George W. Bush and the September 11th report

[achilles]

Quoting 'The Economist' July 24th-30th 2004, page 39: "George Bush's response to the September 11th commission was defensive. He opposed setting up the panel. He negotiated endlessly to limit its access to sensitive documents. He tried to stop his national security adviser himself only with **** Cheney alongside, and not under oath. "

Any ideas why?

[American Patriot]

It was not necessary

[Mark Sman]

Because he is part of large Neo Con plot. And thats what he was told to do by Big Oil.

[mobster]

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv
Here ya' go. Watch the video, you'll see Flipper (not the dolphin either)
in real time, wafflin' his long faced ass off.

[budanski]

First off, the 9/11 commission was only a tool of the democrats to embarass President Bush.

Bob Kerry was the biggest critic on Bush limiting the meetings to an hour. When Bush changed it to as long as it took, it ended up lasting for 3 hours and guess who left early? Bob Kerry and Lee Hamilton (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=4366&format=text).

These sensitive documents?
"Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's..." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F15F9395D0C718CDDAD0894DC404482)

Bush is, in my mind, very concerned about protecting the image of the Presidency, and knowing Bill's frank lack of concern about national security in the years leading up to 9/11 might make a lot of Americans look at the Presidency with something less than trust and respect.

There is this thing called the seperations of power. But as a favor, Bush forgo separation of powers, gave his critics what they wanted and was quite confident there was nothing in his testimony that could be held against him in front of the commission. Whats more to know?

Funny that Clinton, along with two of his advisors, one being of Sandy Berger (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407210837.asp) testified not under oath as well, somehow avoided the media spotlight.

[Secret Squirrel]

Quoting 'The Economist' July 24th-30th 2004, page 39: "George Bush's response to the September 11th commission was defensive. He opposed setting up the panel. He negotiated endlessly to limit its access to sensitive documents. He tried to stop his national security adviser himself only with **** Cheney alongside, and not under oath. "

Any ideas why?

re-election.

[achilles]

I just managed to find the article on-line:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=294614

[usa320]

Frankly, i dont feel we really learned anything from the report that we already didnt know...

And some of their reccomendations are incredibly foolish. For the most part the panel was made up of career politicians, not Intelligence analyst, CIA operatives, diplomats or security experts.

[achilles]

[quote="usa320"]Frankly, i dont feel we really learned anything from the report that we already didnt know...

And some of their reccomendations are incredibly foolish. For the most part the panel was made up of career politicians, not Intelligence analyst, CIA operatives, diplomats or security experts.[/quoteI

The thing is that the report-given that what we read about it is true- can work against Bush in the coming elections. It can reveal the lack of adequate precautionary measures before 911 and miscalculations afterwards...like the war in Iraq for example (assuming also that Iraq is exclusively part of the war on terror).
If Kerry manages to take advantage of the report he has good chances to win. He can only win by prooving that Bush sucks and not by exposing himself as a charismatic leader or a representative of any 'Kerryian' dogma of policy, like Clinton did. He is not charismatic by any means and i think he knows it

[OB Kenobi]

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP **** Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

http://www.zefrank.com/capitalist/enlarge/bush3.jpg

[Beowulf]

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP **** Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003



see bold

[ibstolidude]

More importantly - what does that have to do with the thread topic?

[OB Kenobi]

More importantly - what does that have to do with the thread topic?

What does calling Kerry Flipper and "long-faced ass" have to do with it? See fourth reply from the start.

I will say it again, George Bush is a liar. Yes, very amusing how he has pinned the blame on "faulty intelligence," when the CIA said they had NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF of any of it. Bush fails to mention that Cheney and Rumsfeld edited the report he was given to take the doubts out.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

I think not only is Bush not going to be re-elected, I think he's going to be tried for treason, if not lynched by his own neighbors in Crawford.

As for the 9/11 commission, it's just another waste of time and taxpayer $$$ because the bureaucrats on it are covering their collective asses, AKA the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. It's a whitewash for BOTH administrations.

