Support for Iraq down to 40%!

[dissention]

I am *shocked.* I didn't even think mutilation would sway public opinion, but I guess it did.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4755365&section=news

[Hawkeye]

This Iraq war is kind of like the vietnam war. There's no point to it and the American people hate it, but it just goes on and on and on and on.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Hawkeye
This Iraq war is kind of like the vietnam war. There's no point to it and the American people hate it, but it just goes on and on and on and on.

So true.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Hawkeye
This Iraq war is kind of like the vietnam war. There's no point to it and the American people hate it, but it just goes on and on and on and on.

I don't think this assessment is accurate yet, thank goodness. Vietnam lasted for years. The Iraq War is just over a year old now, & it seems folks are wising up. November will be the true test.

- Jake

[DeeGeMe]

There's a new bok out today called "Worse Than Watergate" by John Dean (!!!!) which outlines the corruption of the Bush administration. What kills me is that Repugs I know don't seem to be able to connect the dots in all these books that are coming out (BY REPUBLICANS) that outline just how bad Bush & his cronies are. I hear the same lines over and over again, "They're just saying that to sell books." Yeah, like O'Lielly & his crew aren't? One book, yeah, maybe, you could explain away, but three in a row--all by Republicans? Do these people just bury their head in the sand or what? Although from these poll results it looks like quite a few people are beginning to come to their senses and realize that we should never have been in Iraq in the first place. What happened to Osama Bin Laden and bringing him back dead or alive?

[dissention]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
There's a new bok out today called "Worse Than Watergate" by John Dean (!!!!)

Anytime John Dean is crying foul, you know the ChimpCo ship is sinking. :nod: :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Hawkeye
This Iraq war is kind of like the vietnam war. There's no point to it and the American people hate it, but it just goes on and on and on and on.

Now that's just ridiculous....;)

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I don't think this assessment is accurate yet, thank goodness. Vietnam lasted for years. The Iraq War is just over a year old now, & it seems folks are wising up. November will be the true test.

- Jake

We will be there for another 10 years either way. And they are on the verge of civil war. It will be full blown by the time November rolls around unfortunately.

[strandinthewind]

I do not think the Iraqui's are on the verge of a civil war. With a little luck, this new Const. may take effect without incident, although that certainly is not a certainty. Again, most of the fighting still going on in Iraq is in only about 10 to 20 percent of the country and that big poll conducted awhile back indicated the Iraqi's are glad SH is gone and that their lives are better and getting better. So, Iraq may work after all even if W and his admin lied to get there and had no discernable plan in the beginning.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not think the Iraqui's are on the verge of a civil war. With a little luck, this new Const. may take effect without incident, although that certainly is not a certainty. Again, most of the fighting still going on in Iraq is in only about 10 to 20 percent of the country and that big poll conducted awhile back indicated the Iraqi's are glad SH is gone and that their lives are better and getting better. So, Iraq may work after all even if W and his admin lied to get there and had no discernable plan in the beginning.

Breaking on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/06/iraq.main/index.html

Coalition battling al-Sadr supporters in Najaf
U.S. Marines move into Fallujah; fighting reported in Ramadi
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 Posted: 5:39 PM EDT (2139 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. and coalition troops are battling supporters of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr for a third day Tuesday, with clashes reported in Baghdad and at least four cities in the country's south.

Heavy fighting was reported in the Sunni Triangle city of Fallujah, where U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces were reasserting control after the killing and mutilation of four civilian security guards last week.

And west of Fallujah late Tuesday, insurgents mounted a large-scale attack against Marines in Ramadi, according to Pentagon officials in Washington.

Preliminary reports indicated as many as a dozen Americans had been killed and more than a dozen wounded, with heavy insurgent casualties, officials said.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not think the Iraqui's are on the verge of a civil war.

