not just because of his shorter tenure in office.


Your points about his intelligence, savvy and presence are incredibly subjective (commentary).

Your opinion of my 'points' is subjective. Just watch the man. Tell me someone running for president that has his presence, who shares his pragmatism, or you would want sitting across the table from your enemy - from either party.


I was asking about factual issues with a factual program (amnesty) when you have other programs that closely resemble the same ideas. If youd like we can have a seperate conversation about canadian immigration laws if youd like. Lets not redirect the conversation.

Now, i ask again:

How is the cuba amnesty different? (wetfoot/dryfoot) If you get onshore, you get asylum. I realize adding 'escaping communism' makes it a political escape more than an illegal immigration. Is that the particular caveat in that situation? Is it simply due to the limit of visas permitted?

Perhaps I mistakently assumed that most Canadians know the history of Cuba, then I see your age and understand you probably have little knowlege of it. Search the web, you will find plenty of information, more than I can tell you here.

You are correct that the US has granted Cubans that reach our soil polictial asylum. If they are picked up on the ocean, they are returned to Cuba. This is partly due to the fact that the US doens't want to encourage Cubans to throw caution to the wind and just come in droves where it turns the USCG into a transportation service.

Let me reiterate, you need to know a bit about the history of Cuba and Cuban/American relations. By the way, Castro is a piece of ****.


Now like i said - What is the problem with amnesty. Set a list of standards (who cares what they are, just agree on them) and follow them. The crappy ones who make no progress, deport. The ones that are hear and productive and give all of their information - Whats wrong with letting them stay if they follow the rules of the program and be successful americans?

How about this, if you want 'em, you take 'em. Put them on Canada's well know social handout program. Don't believe all that crap that all illegal immigrant's come here to work. A huge number come because they think and find out, that they can get health care, education, and even housing for FREE, at least in their minds it is free. Meanwhile the US taxpayer takes it up that ass, dry, paying for it all. The current cost of social welfare to the US taxpayer per illegal is $US 19,000.00 per year.






If no amnesty - how does someone like you suggest to clean up illegal immmigration? The completely realistic idea of shipping everyone home and having them all reapply? Can you do it without getting personal, deferring the conversation to other topics, and generally insulting the intelligence of anyone who wries a post you disapprove of?

Why should the US reward people when their first act coming to this country is breaking the law? Why should people that have been waiting for years and jumped through all the hoops be left out in the cold?

The Chinese built the Great Wall beginning in 500 B.C. With new wall and repairs done through about 200 B.C on the major components. The Wall is a bit over 4000 miles long. You don't think we can build a wall 1/3 that long in 2008 A.D.? Gimme a break.

Penalize employers who hire illegals. Heavily penalize people that trade in illegal documents. Deport every last one of them and make them try to get here legally. Stop granting US citizenship for every pregant illegal that sneaks across the border to give birth.

A guest worker program would be a possible and partial solution to the problem. It should not include a fast track to citizenship, should not give any rights to social security, nor other social benifits i.e. free education and health care. They should pay taxes to support infrastructure while working here.


Edit: nevermind. facts are foreign to you.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112129

Whatever. Fact is he was educated as a youth in a Muslim shcool. His stepfather was a Muslim, that is fact. You get into bed with him if you want. He is an empty suit.

[packetloss]

Sorry, a bit wound up this morning. Too much coffee. I just get tired of people from other countries telling us what is best for us.

Like im tired of my intelligence being insulted, like i dont have a capacity to understand the complexity of the american presidential race just because im canadian (who has an american mother) when your media and such shove it down my throat all day.

Dont make me listen to it 18 waking hours of the day, then tell me i dont understand it or to mind my own business when i didnt dictate anything - i just asked what your issues are with the suggested solution. Clearly you are privy to better ideas and insights than us canadians or your stupid politicians, right?

I didnt ONCE dictate a solution. I asked what the problems were with said solutions. Reading comprehension fails again.



Try watching FOX if the Canadian Gov't isn't still censoring it's citizens by not allowing it. You will get much better and fairer coverage of all issues, not just the US election.

Yes fox is the pinnacle of fair and unbiased reporting. If you want to cite our government preventing fox from entering the markets here, you should understand canadian content laws and fox's (and hbo's) inability to abide by our laws. Protecting canadian culture by not allowing canadians to live their lives on 100% offshore media seems fair.

If you want your media outlet to function here, show a small percentage of canadian content.

On the same note - we lack many of the commercialization issues other news organizations are facing. News for ratings. Our government subsidized new agencies do a great job of staving off rattings based news reporting.



Nope, but more importantly I think it speaks of his personal integrity, and not just because of his shorter tenure in office.

Your opinion of my 'points' is subjective.

Thats my point. Opinions are subjective - everyone has their own. You cant mix fact and opinion without creating a commentary or editorial.

Now back to to YOUR OPINIONS:


Just watch the man. Tell me someone running for president that has his presence, who shares his pragmatism, or you would want sitting across the table from your enemy - from either party.

And 'just watching the man' would generate a subjective opinion from me. You were citing me for my opinion/commentary - When you are asking me to now apply my opinion after watching the man. Quite frankly, i think there are other people with a better 'presence' than mr. thompson. But then again, im not evaluating his peronality on law and order - Just his fumbling, uneloquent, unpolished speaches and such i see in the media.

For an actor, youd think he had his 'act' down a lot better than he does now. My subjective opinion? Mr. thompson looks nervous and wakward most of the time. By and large the media pundits agree with me as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04thompson.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/the_skinny/main3328872.shtml

Etc. For a person with such charisma chutzpa and presence as you indicate - Why are the words like 'unpolished', 'lackluster', 'droning' used so often. (Oh i know, subjective commentary!)

'Just watching the man' doesnt seem to inspire me and many others in the way you suggest he should. Maybe its because im a stupid canadian who doesnt know anything and this is none of my business.