Actually, let me rephrase that, they're covering the ass of Big Oil, because BOTH Bush and Clinton created policy that served Big Oil's interests. Clinton may have only worked for them, Bush IS Big Oil.

But in the end, this is all the fault of Bush-Reagan, because that is when the modern Jihad was cultivated and took form. Bush-Reagan sought to take advantage of it, they dealt with the Devil, and now the Devil wants his due.

[mobster]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/crybaby.jpg

[achilles]

More importantly - what does that have to do with the thread topic?

What does calling Kerry Flipper and "long-faced ass" have to do with it? See fourth reply from the start.

I will say it again, George Bush is a liar. Yes, very amusing how he has pinned the blame on "faulty intelligence," when the CIA said they had NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF of any of it. Bush fails to mention that Cheney and Rumsfeld edited the report he was given to take the doubts out.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

I think not only is Bush not going to be re-elected, I think he's going to be tried for treason, if not lynched by his own neighbors in Crawford.

As for the 9/11 commission, it's just another waste of time and taxpayer $$$ because the bureaucrats on it are covering their collective asses, AKA the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. It's a whitewash for BOTH administrations.

Actually, let me rephrase that, they're covering the ass of Big Oil, because BOTH Bush and Clinton created policy that served Big Oil's interests. Clinton may have only worked for them, Bush IS Big Oil.

But in the end, this is all the fault of Bush-Reagan, because that is when the modern Jihad was cultivated and took form. Bush-Reagan sought to take advantage of it, they dealt with the Devil, and now the Devil wants his due.

I dont know if Bush will be relected o if he is the devil himself. What is apparent is your unwillingness to view things with a more 'chilled' eye. You may be right but the way you present things, man, you convince noone. Anyway let me re-state my opinion on several things although we deviate from the thread's original topic. (yet indirectly linked)
I believe the war in Iraq took place due to:
-The aim of the US to establish a 'base' in the heart of the middle east and fight terrorism from there. Along with Isreal and Turkey, America can establish a very strong 'triangle' of power in the middle east
-The fact that Iraq is the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.
-Political pressures from oil industries and defense-related industries.(and i am sure we did not expect Mr. Moore to enlighten us on that).
-The belief that Saddam is developing 'significant amounts of 'WMD'.(and lets blame CIA and UK agencies for that although Bush should be still considered responsible)
If you can thing of any other reasons please complement me.

As for the report. No i dont think it was a waste of time and money as long as the truth is revealed. My basic comment on the report, based on what The Economist says, is that it can work in favour of Kerry and raise questions regarding the priorities of Bush in the middle east. There is evidence in this report that Iran was, is and willl most likely continue to be the major threat in the middle east. Apart from developing WMD we can now be certain that Iraq was somehow related to Al Qaeda (remember the arrests of Al-qaeda member a while ago). For those reasons Bush strongly opposed the access of the report panel to 'sensitive documents'. It guess it all comes down to domestic politics and the forthcoming elections.

[achilles]

Quoting 'The Economist' July 24th-30th 2004, page 39: "George Bush's response to the September 11th commission was defensive. He opposed setting up the panel. He negotiated endlessly to limit its access to sensitive documents. He tried to stop his national security adviser himself only with **** Cheney alongside, and not under oath. "

Any ideas why?

re-election.

I guess SecretSquirrel you said it all with 1.5 words!

[SeanAshi]

http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/592pissoff.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/avatars/164165950440b989b298b17.jpg

[talib_killa34]

I thought 99.99999999 % of the world's population felt the man had WMD's still.

He did, they're there SOMEWHERE...just got to dig deeper! :D


Only Liar in this was S. Hussein all those damn years ****ing around about his arsenal when he should have just come clean and cooperated 100% with the UN.

The terms of the cease fire were violated a LONG time ago so 03/20/03 it was "move em out!"

