First, there was indeed a terrorist training camp in Iraq. They even had an old jetliner to practice hijackings on. I cannot recall the name (where is Mull when you need him)

Also, keep reading. The report did show a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. If you havn't read it yet you will.

Regarding Saudi Arabia. The major difference is that the Royal Family is very friendly to us and we have no reason to believe that they will move against us. There is an ass load of terrorists in SA, but it's a very touchy thing when we are so reliant on their oil and tehy on our money. That's just the truth, it's complicated, it's wrong.

OK, fair enough. Like I said, I'm only on page 271. I've flipped ahead and it doesn't look like it would be there (esp. given what I've already read, as I quoted above), but that's just a quick glance. (Book doesn't have an index!)

So, I'll wait and see.

It is an interesting read. Some of the detail is incredible - they practically figured out what the hijackers had for breakfast every day the week before the attack.

(BTW, Len, check your PM).

I said this before somewhere, but i haven't heard anyone else bring it up...

According to the 9/11 report, Sept 11 happened because of a "lack of imagination" more than anything. Well, are the lefties now mad that we have too much imagination with regards to Iraq? Had we imagined that US jets were going to be used as weapons to kill 3,000 innocent americans, and we had used that imagined vision to tighten the security and block those hijackers and 9/11 never happened... Don't you think they'd be b!tching about how we took away their civil rights? Wouldn't they be hopping mad that people were being targeted? Don't you think that they'd have said, 'well, nothing would have happened anyway.' We KNOW differently, but that's what they'd have said.

...So democrats would have kicked up a stink about tightened airport security but republicans would have been quietly loving it, knowing that it was just a sign that 'big brother' was looking out for them??

How about if it was instigated during Clinton's administration? No b!tching from republicans at all huh?

:rolleyes:

Ok, the 9/11 reports says there were no connections to Saddam but Lendaddy says there is. Exactly where does it say this??
More of that rightwingwacko BS.....like they HAD WMD but they were buried in a super secret location. Lies, lies and more lies...

Geoff

I think you are mistaken. I don't believe it does. Could you provide the exact quote? Or have you read it?

No I did NOT say there was a connection between Sadaam and 9/11, I just didn't. I said there was a connection between Al Queda and Sadaam. Atleast read what I wrote before you quote me.

Thanks SoCal.
So it doesn't say..as quoted by Bleyseng: . It in fact points out that there were connections. It does point out that they could find no "evidence" of "a collaborative operational relationship." which no one has ever claimed there was. Also, from your quote...they did not deny the possibly either. Even if there had been such a "collaborative operational relationship," I doubt that either Saddam or Bin laden would have come to the Commission and testified as such....so how could they possibly have found evidence of such?

I don't know. I watched most of the hearings and saw little evidence of any significant investigation in that respect....Similarly, I saw little concern regarding conflict of interest of members of the comission...several of which should have been testifying instead of questioning.

OK SOCAL ....Thge Saudi Royal family is friendly to the USA..they are the only friends we got in Saudi....Saudi Society is very very Conservative, and is the main source of money for the Fundlementalist Mosques throughout the world..

Most of the countries in the ME are on the Conservative side...but the ruling class is what keeps the fundlementalists in check.

Second point about Buchanan spouting a Liberal line.....verily verily....Back in the day when I was a lowly student at the U of C I had a Proffessor by the name of Jorge Nef....Nef was close enough to the Allende government that when Allende was assinated the Chilean government wanted Nef back....The CIA it was rumored was putting pressure of the UC system to get rid of Nef....So U might say Nef was a Communist ...Shortly after I took his class Nef went to McGill in Montreal..the research that Nef was doing was on Multinational Corporations...and basically what has come to pass in the past 30 years with regards to Globalization of the economy...Isn't it ironic that such a RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE as Buchanan is spouting such a LEFTIST POV 20 years later....Oh how things come full circle.

And your right..many many Conservatives wouldn't know which side of the bed to get out of either, if it weren't for a Talking Head...pity really...

Conflicts of interest, etc.
 

See;

9/11 Hearings - Beyond the Witch Hunt

and

Are 9/11 Commission Results Flawed?

. . .or search on "Jamie Gorelick " for other references.

. .. now where did I set my popcorn .. .oh. . carry on. :cool:

YES ....when Special Interest Groups donate money to both sides of the aisle...Special Interest Groups win no matter which side is elected. When considring these groups one really has to look at the amount of money it takes to win a campaign...Corzine spent 60M of his own spendable for his Senate seat in NJ. Also it has become increasingly tough to dislodge an incumbent. from office.


Consider that to the Civil Service eg Governmental employees....an Elected Offical is but a TEMPORARY occupant of the seat he sits in. It is the Civil Service that writes the specifications of the laws Congress passes. It is very difficult to get this entrenched Bureaucracy to change it's SOP.

Now whats left is exactly who gets to feed at the trough...and who gets to set the agenda as to the tunes we get to listen to....

Now U notice...Gun Control was a Hot Topic...Clinton did get a AWB that the manufacturers went around pretty quickly...but the topic has become such a hot potatoe that no Liberal Politican wants to touch it. End result no real change and the law has expired...

Abortion...The govenment is controled both in the Congress and Executive Branch by an Anti Abortion Party...(the Supream's while having an anti- Abortion bias has supported Rowe vs Wade) Yet the Abortion is still legal..

.

I have not read the entire book...and do not possess a copy now to refer to. My recollection is that it spent a great deal of time on minutia while failing to look at obvious issues. I was not surprised considering how the televised hearings went. Clearly it was a group of fiercely partisan democrats and a several senile, silly, old moderate republicans.