Perhaps I mistakently assumed that most Canadians know the history of Cuba, then I see your age and understand you probably have little knowlege of it. Search the web, you will find plenty of information, more than I can tell you here.

Honestly - These are nothing more than childish barbs you are thinly veiling because i dont agree with you. I havent once insulted you personally nor attacked your citizenship, age or intelligence. Please grow up. However, considering this is a POLITICAL DISCUSSION forum, political discussion is to be expected. I have done a lot of googling and research regarding cuba - i was asking rhetorical questions (note how i cited the law's name) in hope of leading to a factful discussion contracting different polital approaches to immigrants and refugees. But if you prefer personal attacks and intelligence insulting as it seems, count me out.



You are correct that the US has granted Cubans that reach our soil polictial asylum. If they are picked up on the ocean, they are returned to Cuba. This is partly due to the fact that the US doens't want to encourage Cubans to throw caution to the wind and just come in droves where it turns the USCG into a transportation service.

Correct. People who land in country are granted a form of numerically limited amnesty this is NOTHING like the other immigration issues.



Let me reiterate, you need to know a bit about the history of Cuba and Cuban/American relations. By the way, Castro is a piece of ****.

Let me reiterate: i do. i was asking rhetorical questions in hopes of contrasting variances in amnesty policies. I thought you were a mature person capable of intelligent discussion. I UNDERSTAND the politcal sitation in cuba. (Ive actually been there, have you? :))


How about this, if you want 'em, you take 'em. Put them on Canada's well know social handout program.

We do. And we do fine. No one flies planes into buildings here, and our dollar is worth more than yours. Something must be working.


Don't believe all that crap that all illegal immigrant's come here to work. A huge number come because they think and find out, that they can get health care, education, and even housing for FREE, at least in their minds it is free. Meanwhile the US taxpayer takes it up that ass, dry, paying for it all. The current cost of social welfare to the US taxpayer per illegal is $US 19,000.00 per year.

Did you read my post it all? or do you just spout off your party line automagically?

If you care to invest some of your copious attention into reading the posts you are responding to, you would have noticed me saying:


Lock the door, then work on cleaning up the house. The guests who dont break **** and help keep things organized can stay. The jerks can get the hell out.

Let me simplify this for you:
1) BUILD YOUR ****ING WALL.
2) Find the unproductive/problematic immigrants.
3) Deport.
4) Find the productive/profitable immigrants.
5) Visa
6) ????
7) PROFIT!

Why can you people not find some sort of actual, workable compromise?



Why should the US reward people when their first act coming to this country is breaking the law? Why should people that have been waiting for years and jumped through all the hoops be left out in the cold?

Its sort of tradition in north america. What do you think the indians here would like to do about the european 'illegal immigration' ?

As i said before, you have ways of providing amnesty to immigrants, why cant you evaluate a way to make a workable solution to what you have now? lock the door and kick out the jerks. Keep the productive people.



The Chinese built the Great Wall beginning in 500 B.C. With new wall and repairs done through about 200 B.C on the major components. The Wall is a bit over 4000 miles long. You don't think we can build a wall 1/3 that long in 2008 A.D.? Gimme a break.

Oh yes, marvellous chinese social programmes. Lets use them as a model for modern society wherever possible!

As i said (i know your reading comprehension is near 0%) in my frist post, LOCK THE DOOR. Build walls. Hire border agents. You cant even BEGIN to worry about escaping horses until the barn door closes.


Penalize employers who hire illegals. Heavily penalize people that trade in illegal documents. Deport every last one of them and make them try to get here legally. Stop granting US citizenship for every pregant illegal that sneaks across the border to give birth.

No argument here. If you dont want kids on your lawn, build a fence.


A guest worker program would be a possible and partial solution to the problem. It should not include a fast track to citizenship, should not give any rights to social security, nor other social benifits i.e. free education and health care. They should pay taxes to support infrastructure while working here.

And you'd offer this to illegals who are here now being law abiding citizens who are cutting grass and cleaning gutters? This sounds like....*gasp* 90% of the amnesty programs on the table!



Whatever. Fact is he was educated as a youth in a Muslim shcool. His stepfather was a Muslim, that is fact. You get into bed with him if you want. He is an empty suit.

You sound like a grade A racist. Are you also afraid of him because hes black? I dont support Mr. Obama myself - but you sound like a frickin redneck. He HAS to be a terrorist if hes muslim right?

Hes an inexperienced suit - but the same political non-liability you speak of mr. thompson having, mr. obama has it as well. Except, unlike mr. thompson, mr. obama does seem to actually have this charisma you speak of.

Anyways, thats the last from me until you can act like an adult. Insults and such arent cool.

[mohica]

Like im tired of my intelligence being insulted, like i dont have a capacity to understand the complexity of the american presidential race just because im canadian (who has an american mother) when your media and such shove it down my throat all day.

Dont make me listen to it 18 waking hours of the day, then tell me i dont understand it or to mind my own business when i didnt dictate anything - i just asked what your issues are with the suggested solution. Clearly you are privy to better ideas and insights than us canadians or your stupid politicians, right?

I didnt ONCE dictate a solution. I asked what the problems were with said solutions. Reading comprehension fails again.

This is taking waaaaay too much of my time to respond to someone it appears soley intent on arguing, but in the interest of informing the uniformed, I will continue.

Listen pal, TURN THE CHANNEL. How is that for insulting your intelligence?




Yes fox is the pinnacle of fair and unbiased reporting. If you want to cite our government preventing fox from entering the markets here, you should understand canadian content laws and fox's (and hbo's) inability to abide by our laws. Protecting canadian culture by not allowing canadians to live their lives on 100% offshore media seems fair.

Ahhhhh, now it comes out, you approve of government censorhip! That explains it.



If you want your media outlet to function here, show a small percentage of canadian content.

I don't give a rat's ass what you watch, I merely offered an alternative to your gov't censored left wing broadcasts, previously the only choice.


