Sept. 11 Commission Report Says Iraq Rebuffed Al Qaeda

[strandinthewind]

Now it gets interesting!!!!!!! Lying, sacks of . . . . . Hopefully, this report will open peoples' eyes and show them that although the world though SH had WMD, the Bush Admin. knowingly used contrived and flatly wrong evidence to demonstrate a false exigency regarding the nature of the immediate threat from Iraq and used flatly wrong information to link Al-Q with SH in an attempt to use hatred of Al-Q to justify immediately removing SH.

Sept. 11 Commission Report Says Iraq Rebuffed Al Qaeda

June 16, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:49 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.

The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from "well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities.''

Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.

The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.

"A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir,'' it said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?ex=1088398302&ei=1&en=ccf168017f4e8e56

[darklinensuit]

Now it gets interesting!!!!!!! Lying, sacks of . . . . . Hopefully, this report will open peoples' eyes and show them that although the world though SH had WMD, the Bush Admin. knowingly used contrived and flatly wrong evidence to demonstrate a false exigency regarding the nature of the immediate threat from Iraq and used flatly wrong information to link Al-Q with SH in an attempt to use hatred of Al-Q to justify immediately removing SH.

Sept. 11 Commission Report Says Iraq Rebuffed Al Qaeda

June 16, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:49 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.

The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from "well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities.''

Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.

The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.

"A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir,'' it said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?ex=1088398302&ei=1&en=ccf168017f4e8e56

Should we be surprised? Sad. :distress:

- Jake

[dissention]

You mean...we were lied to? By this administration? I don't believe it!

Just two days ago, Cheney told reporters that they had just uncovered documents in Iraq that links Saddam and Al-Qaeda. What a piece of human scum. I hope he burns in hell.

[CarneVaca]

Yeah, but John Kerry, is still saying that Saddam had links to al Qaida.

Oh, wait, maybe it was Cheney who said it. :shrug: Eh, hard to tell the difference.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!

[dissention]

Yeah, but John Kerry, is still saying that Saddam had links to al Qaida.

Oh, wait, maybe it was Cheney who said it. :shrug: Eh, hard to tell the difference.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!

I know, as much as I loathe to admit it.

I think Kerry is a likable guy and I agree with him on a lot of things, but he just isn't doing it for me. I'm not expecting him to just blow up and turn into this angry candidate because that simply wouldn't go over well with the country, but he seriously needs to grow a pair of balls and call a spade a spade. Instead, he just dances around the issues and says Iraq still has WMDs. And he won't admit that the war was wrong, it's as if he thinks if he says that, it'll make him look bad. It won't, not this late in the game. It would get some more lefties on his side who aren't especially keen on him at the moment. It's all a sad state of affairs. I miss the politicians who had heart and believed in the right thing, not what would get them elected.

[gldstwmn]

You mean...we were lied to? By this administration? I don't believe it!

Just two days ago, Cheney told reporters that they had just uncovered documents in Iraq that links Saddam and Al-Qaeda. What a piece of human scum. I hope he burns in hell.

Well, diss, how long have we been saying this? You'll forgive me if I don't do a victory dance. God, how depressing. :mad:

[gldstwmn]

You mean...we were lied to? By this administration? I don't believe it!

Just two days ago, Cheney told reporters that they had just uncovered documents in Iraq that links Saddam and Al-Qaeda. What a piece of human scum. I hope he burns in hell.

He's been repeating it in forums where he can't be questioned. As I've said, July is going to be a very ugly month for Bushco.

[gldstwmn]

I know, as much as I loathe to admit it.

I think Kerry is a likable guy and I agree with him on a lot of things, but he just isn't doing it for me. I'm not expecting him to just blow up and turn into this angry candidate because that simply wouldn't go over well with the country, but he seriously needs to grow a pair of balls and call a spade a spade. Instead, he just dances around the issues and says Iraq still has WMDs. And he won't admit that the war was wrong, it's as if he thinks if he says that, it'll make him look bad. It won't, not this late in the game. It would get some more lefties on his side who aren't especially keen on him at the moment. It's all a sad state of affairs. I miss the politicians who had heart and believed in the right thing, not what would get them elected.

There's a rumor going around that the October surprise may be some "evidence" that Saddam and Al Q are linked. This could explain Kerry's reticence on the subject. We have to beat these bastards at their own game because we KNOW they are trying to steal the election again. They play dirty. Nope, Kerry is playing it smart.

[gldstwmn]

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!

And a vote for Nader is just...selfish. :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

And a vote for Nader is just...selfish. :wavey:

That's pretty good. I was wondering what you'd come up with. Wrong, but pretty good. :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

By the way, guys, you'll like this. It's very long, but believe me, it's worth the read. Also, I needn't mention that I disagree with the writer on Nader. Here goes:

WITH TREMBLING FINGERS By Hal Crowther

I used to take a drink on occasion with a network
newsman famed for his impenetrable calm -- his
apparent pulse rate that of a large mammal in deep
hibernation -- and in an avuncular moment he advised
me that I'd do all right, in the long run, if I could
only avoid the kind of journalism committed to the
keyboard "with trembling fingers." I recognized the
wisdom of this advice and endeavored over the years to
write as little as possible when my blood pressure was
soaring and my face was streaked with tears. The lava
flows of indignation ebb predictably with age and
hardening arteries, and nearing three-score I thought
I'd never have to take another tranquilizer -- or a
double bourbon -- to keep my fingers steady on the
keys.