Boy, you are crazier than a ****house rat. :laugh:

That country is going to hell in a handbasket, the Shiite's are about to lose it even more than they already are (and that bodes badly considering over 60% of the population are Shiite!), they're practically in combat just as much as they were at the start of the war! This is the biggest joke our world has ever seen in history.

Talk about polls all you want, do you honestly think that these people are going to honestly tell us what they think? Hell f*ckin' no. They want us out of there and they think they're telling us what we want to hear. They hate us. Yeah, they're glad Saddam is gone, but we're just another Saddam to them, buddy.

And we are all to blame for this.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Now that's just ridiculous....;)

Rob:cool:

Gulf of Tonkin?

Cripes, it's bad enough that Shrub was found guilty of war crimes. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Boy, you are crazier than a ****house rat. :laugh:

That country is going to hell in a handbasket, the Shiite's are about to lose it even more than they already are (and that bodes badly considering over 60% of the population are Shiite!), they're practically in combat just as much as they were at the start of the war! This is the biggest joke our world has ever seen in history.

Talk about polls all you want, do you honestly think that these people are going to honestly tell us what they think? Hell f*ckin' no. They want us out of there and they think they're telling us what we want to hear. They hate us. Yeah, they're glad Saddam is gone, but we're just another Saddam to them, buddy.

And we are all to blame for this.

Now you know I never see the world in that bleak a manner :laugh:

I am not saying Iraq is a bed of roses. I am just saying it has the chance to work. It is not even 50/50, but it has a chance. So, being the optimist, I look at that side even though I am well aware of the pitfalls ahead. Personally, I think they should have found some way to divide the country into three countries, including a Kurdistan. But, the Tuurks, our "allies," and the Saudi's, who essentially tell us what to do and we do it, would not ever let that happen for religious, social, and financial reasons.

Also, polling is the only way and this poll was deemed credible. We are not there to assess. I am sure many Iraqi's are happy we are there. If you know differently, please site the source :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now you know I never see the world in that bleak a manner :laugh:

I am not saying Iraq is a bed of roses. I am just saying it has the chance to work. It is not even 50/50, but it has a chance. So, being the optimist, I look at that side even though I am well aware of the pitfalls ahead. Personally, I think they should have found some way to divide the country into three countries, including a Kurdistan. But, the Tuurks, our "allies," and the Saudi's, who essentially tell us what to do and we do it, would not ever let that happen for religious, social, and financial reasons.

Also, polling is the only way and this poll was deemed credible. We are not there to assess. I am sure many Iraqi's are happy we are there. If you know differently, please site the source :shrug:

C'mon, man!!!

We went in there like we were the supreme beings of the world. We steamroll over cars if their owners are caught looting fire wood to give their family heat. We're killing more and mroe innocent Iraqi's everyday.

We even unleashed at least 75 tons of depleted uranium which is TOXIC in Iraq! I'm sure that the Iraqi's are jumping for joy that we're poisoning seven generations in one fell swoop.

They already think that we've dirtied their country and brought filthy morals into it (porn, booze, sex, drugs, etc.).

You want the facts, you just let me know. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

But that is still conjecture :shrug: By the same token, that poll, which comes from the mouthes of Iraquis, indicates they are happier without SH, although they are not thrilled about us. But even so, 80% or so of Iraq is peaceful. A comparative handful of insurgents (some of which are not even from Iraq) is not dispositive of the opinion of a majority of Iraq, even if their inciteful message is good media fodder. Again, I think the true test will be the implementation of the new Iraqi Constitution. If that fails, then heaven help us and the Iraqi's. That is why we have to get the peace settled in Iraq.

Interestingly, it is not so much that "they"hate America. I think it is power struggles of the Iraqi religious leaders and they see America as an easy target.

Again, only time will tell.

[dissention]

Call it what you will, but you can't say with a straight face that the Iraqi's are glad we're there. They want us gone yesterday.