On the same note - we lack many of the commercialization issues other news organizations are facing. News for ratings. Our government subsidized new agencies do a great job of staving off rattings based news reporting.

Again, gov't sponsored news broadcasts. Need I say more? Are you sure you are in Canada and not Cuba?



Thats my point. Opinions are subjective - everyone has their own. You cant mix fact and opinion without creating a commentary or editorial.

Duh.


Now back to to YOUR OPINIONS:



And 'just watching the man' would generate a subjective opinion from me. You were citing me for my opinion/commentary - When you are asking me to now apply my opinion after watching the man. Quite frankly, i think there are other people with a better 'presence' than mr. thompson. But then again, im not evaluating his peronality on law and order - Just his fumbling, uneloquent, unpolished speaches and such i see in the media.

Content my man, content. Please don't go the route of a Canadian lieberal elitist and exhibit prejudice towards Mr. Thompson because as he says, "I am a country boy from Tennessee." His country upbringings and such may appear to the unenlightened like yourself that he is a "bumbling, uneloquent, and unpolished" redneck. Think again.

FYI, I have never seen the show.


For an actor, youd think he had his 'act' down a lot better than he does now. My subjective opinion? Mr. thompson looks nervous and wakward most of the time. By and large the media pundits agree with me as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04thompson.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/the_skinny/main3328872.shtml

Etc. For a person with such charisma chutzpa and presence as you indicate - Why are the words like 'unpolished', 'lackluster', 'droning' used so often. (Oh i know, subjective commentary!)

The drive-by media. You reference the NY Times and CBS? Need I say more?
They are afraid of Fred. He doens' t fit their socalist model.


'Just watching the man' doesnt seem to inspire me and many others in the way you suggest he should. Maybe its because im a stupid canadian who doesnt know anything and this is none of my business.

No comment.



Honestly - These are nothing more than childish barbs you are thinly veiling because i dont agree with you. I havent once insulted you personally nor attacked your citizenship, age or intelligence. Please grow up.

Wether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, and your accusation of "childish barbs" is just well, childish. I believe I am correct to assume that many Canadians lack knowledge of the history of Cuba and Cuban/American relations. I believe I stated as such previoulsy in those same terms. Your age would also support a lack of knowledge on the subject being that much of the pertinent history happened prior to your birth. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt too much on the subject is taught in Canadian schools. This does not question your intelligence if you are ignorant on the subject. I believe I stated that in those same very simple terms. Whatever is driving your insecurities and apparent inferiority complex I am not sure, but it is tiring.



However, considering this is a POLITICAL DISCUSSION forum, political discussion is to be expected. I have done a lot of googling and research regarding cuba - i was asking rhetorical questions (note how i cited the law's name) in hope of leading to a factful discussion contracting different polital approaches to immigrants and refugees. But if you prefer personal attacks and intelligence insulting as it seems, count me out.

Suit yourself.


Correct. People who land in country are granted a form of numerically limited amnesty this is NOTHING like the other immigration issues.

Let me reiterate: i do. i was asking rhetorical questions in hopes of contrasting variances in amnesty policies. I thought you were a mature person capable of intelligent discussion. I UNDERSTAND the politcal sitation in cuba. (Ive actually been there, have you? :))

There is no amnesty for illegals in this country, at least I pray there is never another. Cubans that make it aren't here illegally. The great Ronald Reagen granted an amnesty to approximately 2,000,000 illegal Mexicans in the 1980's. This was a great blunder in his otherwise excellent presidency. It is evident at this time that all it did was bring more illegals and put a huge burden on the American citizen.

If you truly do understand the political situation in Cuba, then you understand the US policy towards Cuban refugees that make it to our soil.
Then why do you keep asking if you understand?


We do. And we do fine. No one flies planes into buildings here, and our dollar is worth more than yours. Something must be working.

Now we can get into insults. You are secure because the US of A keeps you secure. Don't forget it.

For the first time in history your dollar hold a bit more value. Relish in you glee, it won't last long.

Just pray you don't need any medical care. Don't come here if you do.



Did you read my post it all? or do you just spout off your party line automagically?

If you care to invest some of your copious attention into reading the posts you are responding to, you would have noticed me saying:



Let me simplify this for you:
1) BUILD YOUR ****ING WALL.
2) Find the unproductive/problematic immigrants.
3) Deport.
4) Find the productive/profitable immigrants.
5) Visa
6) ????
7) PROFIT!

Why can you people not find some sort of actual, workable compromise?

OBEY THE F***KING LAW!!!!

How does that sound for a compromise? Like I said, if you are so concerned sitting up there in Candada, maybe instead of building a wall we should build a highway heading due north to your backyard.





Its sort of tradition in north america. What do you think the indians here would like to do about the european 'illegal immigration' ?

Tradition in North America? WTF? I am taking about the US of A, not Canada. You have your own immigration issues as described.

The country as we know it was founded by Europeans. It can't be considered the many tribes of the American Indian had any type of organized country beyond their immediate areas. I am not saying they were treated fairly or honestly, but to compare the European immigration of primarily the latter part of the 19th into the early 20th centuries to the current Mexican invasion is disingenuous and shows a true lack of comprehension of the issue at hand.


As i said before, you have ways of providing amnesty to immigrants, why cant you evaluate a way to make a workable solution to what you have now? lock the door and kick out the jerks. Keep the productive people.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THEM HERE. THIS HOLDS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHEN THEY COME ILLEGALLY!!

Can you understand that?


Oh yes, marvellous chinese social programmes. Lets use them as a model for modern society wherever possible!

I am biting my tougue here and will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not as stupid as you are coming accross. What in the hell does the Great Wall have to do with Chinese social programs? I was giving you an analogy that if the Chinese can do it 2500 years ago, I think we can manage to do so today.




As i said (i know your reading comprehension is near 0%) in my frist post, LOCK THE DOOR. Build walls. Hire border agents. You cant even BEGIN to worry about escaping horses until the barn door closes.

No argument here. If you don't want kids on your lawn, build a fence.