I never imagined 2004. It would be sophomoric to say
that there was never a worse year to be an American.
My own memory preserves the dread summer of 1968. My
parents suffered the consequences of 1941 and 1929,
and my grandfather Jack Allen, who lived through all
those dark years, might have added 1918, with the flu
epidemic and the Great War in France that each failed,
very narrowly, to kill him. Drop back another
generation or two and we encounter 1861.

But if this is not the worst year yet to be an
American, it's the worst year by far to be one of
those hag-ridden wretches who comment on the American
scene. The columnist who trades in snide one-liners
flounders like a stupid comic with a tired audience;
TV comedians and talk-show hosts who try to treat 2004
like any zany election year have become grotesque,
almost loathsome. Our most serious, responsible
newspaper columnists are so stunned by the disaster in
Iraq that they've begun to quote poetry by Rupert
Brooke and Wilfred Owen. They lower their voices; they
sound like Army chaplains delivering eulogies over
ranks of flag-draped coffins, under a hard rain from
an iron sky.

Yeats' "blood-dimmed tide is loosed." The war news has
already deteriorated from bad to tragic to
pre-apocalyptic, which leaves no suitable category for
these excruciating reports on the sexual torture of
Iraqi prisoners. Fingers, be still. In less than a
year, the morale of the occupying forces has sunk so
low that murder, suicide, rape and sexual harassment
have become alarming statistics, and now the warriors
of democracy -- the emissaries of civilization --
stand accused of every crime this side of cannibalism.
Osama bin Laden has always anathematized America's
culture, as well as its geopolitical influence. To him
these atrocities are a sign of Allah's certain favor,
a great moral victory, a vindication of his deepest
anger and darkest crimes.

Where does it go from here? The nightmare misadventure
in Iraq is over, beyond the reach of any reasonable
argument, though many more body bags will be filled.
In Washington, chicken hawks will still be squawking
about "digging in" and winning, but Vietnam proved
conclusively that no modern war of occupation will
ever be won. (Vietnam clip) Every occupation is
doomed. The only way you "win" a war of occupation is
the old-fashioned way, the way Rome finally defeated
the Carthaginians: kill all the fighters, enslave
everyone else, raze the cities and sow the fields with
salt.

Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the
last peasant, and why shouldn't they? If our
presidential election fails to dislodge the crazy
bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this
country would welcome regime change by any
intervention, human or divine. But if, say, the
Chinese came in to rescue us -- Operation American
Freedom -- how long would any of us, left-wing or
right, put up with an occupying army teaching us
Chinese-style democracy? A guerrilla who opposes an
invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's
a resistance fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting
enemies but making enemies. As Richard Clarke and
others have observed, every dollar, bullet and
American life that we spend in Iraq is one that's not
being spent in the war on terrorism. Every Iraqi,
every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a
precious shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda.

The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was
the worst blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of
judgment, the most fateful, egregious, deceitful abuse
of power in the history of American foreign policy. If
you don't believe it yet, just keep watching.
Apologists strain to dismiss parallels with Vietnam,
but the similarities are stunning. In every action our
soldiers kill innocent civilians, and in every other
action apparent innocents kill our soldiers -- and
there's never any way to sort them out. And now these
acts of subhuman sadism, these little My Lais.

Since the defining moment of the Bush presidency, the
preposterous flight-suit, Fox News-produced photo-op
on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of the banner that
read "Mission Accomplished," the shaming truth is that
everything has gone wrong. Just as it was bound to go
wrong, as many of us predicted it would go wrong -- if
anything, more hopelessly wrong than any of us would
have dared to prophesy. Iraq is an epic train wreck,
and there's not a single American citizen who's going
to walk away unscathed. The shame of this truth, of
such a failure and so much deceit exposed, would have
brought on mass resignations or votes of no confidence
in any free country in the world. In Japan not long
ago, there would have been ritual suicides, shamed
officials disemboweling themselves with samurai
swords. Yet up to this point -- at least to the point
where we see grinning soldiers taking pictures of each
other over piles of naked Iraqis -- neither the
president, the vice president nor any of the
individuals who urged and designed this debacle have
resigned or been terminated -- or even apologized.
They have betrayed no familiarity with the concept of
shame.

Thousands of young Americans are dead, maimed or
mutilated, XXX billions of dollars have been wasted
and all we've gained is a billion new enemies and a
mouthful of dust -- of sand. Chaos reigns, but in the
midst of it we have this presidential election. George
Bush has defined himself as a war president, and it's
fitting that the war should be his undoing. But even
now the damned polls don't guarantee, or even
indicate, his demise.