Obviously the point of the commission was to find fault internal to the US...not elsewhere. Someone to scapegoat. Since it was billed as a group that would show Bush was "asleep at the wheel," the republicans were stuck appointing moderates that were not particularly supportive of the administration (had to make sure it could not be called a presidential cover-up)...the democrats appointed the most radical, trial lawyer types they could find...several of which were implicated themselves.

Intertesting that lawyers and politicians were selected...but no one with much law enforcement, intelligence experience, or investigative background.

From Island's original topic:

I don't know about you guys, but I find Kerrys complete willingness to sell-out . ..to broadcast to the world our intensions, our weaknesses, rather disgusting.

Seems to me that what you see as "broadcasting intentions and weaknesses" is what I would see as discussing decisions, motives and abilities. I see that as part of democracy - I'm serious - ask yourself if Kerry wins this election, will you vilify any Republican who criticises Kerry's decisions post-election?

Of course you won't - you'll see it as democracy in action.

Another thing, Fint (and others) have once again referred to Bush getting into power and finding that Clinton had made a mess of everything :rolleyes:. I'm kinda prepared to accept this - certainly I think that the die is cast a long way before the outcome becomes apparent for certain things (eg economy) and equally I also think the president/govt has a pretty limited ability to influence certain things.

However, were Kerry to win the election, and the situation WRT terror or Iraq to improve (or deteriorate), who get the "credit" (in each case)? By your logic, it may well have to be Bush - succeed or fail. Or is it Clinton ;).

From the 1st debate:

I couldn't believe it when he said that! Neither could Kerry...

Finally, Len ----> that "terrorist training camp" discussion with Mul is here:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1375213&highlight=trainin g+camp#post1375213

I found more info and posted a semi-rebuttal a couple of posts lower (I have no firm opinion as I think there is insufficient and/or contradictory evidence).

Hehe, the good times - that was when I called him a jackass.

BTW, as SoCal said, accusing the 911 Commission report of being biased because of who the Democrats are basically calls into question the character of the Republicans on the Committee - they haven't come out and stated they think it is flawed or what they decided on (together) is BS.

Are you implying that Bush said Iraq attacked us with that quote from the debate? I hope not. Iraq is part of the war on terror, it is not revenge for 9/11. Bush has NEVER said so.

Seriously Len - can you read it another way? I didn't cut out anything between what Lehrer said and Bush said. When asked about sending troops to Iraq, he pretty much said "I did it because they attacked us". The only attack was 9/11.

My head shot up when Bush said that --> "they" didn't attack you.

I see what you're saying, but what I'm talking about is Kerry Saying crap like: " 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. "

Two things there. (spins, lies. . whatever):
1. The 9/11 Commission CANNOT confirm there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein . . .all it can say is 'they found no connection'

2. the rest of the sentance is a flat out lie. The reasons for going into Iraq were many. . . .Saddam broke his cease-fire agreement, by shooting at our planes for 10 years, for example.

But the bigger issue I am getting at is how quick Kerry is to throw out spin and lies about the conduct of the United States for his own selfish political gain. (just like in 1972 . . screw the US, Kerry wants some FACE TIME! )

I imagine its tough for you to apreciate . .. Think of it this way, Cam. . ..one of your politicians gets noticed by promulgating the idea that NZ will do NOTHING if any country wants to do some nuclear testing off it's shores.

. . .or what if the same politicians promulgates the idea that NZ has too many medical and agro expenses associated with kiwi's humping sheep. Sure, other countries would find it amusing.

Just remember that while you see Kerry "spin and lies" about the rationale for war, I see Bush's spin and lies about the rationale for war. Maybe the true position of both candidates is in the middle.

...nuclear testing...

This is interesting, and I (really) might need some help thinking it through. A few months ago, the leader of the (right wing) opposition may or may not have made a statement (subsequently released to the media) at a closed door discussion with US officials to the effect that if his party was elected, the ban on nuclear powered ships (yes, we really have that) coming to NZ would be lifted.

The "no nukes" concept is pretty deeply ingrained in NZ minds, so there was outrage.

I'm not sure this actually parallels what your saying though.

I think I see the problem though - what you're saying is that Kerry is misrepresenting the current situation (to his own gain). I put it to you that he is not worse than Bush in this respect.

CAM, come on. I find it hard to believe that you still don't get the idea here. One more time [sigh]

When we were attacked we were forced to take a new approach to state sponsored terrorism. Ofcourse we will try the diplomatic approach first, but for countries whom refuse to talk we are left with little choice. Sadaam would not talk, and he F'd us at ever turn. So our new approach is to spank him down to show other nations it is in their best interest to deal diplomatically. So when Bush brings up the fact that we were attacked he is simply saying it opened our eyes and we cannot use our old anti-terrorism playbook anymore. I got it, you really didn't? You think he really believes Iraq attacked us?

Notice we are in talks with Iran/ North Korea/ and even Saudi Arabia. That's why we havn't attacked them. The lesson has been learned and hopefully because of Iraq, Iraq won't have to happen again.

Sadaam would not talk, and he F'd us at ever turn. So our new approach is to spank him down to show other nations it is in their best interest to deal diplomatically.

Yeah, but I find this completely unacceptable reasoning - as does much of the US (and certainly most of the world) population.

Thus, if this is what Bush is/was thinking, it wasn't what he "sold" to the US public to get support for the war (then and now). It is not acceptable for him to mislead his country on the rationale for war.

You think he really believes Iraq attacked us?

No, but he's got so used to saying "the enemy attacked us" that it has become a sort of mantra - like the "mixed messages" one.