Why isn't the depleted uranium issue being brought to the public? Why isn't the behavior of the soldiers being brought to the attention of the public? Because it would prove those polls to be full of hot air.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Call it what you will, but you can't say with a straight face that the Iraqi's are glad we're there. They want us gone yesterday.

Why isn't the depleted uranium issue being brought to the public? Why isn't the behavior of the soldiers being brought to the attention of the public? Because it would prove those polls to be full of hot air.

I did not say it, they did according to that poll, which every major news agency I saw found credible :cool: Please site a credible news source discrediting it :shrug:

Note: I am not saying the Iraqi's in general do not want us out of there as soon as possible and will be glad when we are gone. I am just saying that poll and the fact that somewhere around 80% of the country is peaceful suggests that not all Iraqi's hate us to the extent of violence. They are just waiting for us to help them (which we have by rebuilding schools, power lines, etc.) and them get out.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Please site a credible news source discrediting it :shrug:


I don't need to, it's common sense. I'm not saying that they're all violent, I'm simply saying that while they appreciate that Saddam is gone, we're simply another Saddam in their eyes. There hasn't been peace for a single straight week since Saddam was ousted. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that the Iraqi's think that we're just looting their oil, killing their people, poisoning their people, and introducing immoral things to their society? I don't think so. With the exception of getting Saddam outta there (even though he wasn't a threat), ask any Iraqi what good we've done there. I'm sure the poll numbers would reflect negatively on the US invasion.

[strandinthewind]

I agree they want us gone. But to assert what you did as "common sense" is not factual because that poll suggests the opposite of what is the common thinking in Iraq :shrug: Moreover, we have done some good there - you have to admit that. We have built school, restored and modernized their power grids and phone services, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree they want us gone. But to assert what you did as "common sense" is not factual because that poll suggests the opposite of what is the common thinking in Iraq :shrug: Moreover, we have done some good there - you have to admit that. We have built school, restored and modernized their power grids and phone services, etc.

I'm saying it's common sense to realize that any Iraqi citizen poll is unreliable. The majority of the people won't say something negative about us because they're scared. For every school we've built, there's a gaggle of babies and adolescents that we've bombed.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm saying it's common sense to realize that any Iraqi citizen poll is unreliable. The majority of the people won't say something negative about us because they're scared. For every school we've built, there's a gaggle of babies and adolescents that we've bombed.

I would say the result of a "scared" vote would be when SH was voted in as President by 100% of the popular vote a few years back....ahem!;)

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I would say the result of a "scared" vote would be when SH was voted in as President by 100% of the popular vote a few years back....ahem!;)

Rob:cool:

Your intelligence astounds me. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Of Course, I could be wrong!!!!! :cool:

from today's nytimes.com
____________________________________________________

Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

April 8, 2004
By JAMES RISEN





WASHINGTON, April 7 - United States forces are confronting
a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond
supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence
that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia,
and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned
against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they
are not all actively aiding the uprising.

A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion
and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had
brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element..

Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs
of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's
heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members. Sunni tribal leaders, particularly in Al Anbar Province, home to Ramadi, the provincial capital, and Falluja, have turned against the United States and are helping to lead the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say.

The result is that the United States is facing two
broad-based insurgencies that are now on parallel tracks.

The Bush administration has sought to portray the
opposition much more narrowly. In the Sunni insurgency, the White House and the Pentagon have focused on the role of the former leaders of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein's government, while in the Shiite rebellion they have focused almost exclusively on the role of Mr. Sadr. Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon that the fighting in Iraq was just the work of "thugs, gangs and terrorists," and not a popular uprising. General Myers added that "it's not a Shiite uprising. Sadr has a very small following."

According to some experts on Iraq's Shiites, the uprising
has spread to many Shiites who are not followers of Mr.
Sadr. "There is a general mood of anti-Americanism among
the people in the streets," said Ghassan R. al-Attiyah, executive director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. "They identify with Sadr not because they believe in him but because they have their own grievances."