Conventional wisdom says that an incumbent president
with a $200 million war chest cannot be defeated, and
that one who commands a live, bleeding, suffering army
in the field is doubly invincible. By this logic, the
most destructively incompetent president since Andrew
Johnson will be rewarded with a second term. That
would probably mean a military draft and more wars in
the oil countries, and, under visionaries like Dick
Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, a chance for the USA to
emulate 19th-century Paraguay, which simultaneously
declared war on Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay and
fought ferociously until 90% of the male population
was dead.

What hope then? Impeachment is impossible when the
president's party controls both houses of Congress,
though Watergate conspirator John Dean, who ought to
know, claims in his new book that there are compelling
legal arguments for a half dozen bills of impeachment
against George W. Bush. Peer pressure? At the White
House, world opinion gets no more respect than FBI
memos or uncomfortable facts. Many Americans seem
unaware that scarcely anyone on the planet Earth
supported the Iraq adventure, no one anywhere except
the 40-50 million Republican loyalists who voted for
George Bush in 2000.

Among significant world leaders he recruited only
Great Britain's Tony Blair -- whose career may be
ruined because most Britons disagree with him -- and
the abominable Ariel Sharon, that vile tub of blood
and corruption who recently used air-to-ground
missiles to assassinate a paraplegic in a wheelchair
at the door of his mosque. (Palestinians quickly
squandered any sympathy or moral advantage they gained
from this atrocity by strapping a retarded 16-year-old
into a suicide bomber's kit. Such is the condition of
the human race in the Middle East, variously known as
the Holy Land or the Cradle of Civilization.) Says
Sharon, oleaginously, of Bush: "Something in his soul
committed him to act with great courage against world
terror."

The rest of the known world, along with the United
Nations, has been dead set against us from the start.
But they carry no weight. Thanks to our tax dollars
and the well-fed, strong but not bulletproof bodies of
our children -- though mostly children from
lower-income families -- George Bush and his lethal
team of oil pirates, Cold Warriors and Likudists
commands the most formidable military machine on
earth. No nation, with the possible exception of
China, would ever dare to oppose them directly.

But the Chinese aren't coming to save us. Nothing and
no one can stop these people except you and me, and
the other 100 million or so American citizens who may
vote in the November election. This isn't your
conventional election, the usual dim-witted,
media-managed Mister America contest where candidates
vie for charm and style points and hire image coaches
to help them act more confident and presidential. This
is a referendum on what is arguably the most dismal
performance by any incumbent president -- and
inarguably the biggest mistake. This is a referendum
on George W. Bush, arguably the worst thing that has
happened to the United States of America since the
invention of the cathode ray tube.

One problem with this referendum is that the case
against George Bush is much too strong. Just to spell
it out is to sound like a bitter partisan. I sit here
on the 67th birthday of Saddam Hussein facing a
haystack of incriminating evidence that comes almost
to my armpit. What matters most, what signifies?
Journalists used to look for the smoking gun, but this
time we have the cannons of Waterloo, we have
Gettysburg and Sevastopol, we have enough gunsmoke to
cause asthma in heaven. I'm overwhelmed. Maybe I
should light a match to this mountain of paper and
immolate myself. On the near side of my haystack,
among hundreds of quotes circled and statistics
underlined, just one thing leaped out at me. A quote I
had underlined was from the testimony of Hermann
Goering at the Nuremberg trials, not long before
Hitler's vice-fuhrer poisoned himself in his jail
cell: "... It is always a simple matter to drag people
along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same in every country."

Goering's dark wisdom gained weight when a friend
called me and reported that Vice President Cheney was
so violently partisan in his commencement speech at
Westminster College in Missouri -- so rabid in his
attacks on John Kerry as a anti-American
peace-marching crypto-communist -- that the college
president felt obliged to send the student body an
email apologizing for Cheney's coarseness.

If you think it's exceptionally shameless for a man
who dodged Vietnam to play the patriot card against a
decorated veteran, remember that Georgia Republicans
played the same card, successfully, against Sen. Max
Cleland, who suffered multiple amputations in Vietnam.
In 2001 and 2002, George Bush and his Machiavelli,
Karl Rove, approved political attack ads that showed
the faces of Tom Daschle and other Democratic senators
alongside the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden. And somewhere in hell, Goering and Goebbels
toasted each other with a schnapps.

Am I polarized? I've never been a registered Democrat,
I'm sick of this two-party straitjacket, I wish to God
it didn't take Yale and a major American fortune to
create a presidential candidate. The only current
Democratic leaders who show me any courage are Nancy
Pelosi and old Bob Byrd -- Hillary Clinton has been
especially cagy and gutless on this war -- and John
Kerry himself may leave a lot to be desired. He
deserves your vote not because of anything he ever did
or promises to do, but simply because he did not make
this sick mess in Iraq and owes no allegiance to the
sinister characters who designed it. And because his
own "place in history," so important to the kind of
men who run for president, would now rest entirely on
his success in getting us out of it.