What a clever observation! I am suprised no one has ever thought of that until now. Note to self: See Great Wall of China.



And you'd offer this to illegals who are here now being law abiding citizens who are cutting grass and cleaning gutters? This sounds like....*gasp* 90% of the amnesty programs on the table!

?





You sound like a grade A racist. Are you also afraid of him because hes black? I dont support Mr. Obama myself - but you sound like a frickin redneck.

I sound like a racist? I should not expect less from a far left bleeding heart socialist when they are losing a debate. I never mentioned B. Hussein Obam's race, you brought up the subject. It now begs to be mentioned that he is just as white as he is black. Funny how someone becomes black when it is prudent to do so.



He has to be a terroist if hes muslim right?

I never alluded to that either, you have done so. Since you brought it up though, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.



Hes an inexperienced suit - but the same political non-liability you speak of mr. thompson having, mr. obama has it as well. Except, unlike mr. thompson, mr. obama does seem to actually have this charisma you speak of.

Possibly. As for B. Hussein Obama's charisma, to the lemmings possibly.


Anyways, thats the last from me until you can act like an adult. Insults and such arent cool.

Thank God!! Please don't respond, I can't take it any longer.

You may want to review your posts and look in the mirror when referencing insults.

[budgie]

To the uninformed or more likely misguided, Thompson IS the best guy for the job. He is not beholden to anyone.


Thompson offers little more than a continuation of Bush policies and the Bush attitude to the world. Be it through McCain, Hickabee, Obama or the dreadded H, the elections will show that people have had enough of the last eight years....


I just get tired of people from other countries telling us what is best for us.

Look mate we foreigners are not particularly interested in interfering with your election and we don't think we know what is best for you. We do however have an interest in the results because we know in a large way it affects us. Unlike most other countries the US election chooses the leader of a lot more than just one nation.

So it is fair to say we are entitled to an opinion and if that opinion were unwelcome here, that would be at the discretion of the Hood and the moderators, not a few other posters.

US voters are starting to realise this too: they understand what affect their leadership has on the world and how that in turn affects America and are more likely these days to vote accordingly.

For the record, the "Screw the world, we'll do what's best for America!" crowd are almost all rabid Bush supporters anyway and that poor attitude has been well reflected in the failure of the current administration's international policies. They haven't even shown any interest in what half of America thinks is best for America, let alone any allies and neighbours. Those who've realised the negatives will vote accordingly, those who love it will probably just vote for Thompson. We all know what his chances are.

[9mmRifle]

To the uninformed or more likely misguided, Thompson IS the best guy for the job. He is not beholden to anyone. its all about money http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6880/124657445236586dfd6oto1.jpg

[Laconian]

Thompson offers little more than a continuation of Bush policies and the Bush attitude to the world. Be it through McCain, Hickabee, Obama or the dreadded H, the elections will show that people have had enough of the last eight years....

For the record, the "Screw the world, we'll do what's best for America!" crowd are almost all rabid Bush supporters anyway and that poor attitude has been well reflected in the failure of the current administration's international policies. They haven't even shown any interest in what half of America thinks is best for America, let alone any allies and neighbours. Those who've realised the negatives will vote accordingly, those who love it will probably just vote for Thompson. We all know what his chances are.

I disagree. The "standard" conservative Republican (of the 20th century) has always supported strong military, dealing w/foreign policy from a position of strength, small Federal gov't w/little interference in business, strong support of the 2nd A, and a decrease in Fed spending. However, Pres Bush moved away from several of these policy standards, especially when it comes to growth of the gov't and spending. The candidates now are trying to align themselves with the voters that support those policies, some have done so (by their records) more than others. Thompson, at first glance (and I haven't examined everything the man ever did as a Senator), seems to support the "platform."

It is the responsibility of every executive of any nation to put the needs/wants and desires of their nation above those of the collective. That a country clings to some moral high ground or considers world opinion in dealings with other nations is fine, but the ultimate morality is what is good for the nation clinging to that high ground or influencing world opinion. Which is why some nations choose to get involved in some arenas, while others do not.

Finally, Thompson has the hottest wife, I like him...woot.

[mohica]

Thompson offers little more than a continuation of Bush policies and the Bush attitude to the world. Be it through McCain, Hickabee, Obama or the dreadded H, the elections will show that people have had enough of the last eight years....



Look mate we foreigners are not particularly interested in interfering with your election and we don't think we know what is best for you. We do however have an interest in the results because we know in a large way it affects us. Unlike most other countries the US election chooses the leader of a lot more than just one nation.

Well "mate", good for you. At a minimum you are honest about your assessment although misguided. Thompson a continuation of what? Explain what the Bush policies and attitue to the world are that have your feathers ruffled.

Also, don't put the onus on America for what happens in your country. You handle it.



So it is fair to say we are entitled to an opinion and if that opinion were unwelcome here, that would be at the discretion of the Hood and the moderators, not a few other posters.

By all means, give your informed opinion, not just sound bites and talking points.


US voters are starting to realise this too: they understand what affect their leadership has on the world and how that in turn affects America and are more likely these days to vote accordingly.

We have know that for a long time, but especially since WWII. Problem is, as this country has gotten watered down, people have been on easy street and gotten lazy, many of the people take what they have for granted and have forgotten the sacrafices of others that have given it to them.

So, you have a large block of voters that live/dream in a fairly tail land. The movement got it's big boost in the 60's.


For the record, the "Screw the world, we'll do what's best for America!" crowd are almost all rabid Bush supporters anyway and that poor attitude has been well reflected in the failure of the current administration's international policies. They haven't even shown any interest in what half of America thinks is best for America, let alone any allies and neighbours. Those who've realised the negatives will vote accordingly, those who love it will probably just vote for Thompson. We all know what his chances are.

Hardly the case my friend, and we will "do what is best for America". That is the way it is. Should we vote any other way? To do what is best say for Europe? Asia? Africa? What the hell are you saying?

