You make it sound like anyone with a clue would have run out and done something...but the fact is..we had known all this info since the mid 90's and noone else had done anything or seemed to be able to predict the attack on 911 either. Supposedly the information that was in the PDB was that around the time period of the first WTC bombing, Bin Laden’s terrorists were interested in hijacking an aircraft. And of course, like all evil henchmen…Bin Laden had always wanted to attack the US and be a big shot (just like France and every other petty dictator in the world). . And why not, he was the hero of every scum sucking terrorist in the Arab world after the first attempt on the world trade center. If there was no information regarding how, when and where the attacks were going to take place…What would you have done? Even if a hijack was actually attempted, the logical assumption was that (like in the past) the airplanes would have been hijacked overseas and the passengers held pending the release of some terrorists from jails as Ms Rice indicated. Based on such little information, would you have grounded the thousands of flights a day in the US and overseas for the next 3 years? The Clinton administration didn’t, how could the Bush administration? Do you think anyone in this country would have tolerated that prior to 9-11 or even now? Would we have kept them grounded from 1998 until Nov 2001?
Would you have supported keeping the airlines closed until we could find the al-quaida members, and arrested them…even though we could not prove they had done anything wrong at that point? Even they were innocent until proven guilty? How would you have found them? They had driver’s licenses since the Clinton Administration had changed the rule regarding their expiration at the same time as their visas. We reportedly have over 8 million working poor illegal aliens in this country; with estimates of up to 1 million more each year that we cannot find….how could we find 19 that were well funded and hiding?

no reason ? . . .even the French knew Saddam had tons of unaccounted for WMD.

Seems some pretty damn BIG DOTS to connect there.

The only thing I can agree on is, it would have been best if we knew just where the WMD was, before going in . . .but then we could have just used inspectors . ..and/or the left would just clamor that it was all planted there by BUsh and his boys.

Let me ask you this: what has this war solved? What is it solving? Do you think there'll be a hand-over of any significance toward Iraq's soverignty as a democratic nation on June 30th? Are they ready for democracy? Do they know what it is?

If all these questions can be answered positively, possibly this war has been worth the effort.

Hmm...I wouldn't assume that given a memo with a title of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

I hate to whip a dead horse, but how can you see things so black and white. Yes, Rice did fine on some points, but she gaffed a few others. The main things that pissed me off were the issues I cite above, and the fact that she seemed to refuse to accept any responsibility...she doesn't have control over what the FBI does, she doesn't have control over what the president thinks, she doesn't control what the CIA acts on, etc. While that might be true, then what *does* she do? And did she miss anything, or was she perfect?

I think pretty much EVERYONE at the higer levels of *both* administrations are at fault to some degree. Nobody's perfect...why can't they just admit that instead of hide behind semantics and finger pointing?

and btw, I read the transcripts, but I also watched the video. She had the "quivering lip" at many points during the testimony.

. . .it's a "no win" situation for Bush. War is not a pretty thing, but it is better, for us. . ..given the alternatives.

I have yet to hear anything remotely close to a plan from the dem's. I really do wish they would be proactive, rather than reactive, in all of this.

Anybody can point out the bad side of war. . . those things are pretty damn sef-evident. The big-picture, and the cost/benifit, is completely ignored by the Kerry campaign. All they are doing is point to the cost and saying "bad":( . . .a bunch of rocket scientist, those guys are. :rolleyes:

Glenn - an answer to my questions, please. What has this war solved? Forget the dems. Let's talk about the here and now.

Oh, but they did.

On July 26, 2001 - 47 days before the Sept. 11 attacks - CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

I guess even if bush and rice were at sleep at the wheel or didn't care cause they never fly on commercial air liners its pretty obvious other people in our government took the threat seriously.

We also have the case of Kathleen Rowley and her cohorts catching one of the hijackers and raising hell with their FBI superiors and even going as far as doing an end run to the CIA in an attempt to have something done about the 9/11 threat before it even happened. Despite this Rice tries to tell us 'there is no silver bullet that could have stopped 9/11'. Yeah, right . . . :rolleyes:

You know something is pretty rotten in denmark when Rowley and her cohorts would joke that an al-qaeda mole was in the top levels of FBI due to the resistance they got to investigating one of the suicide pilots.

Now that Rowley blew the whistle her career has been ruined but the still unnamed washington supervisor that thwarted her investigation has been promoted by the bush administration after 9/11.