Kerry made a courageous choice at least once in his
life, when he came home with his ribbons and
demonstrated against the war in Vietnam. But Sen.
Kerry could turn out to be a stiff, a punk, an
alcoholic, and he'd still be a colossal improvement
over the man who turned Paul Wolfowitz loose in the
Middle East. The myth that there was no real
difference between Democrats and Republicans, which I
once considered seriously and which Ralph Nader rode
to national disaster four years ago, was shattered
forever the day George Bush announced his cabinet and
his appointments for the Department of Defense.

I'm aware that there are voters -- 40 million? -- who
don't see it this way. I come from a family of
veterans and commissioned officers; I understand
patriots in wartime. If a spotted hyena stepped out of
Air Force One wearing a baby-blue necktie, most
Americans would salute and sing "Hail to the Chief."
President Bush cultivated his patriots by spending $46
million on media in the month of March alone. Somehow
I'm on his mailing list. (Is that because my late
father, with the same name, was a registered
Republican, or can Bush afford to mail his picture to
every American with an established address?) Twice a
week I open an appeal for cash to crush John Kerry and
the quisling liberal conspiracy, and now I own six
gorgeous color photographs of the president and his
wife. I'm sure some of my neighbors frame the
president's color photographs and fill those little
blue envelopes he sends us with their hard-earned
dollars.

I struggle against the suspicion that so many of my
fellow Americans are conceptually challenged. I want
to reason with my neighbors; I want to engage these
lost Americans. What makes you angry, neighbor? What
arouses your suspicions? Does it bother you that this
administration made terrorism a low priority,
dismissed key intelligence that might have prevented
the 9/11 catastrophe, then exploited it to justify the
pre-planned destruction of Saddam Hussein, who had
nothing to do with al Qaeda? All this is no longer
conjecture, but direct reportage from cabinet-level
meetings by the turncoat insiders Richard Clarke and
Paul O'Neill.

If the Pentagon ever thought Saddam had "weapons of
mass destruction," it was only because the Pentagon
gave them to him. As Kevin Phillips recounts in
American Dynasty, officials of the Reagan and first
Bush administrations eagerly supplied Saddam with arms
while he was using chemical weapons on the Kurds. They
twice sent Donald Rumsfeld to court Saddam, in 1983
and 1984, when the dictator was in the glorious prime
of his monsterhood.

This scandal, concurrent with Iran-Contra, was briefly
called "Iraqgate," and, yes, among the names of those
officials implicated you'll find most of the engineers
of our current foreign policy. (They also signaled
their fractious client, Saddam, that it might be all
right to overrun part of Kuwait; you remember what
happened when he tried to swallow it all.) Does any
of this trouble you? Does it worry you that Dick
Cheney, as president of the nefarious Halliburton
Corporation, sold Iraq $73 million in oilfield
services between 1997 and 2000, even as he plotted
with the Wolfowitz faction to whack Saddam? Or that
Halliburton, with its CEO's seat still warm from
Cheney's butt, was awarded unbid contracts worth up to
$15 billion for the Iraq invasion, and currently earns
a billion dollars a month from this bloody disaster?
Not to mention its $27.4 billion overcharge for our
soldiers' food.

These are facts, not partisan rhetoric. Do any of them
even make you restless? The cynical game these
shape-shifters have been playing in the Middle East is
too Byzantine to unravel in 1,000 pages of text. But
the hypocrisy of the White House is palpable, and
beggars belief. If there's one American who actually
believes that Operation Iraqi Freedom was about
democracy for the poor Iraqis, then you, my friend,
are too dangerously stupid to be allowed near a voting
booth.

Does it bother you even a little that the personal
fortunes of all four Bush brothers, including the
president and the governor, were acquired about a half
step ahead of the district attorney, and that the
royal family of Saudi Arabia invested $1.476 billion
in those and other Bush family enterprises? Or, as
Paul Krugman points out, that it's much easier to
establish links between the Bush and bin Laden
families than any between the bin Ladens and Saddam
Hussein. Do you know about Ahmad Chalabi, the
administration's favorite Iraqi and current agent in
Baghdad, whose personal fortune was established when
he embezzled several hundred million from his own bank
in Jordan and fled to London to avoid 22 years at hard
labor? That's just a sampling from my haystack. Maybe
I can reach you as an environmentalist, one who
resents the gutting of key provisions in the Clean Air
Act? My own Orange County, N.C., chiefly a rural area,
was recently added to a national register of counties
with dangerously polluted air. You say you vote for
the president because you're a conservative. Are you
sure? I thought conservatives believed in civil
liberties, a weak federal executive, an inviolable
Constitution, a balanced budget and an isolationist
foreign policy. George Bush has an attorney general
who drives the ACLU apoplectic and a vice president
who demands more executive privilege (for his energy
séances )) than any elected official has ever
received. The president wants a Constitutional
amendment to protect marriage from homosexuals, of all
things. Between tax cuts for his high-end supporters
and three years playing God and Caesar in the Middle
East, George Bush has simply emptied America's wallet
with a $480 billion federal deficit projected for 2004
and the tab on Iraq well over $100 billion and
running.