What are the failures of Bush's international policies? I would be interested to hear that one.

The liberal half (if that is truly what it is) of America as you call it wants to give this country away. They are the ones that started in the 60's (actually earlier with the communist movement - McCarthy was right) that live and dream in the fairy tail land.

Thompson may not get it, but he IS the best guy for the job. Guiliani probably will. Even if it is Romney, don't look for any drastic changes regarding Islamo facsists.

Dont' forget though budgie, everybody wants to whine and bitch, but the US is THE most generous country in the world, bar none. Not many complain when they have their hand out do they.

[femaleMP]

I can help sum this up.

European Attitude # 1: Bush is the Antichrist for defending America.

European Attitude # 2: America is always evil and always wrong and always at fault.

European Attitude # 3: Europeans are sooooo much more sophisticated than those idiot Americans.

European Attitude #4 The world can only be viewed while looking down your nose at it.

That is all, Carry on rofl

[JKD]

I can help sum this up.

European Attitude # 1: Bush is the Antichrist for defending America.

European Attitude # 2: America is always evil and always wrong and always at fault.

European Attitude # 3: Europeans are sooooo much more sophisticated than those idiot Americans.

European Attitude #4 The world can only be viewed while looking down your nose at it.

That is all, Carry on rofl

You sure you're in the right thread?

[asch]

You sure you're in the right thread?
chill, it's just a troll wandering the forum crappin on Europeans in various threads.

[budgie]

Well "mate", good for you.

"Mate" is not an insult where I come from. Slapping someone's hand away is.


Thompson a continuation of what? Explain what the Bush policies and attitue to the world are that have your feathers ruffled.

I've been posting here for about three years. If you want breakdowns of every argument I have against Bush's foreign policy, it's been done to death. A quick summary:

The world in general feels that Bush and Cheney sexed up the intel to start the Iraq war, ignored pleas from old allies to listen to reason, blindly stood behind Israel (and he wouldn't be the first) on every issue or at least looked the other way, rattled the sabre at Iran, ignored the Darfur crisis and generally taken a "screw you, we'll do what's best for America" (read: the Bush/Cheney corporate family) attitude toward the UN and the international community. They've kidnapped people, tortured, held them without trial and defied the provisions of not only the Geneva Convention but America's own military and constitutional courts. Now whether he is guilty as charged has also been done to death here, but this is the way Bush is viewed overseas and among many Americans.

Thompson has supported Bush on many foreign policy issues. For that reason I think, since many Americans have 'woken up' that he's not going to get far. But don't take my word for it - look at the poll numbers.


Also, don't put the onus on America for what happens in your country. You handle it.

The word you are looking for is blame. Onus is a personal burden of responsibility or proof. And I do not blame America for everything that happens in my country (in fact as a Kiwi who was born in Australia, my home countries are two of the least directly affected by US policies). However America's policies do affect other countries and some in a big way. Therefore other countries do have an interest in what direction American leadership will take. More and more American voters see how this in turn affects America and will vote accordingly - for leaders who can project a better image abroad. Contrary to the die-hard right wing zeitgeist, Americans do care what the rest of the world thinks. Look who's getting the votes in the Primaries: McCain, Obama, Clinton - people who can sell America overseas. Sure, there's gotta be a buch of domestic policy issues people are considering too, but these days foreign policy is a part of it.


By all means, give your informed opinion, not just sound bites and talking points.

I haven't seen a lot of spreadsheets, charts and leaked CIA documents from your end either mate. I think it's safe to say we're both sticking to sound bites.


This country has gotten watered down, people have been on easy street and gotten lazy, many of the people take what they have for granted and have forgotten the sacrafices of others that have given it to them.

So, you have a large block of voters that live/dream in a fairly tail land. The movement got it's big boost in the 60's.

A typical complaint from the right. "The country doesn't have the stomach for hard choices, blah, blah, blah." Whenever someone complains about Bush & Co, they're a bunch of hippy dreamers. As if someone who doesn't vote Republican or support Bush on Iraq is dishonoring the sacrifices made by their grandfathers in WWII. You only ever hear that complaint from the right: do Republicans have sole proprietary rights to the greatest generation? That was a sound bite by the way.



Hardly the case my friend, and we will "do what is best for America". That is the way it is. Should we vote any other way? To do what is best say for Europe? Asia? Africa? What the hell are you saying?

What "the hell" I am saying I have already said. American voters are realising that what is best for America and what is best for other parts of the world are often intertwined and will vote accordingly. They're not doing it to appease terrorists or placate the EU, but because they realise the "screw you" attitude of the past few years has done more harm than good.


What are the failures of Bush's international policies? I would be interested to hear that one.

Outlined above. Done to death.


The liberal half (if that is truly what it is) of America as you call it wants to give this country away. They are the ones that started in the 60's (actually earlier with the communist movement - McCarthy was right) that live and dream in the fairy tail land.

Yeah we've heard it all before...."slack jawed hippy faggots lost the Vietnam war..." Sorry mate these are just popular right-wing fantasies; the bugbear in the closet to give the right that enemy within to rail against. It's mostly opinion and can't be proven any more than I can prove **** Cheney is a horrible person. He is by the way. He shot his friend.


Dont' forget though budgie, everybody wants to whine and bitch, but the US is THE most generous country in the world, bar none. Not many complain when they have their hand out do they.

Don't get me wrong the world is thankful for America's generosity. We only "whine and bitch" when we feel America is doing us and itself a disservice. Generous donations, security alliances and trade agreements are not bribes for the recipients to look the other way when America upsets them. We appreciate America - I personally like Americans - but we do feel that the last few years under Bush have been a bit of bummer.

[mohica]

"Mate" is not an insult where I come from. Slapping someone's hand away is.