While they share the broader anger in Iraq over the lack of jobs and security, many Shiites suspect that the handover of sovereignty to Iraqi politicians from the American occupying powers on June 30 will bypass their interests, Mr. Attiyah said.

With his offensive, Mr. Sadr has "hijacked the political process," he said. As a result, more moderate Shiite clerics and politicians risk going against public opinion if they come out too strongly against the rebellious young cleric, he said.

Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr. Ayatollah Sistani is
an aging cleric venerated for his teachings, while Mr. Sadr
is a youthful rabble-rouser, with little clerical standing. This week, Ayatollah Sistani issued a statement supporting Mr. Sadr's decision to act against the Americans, but emphasizing the need for a peaceful solution. In this, the older man seemed to be marking out a position that allowed him to associate with the tide of Shiite popular feelings, while allowing Mr. Sadr, for whom he is said to harbor a personal contempt, to risk his militia - and his life - in a showdown with the Americans.

While Mr. Sadr's militiamen prepared for battle, all was
quiet at the Kufa headquarters of a rival militia that has helped sustain Mr. Sadr's political influence - the Badr Brigade. Nominally controlled by another Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Brigade has generally been seen as underpinning Ayatollah Sistani's authority.

Although anti-Americanism is hardly universal among
Shiites, an anti-American mood has been building for
months. At the Grand Mosque in Kufa, where Mr. Sadr took
refuge as his militiamen were seizing control of the city
on Sunday, this deep vein of anti-Americanism feeds off
every rumor. At night, as they torch gasoline-soaked tires
to light checkpoints guarding the approaches to the mosque,
the militiamen speak of America's planning to uproot Islam
in Iraq, to steal its oil, to deny Shiites a voice in the country's future governance, even to bring back Saddam Hussein.

In the Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq, some Pentagon
officials and other government officials believe that Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shiite extremist group, is now playing a key role in the Shiite insurgency. The Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist group closely affiliated with Hezbollah, is also said by some officials to have established offices in Iraq, and that Iran is behind much of the violence.

C.I.A. officials disagree, however, and say they have not
yet seen evidence that Hezbollah has joined forces with
Iraqi Shiites. Some intelligence officials believe that the Pentagon has been eager to link Hezbollah to the violence in Iraq to link the Iranian regime more closely to anti-American terrorism.

But C.I.A. officials agree that Hezbollah has established a significant presence in postwar Iraq. The Lebanese-based organization sent in teams after the war, American intelligence officials believe. Hezbollah's presence inside Iraq is a source of concern since it is widely recognized by counterterrorist experts to have some of the most effective and dangerous terrorist operatives in the world. The United States has issued a $25 million reward for the capture of Imad Mugniyah, the longtime chief of foreign terrorist operations who is believed to have been behind a series of terrorist attacks against Americans in the 1980's, including the hostage-taking operations in Lebanon.


More recently, Hezbollah has focused its terrorist
activities on Israel, and, before the war in Iraq, is not believed to have launched a major terrorist attack against American interests since the bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 killed 19 American military personnel.

There were some clues to an Iranian presence in Kufa this
week. Even as militiamen ferried food and medical supplies
into the mosque this week in preparation for a siege, among
the pilgrims to the sanctuary were Iranian men.

Militiamen at the mosque said that at least some of the
funds needed for extensive reconstruction work currently
under way inside the sanctuary have come from Iran. There
are close ties between the Shiite clerical establishments
in the two countries. But whether the Iranian role extends beyond finance is hard to know. Some foreign Islamic fighters have been playing a role in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian affiliated with the Ansar al-slam terrorist group, is conducting terrorist operations in conjunction with the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials believe. Mr. Zarqawi may have been behind some recent car bombings in Iraq, although American intelligence officials do not believe he is commanding any of the Sunni militia forces facing the United States military.