"A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know
what the word means," Barry Goldwater said in 1994,
when the current cult of right-wing radicals and
"neocons" had begun to define and assert themselves.
Goldwater was my first political hero, before I was
old enough to read his flaws. But his was the
conservatism of the wolf -- the lone wolf -- and this
is the conservatism of sheep.

All it takes to make a Bush conservative is a few
slogans from talk radio and pickup truck bumpers, a
sneer at "liberals" and maybe a name-dropping nod to
Edmund Burke or John Locke, whom most of them have
never read. Sheep and sheep only could be herded by a
ludicrous but not harmless cretin like Rush Limbaugh,
who has just compared the sexual abuse of Iraqi
prisoners to "a college fraternity prank" (and who
once called Chelsea Clinton "the family dog" -- you
don't have to worry about shame when you have no
brain).

I don't think it's accurate to describe America as
polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or
between liberals and conservatives. It's polarized
between the people who believe George Bush and the
people who do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in
a state governed by the president's brother, a
once-proud country has been delivered into the hands
of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics and thieves. The
world pities or despises us, even as it fears us. What
this election will test is the power of money and
media to fool us, to obscure the truth and alter the
obvious, to hide a great crime against the public
trust under a blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly
funded, most cynical, most sophisticated political
campaign in human history will be out trolling for
fools. I pray to God it doesn't catch you.

Hal Crowther is a former writer for Time and Newsweek,
the Buffalo News and the North Carolina Spectator
before parking his column at the weekly Independent in
Durham, N.C., and The Progressive Populist, among
others. He won the H.L. Mencken Award for column
writing in 1992.

[wondergirl9847]

I am in no way some sort of political person, but I think SH did in SOME way have something to do with 9/11. Sure, he didn't fly the planes into the buildings and Pentagon, but I believe there were some *wink wink* *nudge nudge* under the table goings on...er...going on. LOL

[dissention]

Well, diss, how long have we been saying this? You'll forgive me if I don't do a victory dance. God, how depressing. :mad:

:nod:

It is depressing, but it shows the people who voted for those two the reality of what they actually voted for. And that is priceless.

[dissention]

There's a rumor going around that the October surprise may be some "evidence" that Saddam and Al Q are linked. This could explain Kerry's reticence on the subject. We have to beat these bastards at their own game because we KNOW they are trying to steal the election again. They play dirty. Nope, Kerry is playing it smart.

You want to know what I think the October surprise is?

Cheney's pacemaker has to be removed this year and a new one has to be put in. They're going to use that to get Cheney off the ticket for "medical reasons" and replace him with Minute Rice. You can bet your ass that's what it's going to be.

Or they have Osama.

One of those two.

[CarneVaca]

I am in no way some sort of political person, but I think SH did in SOME way have something to do with 9/11. Sure, he didn't fly the planes into the buildings and Pentagon, but I believe there were some *wink wink* *nudge nudge* under the table goings on...er...going on. LOL

Christy, that may be true, but it was never established. How would you like to make a decision based on unproven evidence to send thousands of people to an early death? Think about it in those terms. I know a gentle soul like you wouldn't. Am I wrong?

[CarneVaca]

You want to know what I think the October surprise is?

Cheney's pacemaker has to be removed this year and a new one has to be put in. They're going to use that to get Cheney off the ticket for "medical reasons" and replace him with Minute Rice. You can bet your ass that's what it's going to be.

Or they have Osama.

One of those two.


That reminds me, ever notice the similarity between Bush and the Tin Man? Neither has a heart.

[wondergirl9847]

What I want to know is who told you I was a gentle soul? :lol:

I'm from Texas....I believe in the death penalty and the right to bear arms. LOL!!

Seriously, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with us going in and doing what we did, I'm just saying, I think he had something to do with it.

[gldstwmn]

That's pretty good. I was wondering what you'd come up with. Wrong, but pretty good. :xoxo:

Heeheee. Sorry I took so long. :) Some of these threads are getting pretty involved.

[CarneVaca]

Seriously, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with us going in and doing what we did, I'm just saying, I think he had something to do with it.

Fine. I believe lots of things. But I have yet to start a war about them.

Would you?

[wondergirl9847]

Which is why I'm not running for president. LOL Too stressful and I don't like making decisions anyways. I can't even decide whether to wash my hair today or tomorrow. :laugh:

I don't envy the President, at all. :distress:

[dissention]

By the way, guys, you'll like this. It's very long, but believe me, it's worth the read. Also, I needn't mention that I disagree with the writer on Nader. Here goes:

WITH TREMBLING FINGERS By Hal Crowther


Wow. That was long but most definitely worth it. I got a few tears in my eyes as I read that. Thanks for posting it, Carne.

Everyone around here should read it, it's fantastic.