Despite the 900+ KIA and the problems AFTER the regime fell, I'm sure our armed forces feel it was worth the trip. Seeing as people were bitching AFTER Operation Desert Storm that Hussein was left in power...

Gawd, just do it. :(

[Merik]

[OB Kenobi]

[quote]I dont know if Bush will be relected o if he is the devil himself.

Let's not confuse things from the start by throwing the term "devil around. I didn't say Bush was the devil himself. I said Bush-Reagan made a deal with the devil, figuratively speaking. In no way is GW Bush a figure of biblical mythology, and in no way does any of this have to do with anything Jesus telepathically commanded any US politician to do.

Laugh, but it was Bush who said God wanted him to attacked Iraq at one point. A US president claimed God speaks to him? What the hell is this? I'd say he was insane, if I didn't know that he's actually a criminal liar and doesn't believe any of that Christian rhetoric he spouts when it suits his purposes. Bush's only God is $$$.


What is apparent is your unwillingness to view things with a more 'chilled' eye. You may be right but the way you present things, man, you convince noone.

I don't expect to convince Republican or right-wing bootlicker who has already made up their minds. It is a waste of time to argue sensibly with them. You can present them with a lecture and their only response will be "Yeah, but Michael Moore is fat." or "Kerry has a long-assed face."

I could just as easily talk about Bush's preternatural resemblence to a chimpanzee, but I try to refrain from sinking to such depths.


Anyway let me re-state my opinion on several things although we deviate from the thread's original topic. (yet indirectly linked)
I believe the war in Iraq took place due to:
-The aim of the US to establish a 'base' in the heart of the middle east and fight terrorism from there.

You are almost correct. The goal was to secure an oil supply independent of Saudi Arabia to fuel the rest of the war against the middle-east. It wasn't to make Halliburton rich, that is something Halliburton (and no doubt Cheney) chose to do on their own once they got the contracts.

Morality aside, it is simply a stupid plan, that's all. It places our troops into the middle of a killing field. We have daily casualties, not to mention stability in Iraq has not improved. Has it even put a dent into the 'terrorism"? On the contrary, it is swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations.


Along with Isreal and Turkey, America can establish a very strong 'triangle' of power in the middle east

Turkey isn't exactly a willing ally. Turkey is also very concerned about the Kurd situation. The only thing keeping Turkey in line is promises of eventual EU membership. I am also sure that Turkey turns a blind eye to terrorist traffic and financing.


-The fact that Iraq is the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Agreed.


-Political pressures from oil industries and defense-related industries.(and i am sure we did not expect Mr. Moore to enlighten us on that).

As I stated, I don't think it's about that as much as it is about not being dependent on Saudi oil. This is Bush's idea of lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

He went after Venezuela too, in case anyone noticed. That little coup against Chavez that failed so miserably. Now we have this weirdness in Sudan, another oil-producer.


-The belief that Saddam is developing 'significant amounts of 'WMD'.(and lets blame CIA and UK agencies for that although Bush should be still considered responsible)

No, that was not a reason, that was an excuse. As were the Anthrax letters. Who sent those, btw?

If you can thing of any other reasons please complement me.

Israel. Christianity. Paranoia. Competition. Selfish ambition (corporate crime).

There are many other reasons, it's everyday politics, the same as it has always been. What we have been led to is not entirely anyone's choosing, but the choices Bush has been able to make have been bad ones, they have been too influenced by a corrupt minority in America. Bush has a limited view of the world, all his decisions are tainted by the needs of Big Oil.


As for the report. No i dont think it was a waste of time and money as long as the truth is revealed.

My point is that Clinton and the Demoracts have something to lose from this report as well. There is Clinton's support of the Taliban and the KLA. If the subject turns to that, people will realize that Clinton has been playing Enron's game in Afghanistan-Pakistan the same was Bush was. As a matter of fact, Enron's bankruptcy has a little bit to do with the Taliban deals falling through. Enron was expecting a contract from Pakistan, Osama kept screwing it up.