I've been posting here for about three years. If you want breakdowns of every argument I have against Bush's foreign policy, it's been done to death. A quick summary:

The world in general feels that Bush and Cheney sexed up the intel to start the Iraq war, ignored pleas from old allies to listen to reason, blindly stood behind Israel (and he wouldn't be the first) on every issue or at least looked the other way, rattled the sabre at Iran, ignored the Darfur crisis and generally taken a "screw you, we'll do what's best for America" (read: the Bush/Cheney corporate family) attitude toward the UN and the international community. They've kidnapped people, tortured, held them without trial and defied the provisions of not only the Geneva Convention but America's own military and constitutional courts. Now whether he is guilty as charged has also been done to death here, but this is the way Bush is viewed overseas and among many Americans.

Well "mate", I guess I have to do a bit of an anlysis here and help you out a bit. I always liked the sound of "mate", but it never caught on here.

Bush and Cheney "sexed" up the intel. So, I guess Putin and the Russians
"sexed" up the intel also. Wait, so did Blair and the Brits. Ooops, so did the Germans. Oh heck, those doggons French did also, and that was with Chirac at the helm. What allies did they not listen to?

F**K Iran, at least the fundamentalist gov't. Until the good people in that country revolt, the threat of conflict is there. They are one of if not the largest state sponsor of terror on this planet.

Dafur? Why is that OUR problem. Tell the EU to get off their ass and do something. How about the Chinese? New Zealand? Russia? Australia? Anybody?

Your must be reading too many left-wing blogs. The "coporate family". That left-wing talking point is so tired, let it go.

The UN is an impotent organization. I wish the hell they would get out of New York. Let someone else host them for awhile.

More left wing talking points, kidnapped, tortured, blah, blah, blah. I don't think we are cutting anyone's head off, but you lefties forget about the mooj assholes that do so on a regular basis, and to civilians no less. Give it a rest mate.

The enemy doesn't wear a uniform, doesn't represent a country or flag, the Geneva Accords don't apply here. The mooj that are being held will get their due when the time is right. They better never see a civilian court. I guess the overseas view is wrong.

What do you think the Chinese would have done if those jets had flown into Peking? They would have rolled a million Red Army through the middle east and skinned the mooj alive!! You guys wouldn't be saying **** then. Ony when the US does something do you guys bitch. The Chinese would have handled it like right now. Game over.


Thompson has supported Bush on many foreign policy issues. For that reason I think, since many Americans have 'woken up' that he's not going to get far. But don't take my word for it - look at the poll numbers.

Maybe, but the others I mentioned won't be much different. McCain will do the same damn thing and has supported Bush in almost every issue regarding the war on terror.




The word you are looking for is blame. Onus is a personal burden of responsibility or proof. And I do not blame America for everything that happens in my country (in fact as a Kiwi who was born in Australia, my home countries are two of the least directly affected by US policies). However America's policies do affect other countries and some in a big way. Therefore other countries do have an interest in what direction American leadership will take. More and more American voters see how this in turn affects America and will vote accordingly - for leaders who can project a better image abroad. Contrary to the die-hard right wing zeitgeist, Americans do care what the rest of the world thinks. Look who's getting the votes in the Primaries: McCain, Obama, Clinton - people who can sell America overseas. Sure, there's gotta be a buch of domestic policy issues people are considering too, but these days foreign policy is a part of it.

You are incorrect in your assessment of the proper useage of "onus". It is not exclusively a personal burden of responsibillity or proof. It is actually often used in a collective sense, how I used it.

When these terrorists attacks start taking place more frequently in other places, the song will change. The naysayers will then be blaming the US for not doing enough.

Feel lucky that Australia and New Zealand are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean, and correct me if I am wrong, but neither allow the new immigration of Muslims. I will say this, the Aussies have been a great ally to the US.

McCain right now is the leader of the Republican candidates in the polls. I'm tellin' ya, don't think he is gonna change the foriegn policy relative to the mooj pricks.




I haven't seen a lot of spreadsheets, charts and leaked CIA documents from your end either mate. I think it's safe to say we're both sticking to sound bites.

Speak for yourself.




A typical complaint from the right. "The country doesn't have the stomach for hard choices, blah, blah, blah." Whenever someone complains about Bush & Co, they're a bunch of hippy dreamers. As if someone who doesn't vote Republican or support Bush on Iraq is dishonoring the sacrifices made by their grandfathers in WWII. You only ever hear that complaint from the right: do Republicans have sole proprietary rights to the greatest generation? That was a sound bite by the way.

The "complaint from the right" is a fairly accurate assessment. There a bunch of pussies in this country, some that have always been that way and some that have learned the behavior. It is just a big party, fat and lazy, the "me" crowd. If it doesn't affect them directly, it doesn't exist. I live here, I see it all the time. Too much in fact, it is sad.

Not eveyone that disagrees with the war is a "hippie dreamer", but many are. I see them. The common denominator is a lack of understanding of the threat, the lack of willingness to sacrafice, and the pipe dream of some utopic existence. You know hang out, love your brother, smoke a little weed, and listen to some music. You get the picture.

Don't think because someone's grandfather/grandmother made the sacrafice the the grandson/grandaughter get a free pass. It doesn't work that way. Everyone carries the burden irrespective of what your ancestors or relatives have done.

As for the greatest generation, FDR was a Democrat. So was Truman. No one said **** when we fire bombed German and Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. We put a couple of glow plugs on the Japanese and ended the war, saving by all estimates approximately 250,000 USGI's lives in the process by avoiding invading the Japanese mainland. Saved well over a couple of million Japanese lives by not invading the mainland. It would be interesting to ponder if the Japanese had any plans to go to Australia and New Zealand if things had gone differently.

Thanks to the US, Europeans only share a currency, not the German language. The Japanese are one of our greatest allies. SE Asia is not under Japanese colonial rule.



What "the hell" I am saying I have already said. American voters are realising that what is best for America and what is best for other parts of the world are often intertwined and will vote accordingly. They're not doing it to appease terrorists or placate the EU, but because they realise the "screw you" attitude of the past few years has done more harm than good.