[dissention]

Which is why I'm not running for president. LOL Too stressful and I don't like making decisions anyways. I can't even decide whether to wash my hair today or tomorrow. :laugh:

I don't envy the President, at all. :distress:

:laugh: Just because you're president, it doesn't mean you have to make the decisions. Take a cue from Bush and have your VP make all the decisions. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I am in no way some sort of political person, but I think SH did in SOME way have something to do with 9/11. Sure, he didn't fly the planes into the buildings and Pentagon, but I believe there were some *wink wink* *nudge nudge* under the table goings on...er...going on. LOL

How do I put this into one paragraph? While both SH and OBL were Muslim, their sects hated each other. Saddam was a dictator. If you research it, you'll see that no acts of terrorism ever occured in Iraq under Saddam's watch. He threw people in jail for looking the wrong way. His borders were closed and the man was far too egomaniacal to ever share power with anyone. If he did it, he'd have owned up to it right away. Please don't perpetuate this viewpoint. It's just misleading. A lot of people will believe it because we as a society are just being conditioned to dislike Muslims right now. It's like the Commies in the 50's.
Now, we do know that Saddam has ties to Rumsfeld and the CIA, that's proven.
Did I explain that okay? Dissention, can you help me out here?

[dissention]

How do I put this into one paragraph? While both SH and OBL were Muslim, their sects hated each other. Saddam was a dictator. If you research it, you'll see that no acts of terrorism ever occured in Iraq under Saddam's watch. He threw people in jail for looking the wrong way. His borders were closed and the man was far too egomaniacal to ever share power with anyone. If he did it, he'd have owned up to it right away. Please don't perpetuate this viewpoint. It's just misleading. A lot of people will believe it because we as a society are just being conditioned to dislike Muslims right now. It's like the Commies in the 50's.
Now, we do know that Saddam has ties to Rumsfeld and the CIA, that's proven.
Did I explain that okay? Dissention, can you help me out here?

You said it perfectly. The two men not only despised sects, they despised each other. Saddam never associated himself with anyone, he worked alone. If he did, he never would have associated with such a person as bin-Laden, someone who was below him in status. Plus, once it was found to have been bin-Laden who attacked us, Iraq was the FIRST nation to denounce what had happened. The rift between the two men is widely documented, lemme try to pull up a site I found a few months ago with lots of info on it.

[wondergirl9847]

A lot of people will believe it because we as a society are just being conditioned to dislike Muslims right now. It's like the Commies in the 50's.

I don't dislike Muslims. I don't dislike any group of people, I only dislike individual morons, idiots and racists. LOL I am not saying what I said because of religious ties or non-religious ties, I just have a gut feeling. Das all.

I'm an X-Files nut, and I'm sure our government is tied to LOTS of things we don't know about....I probably don't wanna even know. :(

LOL at Dis!! Yeah, I guess surrounding yourself with smart people, you don't HAVE to make decisions! Perhaps, I WILL run someday! :laugh:

[dissention]

LOL at Dis!! Yeah, I guess surrounding yourself with smart people, you don't HAVE to make decisions! Perhaps, I WILL run someday! :laugh:

That would work if Bush did surround himself with smart people. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

I don't dislike Muslims. I don't dislike any group of people, I only dislike individual morons, idiots and racists. LOL I am not saying what I said because of religious ties or non-religious ties, I just have a gut feeling. Das all.

I'm an X-Files nut, and I'm sure our government is tied to LOTS of things we don't know about....I probably don't wanna even know. :(

:

Christy, in no way did I mean that you disliked Muslims. I'm just saying there's a lot of that rhetoric around.
Check it out if you have time. There is no connection between SH and AL Q. For what it's worth, the president even said it.

[wondergirl9847]

People are stupid. Judging people based on religion, race, beliefs...etc. I just don't get it.

There's alot of rhetoric on ALL issues in ALL parties. Like I said, do away with this us versus them crap...a no party America. :nod:

[CarneVaca]

Now, we do know that Saddam has ties to Rumsfeld and the CIA, that's proven.

Hell, the Bushes and the Bin Ladins have closer ties than the Husseins and Bin Ladins ever did...

[CarneVaca]

...a no party America. :nod:

Now, Christy, I want to reform this party duopoly as much as anybody, probably more so than anyone else on this board. But a no-party America!!??

Why, what would we do for birthdays? What about New Year's Eve? Fourth of July?

I shudder to think. I shudder to think.
:shocked:

[wondergirl9847]

Not THAT kind of party, you goober!!

Actually, I'm not a party type of gal. I do like get togethers, but small ones with friends and family.

[dissention]

I just HAD to post this. See a pattern of deceit?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

And Jordan (ph), I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your daddy and mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.

[gldstwmn]

Hell, the Bushes and the Bin Ladins have closer ties than the Husseins and Bin Ladins ever did...

So close, that come June 25th when Farenheit 9/11 premieres nationwide, a lot of people's minds are going to be blown.

[gldstwmn]

I just HAD to post this. See a pattern of deceit?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

And Jordan (ph), I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your daddy and mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.

You should post the "I hit the trifecta" quote. Do you have it?