The Sunni forces appear instead to be led by former Iraqi government members and local tribal leaders in Falluja and other cities in the Sunni heartland, intelligence officials said.

Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. official who worked covertly
in Iraq in the mid-1990's, said that some of those Sunni
tribal leaders were once opposed to Saddam Hussein, and
years ago approached the C.I.A. about working with it
against Hussein. But now, many of those same tribal leaders have turned against the occupation, current and former intelligence officials say.

John F. Burns contributed reporting from Baghdad and Kufa, Iraq, for this article, and Neela Banerjee from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html?ex=1082449188&ei=1&en=1ce17a88650942d8

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree they want us gone. But to assert what you did as "common sense" is not factual because that poll suggests the opposite of what is the common thinking in Iraq :shrug: Moreover, we have done some good there - you have to admit that. We have built school, restored and modernized their power grids and phone services, etc.

Dude, we're the ones who knocked them out in the first place.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Dude, we're the ones who knocked them out in the first place.

Surely some if not many, but not all of them. Many of them were neglected to their ruin under SH :shrug: The same thing goes for the infastructure. My point is that if we had cared to, we could have made this rebuilding of all of the damage a lavish production that made us look benevolent, but sadly, we did not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Of Course, I could be wrong!!!!! :cool:

from today's nytimes.com
____________________________________________________

Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

April 8, 2004
By JAMES RISEN





WASHINGTON, April 7 - United States forces are confronting
a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond
supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

[/url]

It wouldn't surprise me if we were being lied to about the casualty counts as well. This just reinforces my point that we don't really know who we're fighting here.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
This just reinforces my point that we don't really know who we're fighting here.

If Condi Rice herself says that she doesn't know what they'd do if one of our warships were bombed, how the frick are we going to know what we're fighting for in Iraq?!

"Tit for tat."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
If Condi Rice herself says that she doesn't know what they'd do if one of our warships were bombed, how the frick are we going to know what we're fighting for in Iraq?!

"Tit for tat."

:wavey: FOUL :wavey:

She was asked a hypothetical question. A big rule is never to answer a hypothetical question in a direct manner because if a remotely similar situation happens, you will be married to that answer.

Back to the normally scheduled show . . . :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:wavey: FOUL :wavey:

She was asked a hypothetical question. A big rule is never to answer a hypothetical question in a direct manner because if a remotely similar situation happens, you will be married to that answer.

Back to the normally scheduled show . . . :cool:

Bull****!

As NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, she should've known the answer when asked what the country would do if one of their warships was bombed by TERRORISTS. She could've named a couple of options, but she chose to say "I don't know." She said that a response to terrorist attacks is a "tit for tat" situation! Then she had the gall to say that the Cole bombing didn't warrant a response, when it was something that she and the admin were investigating! They just didn't want to touch it because it had to do with Clinton. Puhleaze. Keep blaming Clinton. He's the only one that did anything about Al-Q, so Rice can trot herself out with that bull**** tucked between her legs like a fox tail.

She's incompetent and anyone comfortable with her as the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR is smoking crack.

[strandinthewind]

I do not agree (surprise :laugh: ). She said the former strategy for responding to terrorist attacks was a tit for tat approach. She said that 9/11 made that no longer a feasible solution - 9/11 was so large that we had to go to war. This is confirmed when it was said that Al-Q was at war with America and America was not at war Al-Q. Now, we are at war with "terror," which certainly includesd Al-Q :cool: I fail to see the anything wrong with that premise and conclusion, even though I may not agree with the way the current administration implements it.

I mean other than the administration was unable to stop 9/11, and I submit no other administration could have, I do not think she is bad. I think she is good, even though I disagree with her on the immediate threat espoused about Iraq. But, that is just my opinion and other's differ :cool:

[strandinthewind]

BTW - here is a link to a transcipt of the hearing

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116563,00.html

[dissention]

Either Condoleezza Rice lied under oath or Shrub lied to the American people. She claimed that he was briefed and knew full well that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were big problems. For cripes sake, look at the title of the PDB was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"!!! So, what did Bush say to Bob Woodward?