When I think about facts like these its not a far leap to suspect that bush might have been facilitating the events of 9/11 for the political gain he needed to pull off his invasion of iraq and save his a$$ from impeachment.

Are you saying we can't believe anything Arafat says either???!!!???

dd, My last post was was started before I saw your Q's.

solved & solving:

Well clearly we have all that oil that we went to steal, and gas prices have never been lower. :rolleyes:

Anyway; the jihadist have gone to Iraq to find their virgins (CA girls are safer for that) ;)

Saddam (wish he were dead) is out of the picture.

Iraq is now more open to weapons inspectors.

The majority of Iraqis are happier.

The number of jihadist is becoming more controlable.

I'll let others chime in on the rest . .I've got to head out again.

Actually, the war from the GHWB administration never technically ended, so GWB’s administration did not start a war. Saddam never complied with the provisions ending the war in 1992. Clinton did not hold Saddam accountable for not complying with the provisions. I know this is not commonly discussed, but it is important to note.

As for proof, what more proof is necessary? What proof are we talking about? Is it proof that there was WMD? Is it proof that there was not WMD? Is it proof that Saddam tortured and killed his own people? Is it proof that he did not comply with the provisions to end the war in 1992? The war continued under GWB was not strictly about WMD, as some believe. Even if it were, Saddam did not offer any proof that he had disposed of the WMD that he had been proven to have years before. If there is no proof that WMD were destroyed (other than Saddam's "word") how could we know if he had WMD or not? As for killing his own people, I don't think anyone can argue that he did not perform great atrocities against his own people. As for not complying, it is a fact on the record at the UN that Saddam did not comply.

Going after Saddam was not about going after those that attacked us on 9/11, but rather going after the support group of terrorism and finishing the job that should have been completed under GHWB. We went after those that had direct ties to 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan.

________________________________________________

I am sorry, but I really don't understand anyone who doesn't believe that liberating Iraq from such a brutal dictator is not a good result. I truly believe the people of Iraq are much better off without Saddam and it is a small minority of militants that are causing the deaths against our fine military/civilian men and women in Iraq. The civilian people of Iraq are much better off today than they were a year ago. Now, we need to assist them in completing the transition.

to the best of my knowledge Rice doesn't have Parkinsons...

Rumsfeld and MANY other high ranking government official were told to travel by private flights because of threats AGAINST THEM, not against the commercial fleet as a whole.

Watching the vitriolic commentary in this forum, I could believe that there were quite a few Clintonians and Gore-less dems out there that would wish to embarass / threaten new administration officials onboard a commercial flight after the election mess.

To say that they were on private flights because of a 'supressed threat to the American travelling public' is ludicrous, and colors, at least in my opinion, the person that says crazy things like that.

OK, that is the end of the quote from CBS news. The rest is 930's opinion based on a great leap inferred from a quote. I'm sorry.... makes me wonder about the rest of 930's info.

I'll put the rest of this leap here for all to see how one small, but totally inaccurate supposition leads 930 to conclude that:



"QUOTED from 350HP930:

When I think about facts like these its not a far leap to suspect that bush might have been facilitating the events of 9/11 for the political gain he needed to pull off his invasion of iraq and save his a$$ from impeachment."



Hmmmm. Quite a leap. That someone who had just been elected President of this great country would try to help (OK, in your words,) facilitate the terrorists to attack the United States homeland in order to let him go to war at great cost to everyone is so ludicrous to be laughable.


You have just accused the President of your own country of treason. I would bet that gets you an honorable mention somewhere in the database of the Patriot Act. Gawd, at least I hope so.

Well, one would hate to think Bush would do such a thing; the consequences are truly unimanginable. However, I wouldn't put it past him to take 9/11 as an opportunity to utilize force on Iraq. Every politican engages in such a process. It's called "pork."

Scooter: I've read that your an attorney. If so, you should know what constitutes proof. No one cares about the absence of proof. Proof. PROOF. As in proof toward why we went to Iraq. There should be no semantics involved. Show the proof. When Saddam killed off thousands of Kurds, no one then and now cares, nor should they. That was his own little battle. How can that equate to a terrorism threat now? No, we need proof. Hard evidence of the very thing that GW says we should invade the country over.

2. A bit of insight into Bush I. His desire was to get Saddam out of Kuwait, not overthrow him. Just get him out as an occupying force of a country on whom we rely for oil reserves. Now Bush II might have felt that his dad should have gotten rid of Saddam when he had the man on his heels, but that was not the objective in 1992.