[dissention]

You should post the "I hit the trifecta" quote. Do you have it?

Somewhere! I'm home now (after I had more cheesecake :shocked: ), so I should be able to find it on my computer. I record the damage, you know. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I am in no way some sort of political person, but I think SH did in SOME way have something to do with 9/11. Sure, he didn't fly the planes into the buildings and Pentagon, but I believe there were some *wink wink* *nudge nudge* under the table goings on...er...going on. LOL

I think alot of people feel this way. AND - SH certainly was not upset that America was attacked. But, in the end, there is no direct evidence to support it - in fact the evidence supports the contrary :shrug:

Here is a CNN article about it. Interestingly, SH and OBL had met a few times in the 90's but nothing significant seems to have come from that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html

9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 7:45 PM EDT (2345 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks found that the plot originally called for hijacking 10 planes and attacking targets on the eastern and western coasts of the United States.

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it began two days of hearings.

On Thursday, "a number of urban myths about 9/11" will be dispelled, commission member Richard Ben-Viniste said.

For example, he said, the widely held belief that the military was ready to carry out orders to shoot down civilian aircraft if necessary "is simply not true."

"They were not ready" for a number of reasons, he said.

What is not contested is that Vice President Dick Cheney communicated authorization for civilian planes to be shot down if they threatened strategic targets.

While Wednesday's hearing focused primarily on the terrorists' planning, Thursday will focus on what happened in the skies the day of the attack.

According to the commission:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, planned to have nine of the planes crash into the FBI and CIA headquarters, the Pentagon and the White House, as well as nuclear plants and the tallest buildings in California and Washington state.

Mohammed was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities.

The hijackers of the 10th plane, which Mohammed planned to pilot, would contact the media, kill all of the adult men onboard and then make a statement denouncing the United States before freeing the women and children.

The plot also called for hijacking and blowing up 12 airliners in Southeast Asia, but al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden scrapped that part of the plan because it was too difficult to coordinate operations on two continents.

Bin Laden scaled back the plot in the United States to the four planes that were eventually used in the attack.

They narrowed down the list of targets to the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and either the White House or the Capitol.

Bin Laden wanted to hit the White House, but Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 19 hijackers, favored the Capitol, because they felt it would be an easier target.

Mohammed initially proposed the attacks in 1996, but planning did not begin until 1999.

Bin Laden had wanted the attack to occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount tunnel, which preceded a Palestinian intifada. But the hijacker-pilots were not yet fully trained.

Bin Laden then pressed for a date earlier in 2001, such as May 12, the seven-month anniversary of the USS Cole attack, or in June or July, when Sharon was due to visit the White House. Again, the hijackers were not ready.

The September 11 date was not chosen until three weeks before. The hijackers bought their tickets only two weeks before.

The plot cost an estimated $400,000 to $500,000, not including the hijackers' training in Afghanistan. The hijackers spent about $270,000 in the United States, mainly on flight training, travel, housing, and vehicles.

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation
The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.

Just this week Bush and Cheney have made comments alleging ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. (Full story)

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry said, "the administration misled America."

"The administration reached too far," he told Detroit radio station WDET. "They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions."

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

The report said that Atta was in Virginia on April 4 -- evidenced by video that shows him withdrawing $8,000 from an ATM -- and he was in Florida by April 11 if not before.

The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11" other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.

The toppling of the Taliban regime "fundamentally changed" al Qaeda, leaving it decentralized and altering bin Laden's role.

Prior to the attacks, bin Laden approved all al Qaeda operations and often chose targets and the operatives himself, the report said.

"After al Qaeda lost Afghanistan after 9/11, it fundamentally changed. The organization is far more decentralized. Bin Laden's seclusion forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him," the report said.

Al Qaeda seeking nuclear weapons
The commission said that al Qaeda was seeking to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Al Qaeda "remains interested in using a radiological dispersal device or 'dirty bomb,' a conventional explosive designed to spread radioactive material," the commission said.

The report said that al Qaeda may also seek to launch a chemical attack using widely available chemicals or by attacking a chemical plant or chemical shipments.

The commission also said that Tenet testified that a possible anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face."

Al Qaeda funding
Al Qaeda's funding came primarily from a fund-raising network, not business enterprises or bin Laden's personal fortune, the commission said.

Bin Laden owned some businesses and other assets in Sudan, but "most were small or not economically viable." The report says bin Laden "never received a $300 million inheritance," but from 1970 until approximately 1994 received about $1 million a year.

The commission found that Saudi Arabia was a rich fund-raising ground for al Qaeda, but that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda.

The group distributed the money as quickly as it was raised, with much of the money going to the Taliban for its operations in Afghanistan.

The CIA estimates that al Qaeda spent $30 million each year on expenses including terrorist operations, salaries and maintenance on terrorist training camps.

Its largest expense was payments to the Taliban, which were estimated at between $10 million and $20 million per year.

[gldstwmn]

Somewhere! I'm home now (after I had more cheesecake :shocked: ), so I should be able to find it on my computer. I record the damage, you know. :laugh:

Gawd, I looove the Cheesecake Factory.