"I was not on point, but I knew {bin Laden} was a menace, and I knew he was a problem... But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

How are you not BOILING when you get an urgent memo that says bin Laden is determined to kill us?! You need to get off your f*cking ass, leave your Crawford ranch, and do your job to protect us!!

THIS IS A TRAVESTY! THIS IS AN EMBARASSMENT!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
She said the former strategy for responding to terrorist attacks was a tit for tat approach. She said that 9/11 made that no longer a feasible solution - 9/11 was so large that we had to go to war. This is confirmed when it was said that Al-Q was at war with America and America was not at war Al-Q. Now, we are at war with "terror," which certainly includesd Al-Q :cool: I fail to see the anything wrong with that premise and conclusion, even though I may not agree with the way the current administration implements it.

I mean other than the administration was unable to stop 9/11, and I submit no other administration could have, I do not think she is bad. I think she is good, even though I disagree with her on the immediate threat espoused about Iraq. But, that is just my opinion and other's differ :cool:

She also said Bush was sick of "swatting flies." :rolleyes:

They could've stopped it and they didn't because they were on vacation! Instead of reading one word exceprts from the memo, release the whole thing! They won't because they have something to hide! They just can't stop lying because they need to cover their asses! She's goddamn liar and a fraud, a pig, if you will.

I have to stop because my blood is boiling. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
She also said Bush was sick of "swatting flies." :rolleyes:

They could've stopped it and they didn't because they were on vacation! Instead of reading one word exceprts from the memo, release the whole thing! They won't because they have something to hide! They just can't stop lying because they need to cover their asses! She's goddamn liar and a fraud, a pig, if you will.

I have to stop because my blood is boiling. :laugh:

*yawn*.....:D :wavey:

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Either Condoleezza Rice lied under oath or Shrub lied to the American people. She claimed that he was briefed and knew full well that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were big problems. For cripes sake, look at the title of the PDB was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"!!! So, what did Bush say to Bob Woodward?

"I was not on point, but I knew {bin Laden} was a menace, and I knew he was a problem... But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

How are you not BOILING when you get an urgent memo that says bin Laden is determined to kill us?! You need to get off your f*cking ass, leave your Crawford ranch, and do your job to protect us!!

THIS IS A TRAVESTY! THIS IS AN EMBARASSMENT!

That memo., according to all sources, said nothing new and certainly nothing in anything but vague and general terms; it also was one of I am sure many memos about other threats by other people. OBL attacked the mainland US in 93 (?) and attacked the US via military and other US property overseas. So, CR had a valid point in that the 8/6/01 memo.'s warning was restating what everyone knew in general - OBL and Al-Q wanted to attack inside America. Still, the buck stops at CR and she did not catch the act before it happened. Again, I do not think anyone could have given the way Wash. operates, which the Bush Admin. arduously is trying to change. But, people will villify her anyway despite this. I think she is stupid for not getting up there and acting contrite (e.g. "I should have caught it but did not due to the squabbling btw, the FBI and the CIA." ) and then gone on about how she is working not to let that happen. But, deny deny deny and smile till it blows over politics :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
That memo., according to all sources, said nothing new and certainly nothing in anything but vague and general terms; it also was one of I am sure many memos about other threats by other people. OBL attacked the mainland US in 93 (?) and attacked the US via military and other US property overseas. So, CR had a valid point in that the 8/6/01 memo.'s warning was restating what everyone knew in general. Did it actually say Al-Q wanted to attack the mainland US or did it say Al-Q wanted to attack the US, presumably anywhere? I think it just said U.S. - but I could be wrong. Still, no matter what it said (and they are idiots for not releasing it IMO ) , the buck stops at her and she did not catch the act before it happened. Again, I do not think anyone could have given the way Wash. operates, which the Bush Admin. arduously is trying to change. But, people will villify her anyway. I think she is stupid for not getting up there and acting contrite (e.g. "I should have caught it but did not due to the squabbling btw, the FBI and the CIA." ) and then gone on about how she is working not to let that happen. But, deny deny deny and smile till it blows over politics :rolleyes:

It said "INSIDE THE US"!!!! And whether it said nothing new isn't the freaking point!