All the more reason why I am sure that Bin Laden is a product of Saudi Arabia (and at one point, the CIA).


My basic comment on the report, based on what The Economist says, is that it can work in favour of Kerry and raise questions regarding the priorities of Bush in the middle east. There is evidence in this report that Iran was, is and willl most likely continue to be the major threat in the middle east.

Nowhere near the threat Saudi Arabia already is.


Apart from developing WMD we can now be certain that Iraq was somehow related to Al Qaeda (remember the arrests of Al-qaeda member a while ago).

Funny how Bin Laden was calling for Saddam's death, isn't it?

Btw, developing WMD? What are you talking about? What WMD? It's all gone.


For those reasons Bush strongly opposed the access of the report panel to 'sensitive documents'. It guess it all comes down to domestic politics and the forthcoming elections.

Bush opposes access to them because they will show just how much Cheney and Rumsfeld exaggerated the threat in the final report Bush presented to the public.

[OB Kenobi]

Despite the 900+ KIA and the problems AFTER the regime fell, I'm sure our armed forces feel it was worth the trip.

What makes you sure of that?

[ibstolidude]

How come one believes Bin Laden about Saddam but when very reputable American Congressionals were traveling in Afghanistan they were told about Bin Laden an his desire to kill them and were forced to hide - how come he is trust worthy on one issue (Iraq) but un trust worthy on his statements both immediatly after his fight against the Soviets and in more recent times about never seeing or receiving aid from the US?

[talib_killa34]

Despite the 900+ KIA and the problems AFTER the regime fell, I'm sure our armed forces feel it was worth the trip.

What makes you sure of that?



Pretty sure. How many casualties did it take to stop the Axis in WWII?


Men in our military don't like to be sent somewhere, take KIA's and then be sent home with only half the job done. Read any book, ask the men of TF Ranger '93.


Further: "weirdness in Sudan"---- Could that be put in a less tactless way?

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040729_1060.html

[achilles]

How come one believes Bin Laden about Saddam but when very reputable American Congressionals were traveling in Afghanistan they were told about Bin Laden an his desire to kill them and were forced to hide - how come he is trust worthy on one issue (Iraq) but un trust worthy on his statements both immediatly after his fight against the Soviets and in more recent times about never seeing or receiving aid from the US?

Personally i cannot tell what is true and what is a lie when it comes to Laden. Listening to his declarations is like paying serious attention to Hitler's view of the world...

[talib_killa34]

Yeah, but people in this country DO listen to him for whatever reason...

Remember "TIME" magazine thought about making him "Person of the Year-2001".

.......................................................? :cantbeli:


Wait, wasn't Hitler
voted "Person of the Century" too? Oh SNAP! :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

[achilles]

Yeah, but people in this country DO listen to him for whatever reason...

Remember "TIME" magazine thought about making him "Person of the Year-2001".

.......................................................? :cantbeli:


Wait, wasn't Hitler
voted "Person of the Century" too? Oh SNAP! :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Well...lol,person of the century is not necessarily for good. Hitler was also nominated for the Peace Nobel Prize did you know that?

[talib_killa34]

Yeah I know that, but putting UBL on the honor list for 2001 at the outset of this "war" going on was like them doing it with Hitler in 1941.


It's like "Pick the side you are on already!"

[achilles]

[quote]I dont know if Bush will be relected o if he is the devil himself.

Let's not confuse things from the start by throwing the term "devil around. I didn't say Bush was the devil himself. I said Bush-Reagan made a deal with the devil, figuratively speaking. In no way is GW Bush a figure of biblical mythology, and in no way does any of this have to do with anything Jesus telepathically commanded any US politician to do.