Outlined above. Done to death.

We'll see.


Yeah we've heard it all before...."slack jawed hippy faggots lost the Vietnam war..." Sorry mate these are just popular right-wing fantasies; the bugbear in the closet to give the right that enemy within to rail against. It's mostly opinion and can't be proven any more than I can prove **** Cheney is a horrible person. He is by the way. He shot his friend.

Now you are stepping out of bounds. I was there. I lived it. The US won every battle, but lost the war politically here in this country. It wasn't just the "slack jawed hippy faggots", there were the left wing elitists/socialists. The one's that see themselves as knowing what is best for you, how to live your life, what doctor you should see, how you should spend your money, how much money you need, what you should drive, etc., etc., etc. They are still alive and well in this country.




Don't get me wrong the world is thankful for America's generosity. We only "whine and bitch" when we feel America is doing us and itself a disservice. Generous donations, security alliances and trade agreements are not bribes for the recipients to look the other way when America upsets them. We appreciate America - I personally like Americans - but we do feel that the last few years under Bush have been a bit of bummer.

Yeah, thankfull when they need something but sure are quick to criticize if the US doesn't do it how they think it should be done. Ungrateful louts. We give away more than most countries' GDP. I think we should pull back and leave the rest of the world that views us as less than we are to foot some of the bill. Let's see some of them step up. Do you see it happening, any of the other countries stepping up to the lever of giving of the US?

Bribes? It is give in take. Get real. The US is under no obligation to make everyone happy but you sure want us to do so. How come you guys makes us out to be the bad guys when you don't like something but offer no real positives when things are good? You EXPECT us to be a certain way. You guys don't say **** about other countries that don't meet the muster. See Dafur.

[budgie]

Well "mate", I guess I have to do a bit of an anlysis here and help you out a bit. I always liked the sound of "mate", but it never caught on here.

Bush and Cheney "sexed" up the intel. So, I guess Putin and the Russians
"sexed" up the intel also. Wait, so did Blair and the Brits. Ooops, so did the Germans. Oh heck, those doggons French did also, and that was with Chirac at the helm.... F**k Iran...Dafur? Why is that OUR problem...The "coporate family". That left-wing talking point is so tired, let it go...The UN is an impotent organization...More left wing talking points, kidnapped, tortured, blah, blah, blah

You don't have to agree with the arguments, and I don't necessarily agree with a lot of them, but that answers your earlier question on just what it is people don't like about Bush and his attitude: that is the international community's perception of Bush which at this point is what the rest of the world has its feathers ruffled over.

If you want to open another thread to discuss the truths and legalities of Bush's conduct go ahead.


You are incorrect in your assessment of the proper useage of "onus". It is not exclusively a personal burden of responsibillity or proof. It is actually often used in a collective sense, how I used it.

Open a grammar and vocabulary thread too then.


Now you are stepping out of bounds. I was there. I lived it. The US won every battle, but lost the war politically here in this country. It wasn't just the "slack jawed hippy faggots", there were the left wing elitists/socialists.

If you are a Vietnam veteran I respect your service and your position, but I do not believe - as many right-wingers complain - that the left in America "lost" the war for you. Nor do a lot of the people who will be voting this year.


Bribes? It is give in take. Get real. The US is under no obligation to make everyone happy but you sure want us to do so. How come you guys makes us out to be the bad guys when you don't like something but offer no real positives when things are good? You EXPECT us to be a certain way. You guys don't say **** about other countries that don't meet the muster. See Dafur.

In the case of America the civilised world certainly expects a higher moral standard than some of the countries out there. Again, perception-wise, We don't always get that with Bush.

[mohica]

You don't have to agree with the arguments, and I don't necessarily agree with a lot of them, but that answers your earlier question on just what it is people don't like about Bush and his attitude: that is the international community's perception of Bush which at this point is what the rest of the world has its feathers ruffled over.

If you want to open another thread to discuss the truths and legalities of Bush's conduct go ahead.

Dude, YOU were the one that brought it up, not me. YOU were the one that said "Bush-Cheney sexed up the intel". Now, you conveniently disregard that fact that the others mentioned had and believed the same intel from their own intelligence agencies! You can't have it both ways mate.

Out of curiosity, where do you think the majority of the WMD's went? My follow-up post may shed some light on it. Maybe the intel wasn't so flawed after all.

Bush's attitude is that he is going to protect the USA. It is his job. Period. End of story. If the international community's perception of that is not a positive one, too bad. Like I said, it would be interesting to see what everyone thought of the Chinese rolling through the Middle East.




Open a grammar and vocabulary thread too then.

This is another thing YOU brought up, trying to correct my grammar or word useage. I just set you straight.




If you are a Vietnam veteran I respect your service and your position, but I do not believe - as many right-wingers complain - that the left in America "lost" the war for you. Nor do a lot of the people who will be voting this year.

The left did in fact lose the Viet Nam war. It is the truth, it is/was very evident. You had to be here and there. The people that don't adhere to that fact, the rose colored glassed crowd, hippies and whatever else you called them, will never stand for anything of substance, unless until they are enslaved. Even then, some would accept that too.

I will say, I do appreciate the Aussies when I was there. Great guys and great fighters. Good people.




In the case of America the civilised world certainly expects a higher moral standard than some of the countries out there. Again, perception-wise, We don't always get that with Bush.

Maybe it is time we said the hell with it, let somebody else do it for awhile. But we won't, because America is a good country with good people. Even though we get sh!t on regularly, we are still there for those in need. De Oppresso Liber!

[mohica]

By John Loftus
FrontPageMagazine.com | 11/16/2007

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr.
Ryan Mauro and his friends.

This Iraqi document research has been supplemented with satellite photographs and dozens of interviews, among them David Gaubatz who risked radiation exposure to locate Saddam's underwater WMD warehouses , and John Shaw, whose brilliant detective work solved the puzzle of where the WMD went. Both have contributed substantially to solving one of the most difficult mysteries of our decade.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's.
Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003.
His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans' noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein's nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria. Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed with Saddam's enriched uranium. Allegedly, the Syrians were close to completing a warhead factory next to Saddam's WMD dump in Deir al Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic "dirty bombs" that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for the next several thousands of years. Debka alleged that it was this combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province..

Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location. Armed with this knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of the provinceof Deir al Zour for a site that would match the unofficial Israeli
descriptions: camouflaged black factory building, next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard. There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16 minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97 seconds East.
Analysts and members of the public are invited to determine for themselves whether this was indeed the weapons dump for Saddam's WMD.

Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show that all of the buildings, earthen blast berms, bunkers, roads, even the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. Of course, that is not of itself definitive proof, but it is extremely suspicious.

It should be noted that the American interrogators had accurate information about a possible Deir al Zour location shortly after the war, but ignored it:

"An Iraqi dissident going by the name of "Abu Abdallah" claims that on March 10, 2003, 50 trucks arrived in Deir Al-Zour, Syria after being loaded in Baghdad. .Abdallah approached his friend who was hesitant to confirm the WMD shipment, but did after Abdallah explained what his sources informed him of. The friend told him not to tell anyone about the shipment."

These interrogation reports should be re-evaluated in light of the recently opened Iraqi secret archives, which we submit are the best evidence. But the captured document evidence should not be overstated.
It must be emphasized that there is no one captured Saddam document which mentions both the possession of WMD and the movement to Syria.

Moreover, many of Saddam's own tapes and documents concerning chemical and biological weapons are ambiguous. When read together as a mosaic whole, Saddam's secret files certainly make a persuasive case of massive WMD acquisition right up to a few months before the war. Not only was he buying banned precursors for nerve gas, he was ordering the chemicals to make Zyklon B, the Nazis favorite gas at Auschwitz. However odious and well documented his purchases in 2002, there is no direct evidence of any CW or BW actually remaining inside Iraq on the day the war started in 2003. As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.

We know from Saddam's documents that huge quantities of CW and BW were in fact produced, and there is no record of their destruction. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, at least as to chemical and biological weapons, the evidence is compelling, but not conclusive. There is no one individual document or audiotape that contains a smoking gun.

There is no ambiguity, however, about captured tape ISGQ-2003-M0007379, in which Saddam is briefed on his secret nuclear weapons project. This meeting clearly took place in 2002 or afterwards: almost a decade after the State Department claimed that Saddam had abandoned his nuclear weapons research.

Moreover the tape describes a laser enrichment process for uranium that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq, and Saddam's nuclear briefers on the tape were Iraqi scientists who had never been on any weapons inspector's list. The tape explicitly discusses how civilian plasma research could be used as a cover for military plasma research necessary to build a hydrogen bomb.

When this tape came to the attention of the International Intelligence Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan educational forum focusing on global intelligence affairs, the organization asked the NSA to verify the voiceprints of Saddam and his cronies, invited a certified translator to present Saddam's nuclear tapes to the public, and then invited leading intelligence analysts to comment.

At the direct request of the Summit, President Bush promptly overruled his national intelligence adviser, John Negroponte, a career State Department man, and ordered that the rest of the captured Saddam tapes and documents be reviewed as rapidly as possible. The Intelligence Summit asked that Saddam's tapes and documents be posted on a public website so that Arabic-speaking volunteers could help with the translation and analysis.

At first, the public website seemed like a good idea. Another document was quickly discovered, dated November 2002, describing an expensive plan to remove radioactive contamination from an isotope production building. The document cites the return of UNMOVIC inspectors as the reason for cleaning up the evidence of radioactivity. This is not far from a smoking gun: there were not supposed to be any nuclear production plants in Iraq in 2002.

Then a barrage of near-smoking guns opened up. Document after document from Saddam's files was posted unread on the public website, each one describing how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last.
These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of nuclear weapons. The Iraqi intelligence files contain so much accurate information on the atom bomb that the translators' public website had to be closed for reasons of national security.

If Saddam had nuclear weapons facilities, where was he hiding them?
Iraqi informants showed US investigators where Saddam had constructed huge underwater storage facilities beneath the Euphrates River. The tunnel entrances were still sealed with tons of concrete. The US investigators who approached the sealed entrances were later determined to have been exposed to radiation. Incredibly, their reports were lost in the postwar confusion, and Saddam's underground nuclear storage sites were left unguarded for the next three years. Still, the eyewitness testimony about the sealed underwater warehouses matched with radiation exposure is strong circumstantial evidence that some amount of radioactive material was still present in Iraq on the day the war began.

Our volunteer researchers discovered the actual movement order from the Iraqi high command ordering all the remaining special equipment to be moved into the underground sites only a few weeks before the onset of the war. The date of the movement order suggests that President Bush, who clearly knew nothing of the specifics of the underground nuclear sites, or even that a nuclear weapons program still existed in Iraq, may have been accidentally correct about the main point of the war: the discovery of Saddam's secret nuclear program, even in hindsight, arguably provides sufficient legal justification for the previous use of force.

Saddam's nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence:
Saddam's own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.

[budgie]

Dude, YOU were the one that brought it up, not me. YOU were the one that said "Bush-Cheney sexed up the intel". Now, you conveniently disregard that fact that the others mentioned had and believed the same intel from their own intelligence agencies! You can't have it both ways mate. Out of curiosity, where do you think the majority of the WMD's went?

I'm not in the slightest bit interested because that is not the topic we were discussing here.

I suggest going back and reading my post:
The world in general feels that Bush and Cheney sexed up the intel to start the Iraq war...

I am not interested in arguing the validity of the WMD claims here, only pointing out that much of the world didn't like it. That affects Bush's reputation and anyone seen to be aligned with him in the eyes of many American voters.

Congratulations on taking a thread about Fred Thompson and turning it into a tirade on the validity of the WMD intel. Yes I brought it up, but not in that context. Go argue about the truth in another thread.