Let me quote one of my other posts:

"She said that in the memo, there wasn't anything that told of who, when, where, and how the US would be attacked. Well, what the f*ck were they waiting for? Were they waiting for something to happen before they shook their "trees"? No, you shake all the "trees" that you can to find out that stuff! You don't just sit back and cry ignorance!"

[strandinthewind]

Oops - I edited my post while you were posting and after looking it up :sorry:

Again, I think they got caught unprepared. So, we agree on that. I just think no other adminsitration could have connected the dots without changing the FBI and the CIA :shrug:

She also went into how the govt. was preparing to respond to that. i will look it up.

[strandinthewind]

start where it says:

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

___________

it goes into it.

Again, they were caught by surprise and they should be held accountable.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I think they got caught unprepared. So, we agree on that. I just think no other adminsitration could have connected the dots without changing the FBI and the CIA :shrug:

She also went into how the govt. was preparing to respond to that. i will look it up.

Oh please. ChimpCo wasn't taking a **** in the woods and finding themselves being charged at by a wild bull. They were being charged at by a wild bull and then decided to drop their pants and ****.

Connect the dots? From all reports, the second the first plane hit the WTC, Tenet himself said "It's bin Laden." What was Bush's first thought, according to the same interview with Woodward that I quoted from?

"What a terrible pilot."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, they knew it was OBL, but how were they to know those flights, those times? I mean that is alot to decipher and you will need IMO a little luck, even though I agree they should have and now they are being called out for it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
RICE: The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

That's the ever-freakin'-point, man! They did nothing to find out what the real deal was and they didn't search deeper for anything that wasn't general. It's their job to find out what the "big, big, big" threat was and they DIDN'T.

[strandinthewind]

and - on hearing a plane hit the WTC, I thought it was an accident. But, after the second one I knew there was no way.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
That's the ever-freakin'-point, man! They did nothing to find out what the real deal was and they didn't search deeper for anything that wasn't general. It's their job to find out what the "big, big, big" threat was and they DIDN'T.

But, this was one of how many such threats? I mean they must receive hundreds daily and all over the U.S. Again, I think they should be held accountable - it was her job to stop it and she did not.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yes, they knew it was OBL, but how were they to know those flights, those times? I mean that is alot to decipher and you will need IMO a little luck, even though I agree they should have and now they are being called out for it.

Bush didn't know it was bin Laden! And he's the president of the US!

If they had done their jobs, they would've known specifics. They needed to take cues from the foiled millenium attack and the Clinton admin in fighting terrorism. They did not and 3,000 people died because of it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But, this was one of how many such threats? I mean they must receive hundreds daily and all over the U.S. Again, I think they should be held accountable - it was her job to stop it and she did not.

It must've been pretty huge for the memo to be shared among Rice and Bush while he was on his damn ranch on vacation in Texas. It must've been pretty huge if the title of the PDB was called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Bush didn't know it was bin Laden! And he's the president of the US!

If they had done their jobs, they would've known specifics. They needed to take cues from the foiled millenium attack and the Clinton admin in fighting terrorism. They did not and 3,000 people died because of it.

Bush said that after the first plane - an assumption many including me thought.

The Clinton Admin. stopped that Y2K attack because the Customs Dept. acting on a hunch stopped that guy at the border. That was luck and a very good customs agent, which, after flying overseas more times than I can count, I suggest is not the norm, esp. then.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
and - on hearing a plane hit the WTC, I thought it was an accident. But, after the second one I knew there was no way.