Laugh, but it was Bush who said God wanted him to attacked Iraq at one point. A US president claimed God speaks to him? What the hell is this? I'd say he was insane, if I didn't know that he's actually a criminal liar and doesn't believe any of that Christian rhetoric he spouts when it suits his purposes. Bush's only God is $$$.


What is apparent is your unwillingness to view things with a more 'chilled' eye. You may be right but the way you present things, man, you convince noone.

I don't expect to convince Republican or right-wing bootlicker who has already made up their minds. It is a waste of time to argue sensibly with them. You can present them with a lecture and their only response will be "Yeah, but Michael Moore is fat." or "Kerry has a long-assed face."

I could just as easily talk about Bush's preternatural resemblence to a chimpanzee, but I try to refrain from sinking to such depths.


Anyway let me re-state my opinion on several things although we deviate from the thread's original topic. (yet indirectly linked)
I believe the war in Iraq took place due to:
-The aim of the US to establish a 'base' in the heart of the middle east and fight terrorism from there.

You are almost correct. The goal was to secure an oil supply independent of Saudi Arabia to fuel the rest of the war against the middle-east. It wasn't to make Halliburton rich, that is something Halliburton (and no doubt Cheney) chose to do on their own once they got the contracts.

Morality aside, it is simply a stupid plan, that's all. It places our troops into the middle of a killing field. We have daily casualties, not to mention stability in Iraq has not improved. Has it even put a dent into the 'terrorism"? On the contrary, it is swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations.


Along with Isreal and Turkey, America can establish a very strong 'triangle' of power in the middle east

Turkey isn't exactly a willing ally. Turkey is also very concerned about the Kurd situation. The only thing keeping Turkey in line is promises of eventual EU membership. I am also sure that Turkey turns a blind eye to terrorist traffic and financing.


-The fact that Iraq is the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Agreed.


-Political pressures from oil industries and defense-related industries.(and i am sure we did not expect Mr. Moore to enlighten us on that).

As I stated, I don't think it's about that as much as it is about not being dependent on Saudi oil. This is Bush's idea of lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

He went after Venezuela too, in case anyone noticed. That little coup against Chavez that failed so miserably. Now we have this weirdness in Sudan, another oil-producer.


-The belief that Saddam is developing 'significant amounts of 'WMD'.(and lets blame CIA and UK agencies for that although Bush should be still considered responsible)

No, that was not a reason, that was an excuse. As were the Anthrax letters. Who sent those, btw?

If you can thing of any other reasons please complement me.

Israel. Christianity. Paranoia. Competition. Selfish ambition (corporate crime).

There are many other reasons, it's everyday politics, the same as it has always been. What we have been led to is not entirely anyone's choosing, but the choices Bush has been able to make have been bad ones, they have been too influenced by a corrupt minority in America. Bush has a limited view of the world, all his decisions are tainted by the needs of Big Oil.


As for the report. No i dont think it was a waste of time and money as long as the truth is revealed.

My point is that Clinton and the Demoracts have something to lose from this report as well. There is Clinton's support of the Taliban and the KLA. If the subject turns to that, people will realize that Clinton has been playing Enron's game in Afghanistan-Pakistan the same was Bush was. As a matter of fact, Enron's bankruptcy has a little bit to do with the Taliban deals falling through. Enron was expecting a contract from Pakistan, Osama kept screwing it up.

All the more reason why I am sure that Bin Laden is a product of Saudi Arabia (and at one point, the CIA).


My basic comment on the report, based on what The Economist says, is that it can work in favour of Kerry and raise questions regarding the priorities of Bush in the middle east. There is evidence in this report that Iran was, is and willl most likely continue to be the major threat in the middle east.

Nowhere near the threat Saudi Arabia already is.


Apart from developing WMD we can now be certain that Iraq was somehow related to Al Qaeda (remember the arrests of Al-qaeda member a while ago).

Funny how Bin Laden was calling for Saddam's death, isn't it?

Btw, developing WMD? What are you talking about? What WMD? It's all gone.