3. Which Iraqis have you been talking to that feel they are better off now than when Saddam was in power? Non-Sunnis, I imagine, who of course are glad Saddam is gone because Saddam was Sunni, and favored his own.

Now the Sunni's are fearful while all other factions are nearly celebratory. In my view, it's displacing one bad group for another (or several). This is what happens in a dictatorship.

1. Proof: Proof comes in many forms. Have you heard of circumstantial evidence? Also, not responding can be enough proof to find one guilty. Regardless, the UN had proof in the 90's that Saddam had WMD capability and was trying to purchase the materials for more. Without proof that he disposed of his WMDs the proof remains.

2. GWB had many reasons for continuing the war against Saddam and Iraq. There was much proof behind his reasoning, of which the UN had, but continued to give Saddam more and more chances to come clean, of which he refused to take advantage. Why didn't Saddam just give the inspectors access? Saddam thought he was going to continue to get more chances, that is until GWB said enough is enough.

3. I can't believe you would say no one cares that thousands of people were killed by this evil man. Such a statement, I find appalling.

[/i] 1. I find it extremely difficult to believe anyone would not think the people of Iraq are better off without Saddam. I cannot even respond to such a statement.

Scott - your argument is unconvincing. Circumstantial proof is not enough to bomb a country into oblivion and then be stuck with the costs of rebuilding it.

And before you decipher one country's genocide as worse than any others, step back and examine the U.S.'s support of Contras, South Korea, South Vietman, Papa Doc, The Shah and at one time, Saddam himself - who, all told, killed what, millions?

I'm afraid your diatribe suffers from selective memory and hand-picked facts in this regard.

don't forget Salvador Allende and Pol Pot...

When did I decipher one genocide was worse than another? Answer...never. Evil is evil, it is reprehensible to kill thousands or millions of people. I actually said I find it appalling that anyone would say that no one cares that thousands of people were killed.
This is in direct response to your statement that "when Saddam killed off thousands of Kurds, no one then and now cares, nor should they."

And, I did not say that there was circumstantial evidence, but rather stated that proof comes in many forms, and circumstantial evidence is just an example of one form. I actually stated that 'without proof that he disposed of his WMDs the proof remains." This is an example where not responding can be enough proof to find one guilty. There are many cases where people are found guilty when they were confronted with a matter and they remained silent instead of defending oneself. The lack of defense can imply guilt.

Hey, hitler was willing to terrorize and kill his own citizens in an attempt to convince the common german that they were the victims of a global jewish conspiracy to destroy western civilization. Hmm, fanatical religious terrorists who are out to destroy western civilization, why does that sound so familiar?

Never mind that a lot of those bombs and killings he pointed to as proof of his propaganda were actually carried out by his goons who were doing his bidding.

In the end how did hitler get hindenburg and the public to grant him dictatorial control and pass new legislation that nullified a lot of the german constitution? His thugs firebombed the reichstag and framed the socialists for the crime. I bet at the time the average concervative german would have thought it inconcievable that their leader would ever do such a thing but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Is it a leap to assume that the grandson of one of the nazi's biggest financers and sympathisers would take a page right from one of the worse chapters of human history to try to succeed where the germans failed? The goal of world domination is an old one and its pretty clear bush is playing the game but what are the rules to such an enterprise?

While the average american has suffered as a result of 9/11 and the iraq war GWB and his financiers have made out like bandits.

Since some have benefited from the results of 9/11 its only fair to ask if the bush administration's actions were more than just the result of incompetence.

Scott: You still make no sense, and your argument is coming from nowhere that seems based in reality other than a propensity to be partisan. What point of view are arguing from? Yours or your party's latest trumped up reason for invasion?

No one should care about Saddam offing the Kurds only in the sense (as is my argument) that it has no effect (never did, never will) on this country. It was a poor Bush argument for going to war with Iraq. Where were the R's when Saddam actually did this? Bush I was in power then, wasn't he? Good reason to invade then, wasn't it? Take care of the evil dictator as his hawkish advisors advised, right?

And even so, if this country is so historically concerned with humanity, we would have taken care of Saddam then, not now. You don't recognize your own party's spin, do you?

And anyway, as the examples of our support of various dictatorships and out-and-out criminals who have killed millions of people, we are wholly hypocritical when it comes to using Kurdish genocide as a reason for war.