Are you the president, though? As president with all of the information about bin Laden and terrorism you had at your disposal, would your first thoguht be "What a terrible pilot."

It's insulting!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Bush said that after the first plane - an assumption many including me thought.

Oh lord. And he didn't get into his motorcade until four minutes before the Pentagon was attacked. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
It must've been pretty huge for the memo to be shared among Rice and Bush while he was on his damn ranch on vacation in Texas. It must've been pretty huge if the title of the PDB was called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Although we probably will never know, I think the memo. was a dissertation on OBL and his historic wanting to attack the US. Then, it probably went into OBL wants to acctack the US in the future, a fact I think came as no surprise to anyone. In fact, the govt. acted on that threat per CR's testimony.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Are you the president, though?

Not yet! :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Although we probably will never know, I think the memo. was a dissertation on OBL and his historic wanting to attack the US. Then, it probably went into OBL wants to acctack the US in the future, a fact I think came as no surprise to anyone. In fact, the govt. acted on that threat per CR's testimony.

What a coincidence that such a dissertation was shared among the president and the national security advisor one month before OBL killed 3,000 of us. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

AND when I am Goldie's my First Lady - at least she told me she would be if I bought her a deisgner inaugral outfit - I was thinking something in Prada :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
What a coincidence that such a dissertation was shared among the president and the national security advisor one month before OBL killed 3,000 of us. :rolleyes:

That is because the WH was reacting to the information it had been told earlier that Summer. So, it was not a coincidence. It was what they should have been doing and apparently they did not do enough because they did not stop it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It was what they should have been doing and apparently they did not do enough because they did not stop it.

Wow, you're making sense. :eek: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

I mean other than the administration was unable to stop 9/11, and I submit no other administration could have, I do not think she is bad. I think she is good, even though I disagree with her on the immediate threat espoused about Iraq. But, that is just my opinion and other's differ :cool:

I believe Richard Clarke when he said it could have been prevented.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Are you the president, though? As president with all of the information about bin Laden and terrorism you had at your disposal, would your first thoguht be "What a terrible pilot."

It's insulting!

it's been said that Condi had to explain what Shia, Shiite and Sunni were to Junior. He had no idea and didn't really care to find out. He was going to be the CEO President.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
AND when I am Goldie's my First Lady - at least she told me she would be if I bought her a deisgner inaugral outfit - I was thinking something in Prada :cool:

Prada is fine dear. Now I have to hit you up for some jewelry.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I believe Richard Clarke when he said it could have been prevented.

I think on some level and with lots of blind luck it could have been prevented or, at the least, they could have done a better job preventing it. My point is people are acting like W and crewe just sat around and did nothing at all. That is not supported by the facts. I think the current administration was new to the office, had just dealt with another huge foreign policy event in China, and were focused on the economy. Again, they were, despite general warnings, caught with their pants down. Now its time to pay the piper. But to say they did nothing at all, which I have inferrred from some posts, is just incorrect.

:cool:

P.S. Does this mean your not going to wear a black and binding Prada dress with a huge hat for the inaugral ball ;)

[strandinthewind]

Oops - we posted at the same time :laugh:

You can have any jewels you want and the country will gladly pay for it. Think of all the money the USA will save not being overcharged by Halliburton, who is fired the moment we take office!!!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oops - we posted at the same time :laugh:

You can have any jewels you want and the country will gladly pay for it. Think of all the money the USA will save not being overcharged by Halliburton, who is fired the moment we take office!!!!! :cool:

Neil Lane, please. I love vintage.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

anything for you!!!!

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
AND when I am Goldie's my First Lady - at least she told me she would be if I bought her a deisgner inaugral outfit - I was thinking something in Prada :cool:

Sorry to tell you, but Golda Meir is long dead.
And I don't think she wore much Prada.:cool:

- Jake