For those reasons Bush strongly opposed the access of the report panel to 'sensitive documents'. It guess it all comes down to domestic politics and the forthcoming elections.

Bush opposes access to them because they will show just how much Cheney and Rumsfeld exaggerated the threat in the final report Bush presented to the public.

For the 'devil' thing Kenobi you got me wrong. I just used your word without any further implications and definitely Bush is not a figure of biblical mythology.

And yes, i agree there is a lot of nonsense around here of the type "moore is fat" or "bush is a chimp". lol

Yes dependence on Saudi Arabia is something i forgot to mention in the first place. As for Halliburton, Cheney and their contracts i think this is hardly refutable.

I dont agree that the war is a stupid plan (morality aside as you said, but this the real world we are talking about). Remember, the initial causes of war on which we more or less agreed. They will be acheived sooner or later no matter if soldiers are killed and Iraq is destabilizing. Who said saving lives and democratizing Iraq for its own sake was part of the initial plan?

I wont get into Venezuela, Chavez and Sudan under this perspective since i have no evidence. If you have anything i d be glad to take a look.

And it seems we agree on the 'domestic politics' and 911 report explanation of why Bush does not like it at all. I insist, though, that the report can do more good than harm the democrats. Clinton is not the canditate this time so some of his sins can be forgiven/forgotten.

And an important self-correction. I meant: "Apart from developing WMD we can now be certain that IRAN was somehow related to Al Qaeda" not Iraq as i originally posted. Sorry...that was a slip of my hand.

[OB Kenobi]

And yes, i agree there is a lot of nonsense around here of the type "moore is fat" or "bush is a chimp". lol

Yes, even though both are true, they really shouldn't be mentioned in a political debate.


I dont agree that the war is a stupid plan (morality aside as you said, but this the real world we are talking about). Remember, the initial causes of war on which we more or less agreed. They will be acheived sooner or later no matter if soldiers are killed and Iraq is destabilizing. Who said saving lives and democratizing Iraq for its own sake was part of the initial plan?

Democratizing Iraq is yet another excuse for the invasion. The reason is oil and Israel. The war on terror is supposed to come later, no hurry.

The plan is flawed because they will never be able to establish order in Iraq as they imagined they could. They really did think it was going to be easy, they underestimated how much Iraqis believe in Islam and what Iraqis think about the future of Islam vs. the future of America.


I wont get into Venezuela, Chavez and Sudan under this perspective since i have no evidence. If you have anything i d be glad to take a look.

Yes I do:

http://newsmine.org/archive/war-on-terror/venezuela/apr-2002-coup/venezuela-us-military.txt
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1298
http://www.zmag.org/content/LatinAmerica/blum_coup.cfm


And it seems we agree on the 'domestic politics' and 911 report explanation of why Bush does not like it at all. I insist, though, that the report can do more good than harm the democrats. Clinton is not the canditate this time so some of his sins can be forgiven/forgotten.

Clinton isn't the problem, corporate crime, especially from Big Oil, is the problem. The Democrats don't want this kind of thing brought up during the election, because it makes people wonder what the point in voting for them is if they aren't really going to change things or prosecute Bush-Halliburton.


And an important self-correction. I meant: "Apart from developing WMD we can now be certain that IRAN was somehow related to Al Qaeda" not Iraq as i originally posted. Sorry...that was a slip of my hand.

Highly unlikely that Iran gave much support to Al Qaeda. Iran was at war with the Taliban (check Google), why would they support Al Qaeda? It's still possible I guess, but that would be some truly mixed up politics. I believe Al Qaeda is a Saudi-Pakistani entity, even to this day. Bush intends to go after them eventually, but he's trying to secure a new source of oil first--in Iraq. Like I said, that plan is going to fail, that's not how we should do this. Unfortuntately Bush has us stuck in a situation we can't just pull out of anymore. What we need is international support, and we are going to have to give the Iraqis what THEY want, not what Big Oil wants.