Yep- by the time Bush took control the events were imminent & unpreventable due to Clinton's obvious failure to control terrorists' thoughts. No wonder Bush decided to spend the entire month of August '01 on vacation- whatcha gonna do about somthung thats already done?.

http://www.drudgereport.com/pj.jpg

How about evidence that Iraq was a sponsor/commiter of terrorism? Do they have to fly the Al Qaeda flag to worry you?

My spidy-senses are tingling.....yes I feel another of Lynn's cartoons coming:)

Ted Kennedy is a back stabbing murderer. Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broadderick and had Barbara Batallino's medical and law licenses revoked for lying about sex.

Appalling move Mul. So the administration is 'protecting' us by occupying a foreign country, instilling resistance uprisings & sending civillian contractors into the war zone to try & clean up the mess.

It is Paul Johnson's head on top of his body...By terrorists encouraged and abetted by the likes of back-stabbing liberal politicians who are more enamored with power than America's protection.

"Occupying"...I love that one...Hot-button language manufactured by left-wing propagandists to portray a false image.

We are securing THIS Nation from terrorists, liberating 25,000,000 people and cleaning up the Clinton smoke-and-mirrors repercussions.

Hitler was a socialist -- Democrats are socialists, Hitler was for abortion -- Democrats are for abortion, Hitler was for gun confiscation -- Democrats are for gun confiscation, Hitler was for abortion/eugenics -- Democrats are for abortion/eugenics, Hitler was anti-semite/anti-Chrisitanity -- Democrats are anti-semite/anti-Christianity, Hitler was for government controlled education -- Democrats are for govt. controlled education, Hitler was for stranglehold control of business -- Democrats are for stranglehold control of business.

Then there are your book burning friends over at the ACLU, attacking the Boy Scouts, erasing Chrisitanity wherever they can and having the cross removed from the seal of the County of Los Angeles.

Down, down, down the memory hole.

Neo-communists or neo-fascists...cut from the same cloth.

Well the US armed forces are enforcing martial law in a foreign country. Judge, Jury & Executioner.

oc·cu·py a : to take or hold possession or control of; b : to fill or perform the functions of (an office or position)

Obviously my use of the word is in error- I apologize :(



Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

The man you quote, widebody, is a fool and a liar...Mussolini was a fascist, that began as a hardline communist (he realized it was a failure in theory).

"Observer after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he approached his subject, has been impressed with the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "fascism" and "communism." While "progressives" in England and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tryrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies."

"Even communists must have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as Max Eastman, Lenin's old friend, who found himself compelled to admit thate "instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple."

F.A. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" -- pg. 31 (1944)

This guy was a libertarian economist.

"But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control." -- F.A. Hayek, preface xxxv

Too true...Too too true.

"No less significant is the intellectual history of many of Nazi and Fascist leaders. Everone who has watched the growth of these movements in Italy or in Germany has been struck by the number of leading men, from Mussolini downward (and not excluding Laval and Quisling), who began as socialists and ended as Fascists or Nazis."

F.A. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom", pg. 33

"Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist ``exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics."

Richard Poe

The guy you cite, widebody, is a lying propagandist scum.

Hitler was a socialist...Marx was a socialist...Democrat party are socialists.

Republicanism is most akin to anarchists...Fascism and Communism are kissing cousins.

Wake up!

Do ya'll see how I just take the petty insults and just ignore them?...I mean, widebody, has left himself open to slaughter by parroting some nobody, know nothing, revisionist to redefine fascism...With half-assed assertions and weak assumptions unfounded in any discernible fact finding...But, hey, that is liberalism for ya.

I, on the other hand, went out of my way to credibly found and substantiate my arguments. F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom", is a work from a man who saw it first hand. He was an economist and a libertarian. Very respected source and time tested. I bolster my conclusions with a classic...Widebody, on the other hand, bolsters his argument with a nobody.

To believe widebody's fanciful citation and substantially devoid conclusion that "fascism = conservativism", I would have to ignore that the sun rises and sets.

FYI widebody -- in the scheme of ideologies that have tended murderous, in the last 100 years nothing compares to the Godless mass murderers of Communism...Next in line would be Fascism...Next in line would be Islamofascism (Saddam's idol was Stalin).

Have a pleasant weekend widebody...But really, desist from grabbing other people's turds and rubbing them on yourself.

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/econazi_3.gif

Peace man.

LOL, Mul, your posts are flying into the stratosphere. Whetever slight credibility you had with a few conservatives here, you've thown away with both hands!

The truth which you cannot face, is that GWB is the best friend al Quaeda could ever have. Their effectiveness at recruiting has never been so great.

Here's another source you can name-call and struggle to discredit -- never mind that like Zinni, Clarke and O'Neill, he knows far more than you.

---------------------------

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday June 19, 2004
The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the "war against terror" yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.

But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: "Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He walks a very fine line," he said yesterday.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

"For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice".

Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [Bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is that he's fairly comfortable where he is."

The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

"What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation," he said."The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more professional group.

"They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also think they're much less prone to being the Errol Flynns of al-Qaida. They're just much more careful across the board in the way they operate."

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not have them already, it will inevitably acquire them.

The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.

The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

Mul:
"FYI widebody -- in the scheme of ideologies that have tended murderous, in the last 100 years nothing compares to the Godless mass murderers of Communism...Next in line would be Fascism...Next in line would be Islamofascism (Saddam's idol was Stalin)."

Just out of curiousity, where in that hierarchy would the US government-sanctioned genocide of (up to) 9 million native Americans fall?

Well, with this President always on vacation, I am sure they saw an opening.


RE: Putin's intelligence that Iraq was planning an attack on the US.

Was this "intel" provided by that wonderfully reliable group run by Chalabi? With the cr*p intelligence the US has received prior to the war, I can't believe any of it the supports the war.

Yes, if only he had been in D.C., he would have seen the BatSignal. Then he and Superman could have stopped those planes. Your logic KungFu is strong.


What would possibly make you think Chalabi was involved? Nevermind.

Len,

It's a fact that no recent President has taken so much vacation. Perhaps if George's mind wasn't on going to the ranch, he might have been paying attention to things around him.

However, regarding the intelligence again. How much uncorroborated evidence did the administration use that turned out to be exaggerated or fake? Chalabi was one of the biggest proponents of the war so that he could go back in and rule. Fortunately he was exposed.