[dissention]

Gawd, I looove the Cheesecake Factory.

One look at my ass and you'd know that I loved it, too.

And I found myself in the Boston DVD, looking like the biggest idiot in the world. :laugh: During "So Afraid," he goes over to Stevie's side of the stage for the big solo. The spotlights light up three people in the front row, I'm one of them. There's a blonde woman, a guy wearing a white t-shirt, and then my dumb ass. I'm just standing there, in awe of that man. ;) There are a few more shots of me, but I look bloody awful and won't disclose when. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

and so it starts . . . .

The Plain Truth

June 17, 2004

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant
alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17THU1.html?ex=1088479328&ei=1&en=f4880beeeb945d72

[strandinthewind]

Smack That Cheney-Bot!

June 17, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

The whole thing was extremely suspicious.

People here still haven't stopped buzzing about the
president's bizarre behavior at the White House unveiling ceremony for the Clintons' official portraits on Monday. Mr. Bush acted totally out of character: witty, engaged, amiable, bipartisan and magnanimous. Even to Bill and Hillary.

He gave a sly wink to his own black-sheep past and that of the wayward Rodham brothers, Hugh and Tony, when he greeted the Rodhams' mom, Dorothy: "Welcome, we're glad you're here. And those two boys you're still trying to raise."

W. gave lavish encomiums - and even a nickname - to the man he once accused of stripping the White House of dignity and honor. Saying his dad was 41 and he's 43, he grinned and said, "We're glad you're here, 42."

Even Bill Clinton was dumbfounded, not to mention confounded. Maybe that's why the usually articulate 42 declared he felt like "a pickle stepping into history." Shouldn't he have felt like the ham and cheese between two slices of Wonder bread?

Mr. Clinton told friends afterward that he was blown away, that W. had never been so nice to him before. There was no smirk, no begrudging. And Clinton pals at a Georgetown restaurant that night alternated between bellowing about getting rid of President Bush and marveling at how great he'd been at the unveiling.

"Maybe after a week of seeing the comparisons of himself and Reagan, in which he did not come out as well," one Clintonista speculated, "he's getting the knack of acting more like Reagan." Mr. Clinton used to study Reagan tapes to pick up pointers; why shouldn't Mr. Bush?

Perhaps we have a Potomac invasion of the body snatchers. Maybe, like the grumpy wives of Stepford, bristly W. has been replaced by soothing W. With the race with John Kerry so tight, the Republicans were reminded last week of the advantages of a leader with a light touch - not one who's at odds with the world, and rattled about the prison torture scandal creeping toward Rummy and the sulfurous reversals in Iraq. (Although it would be natural for Mr. Bush to feel churlish. After going to war to save Iraqis from a regime that "tortured children in front of their parents," now he can't even trust the Iraqis to bring Saddam to justice.)

Like the Stepford husbands, G.O.P. bigwigs could have met in a smoky men's club and decided they wanted a W. who was a little less pushy and a little more sunny. All world domination, all the time, can be wearing.

The Republicans messed up their first attempt at this, when they took Dick Cheney to an undisclosed location to switch him with a replicant. Instead of an affable, reassuring presence, as he was in Bush I, the Bush II vice president is a macabre automaton who keeps repeating, over and over, as contrary evidence piles up, that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked, and that Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

Mr. Cheney did it again on Monday in Florida speaking at - where else? - a conservative think tank; he said Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." This claim, used by the White House to justify its gallop to war, was once more flatly contradicted by the 9/11 panel's report yesterday: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The report says Osama did seek help from Saddam in the 90's, "despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime." But aside from sending an official to meet with Osama in Sudan, Saddam stiffed his request for weapons and
training-camp space.

Mr. Cheney isn't programmed to process evidence that shows he was wrong; he simply keeps repeating the same nonsensical claims as if he has a microchip malfunction.

Unfortunately, there's no spouse to give him a knock on the head, as the Stepford husbands do when their Farrah fem-bots go haywire and keep repeating things like, "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe. . . . I'll just die if I-I-I [bop!] don't get that recipe. . . ."

Cheney-bot just keeps going and going: "He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. . . . He had long-established ties with Al Aaeda-a-a. . . . He-he-e-e—— brzzzrrrp!"**

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17DOWD.html?ex=1088479560&ei=1&en=e1135661b6bf40d4

[darklinensuit]

Smack That Cheney-Bot!

June 17, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

The whole thing was extremely suspicious.

People here still haven't stopped buzzing about the
president's bizarre behavior at the White House unveiling ceremony for the Clintons' official portraits on Monday. Mr. Bush acted totally out of character: witty, engaged, amiable, bipartisan and magnanimous.

Flowers For Algernon (sp.)? ;)

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

One look at my ass and you'd know that I loved it, too.

And I found myself in the Boston DVD, looking like the biggest idiot in the world. :laugh: During "So Afraid," he goes over to Stevie's side of the stage for the big solo. The spotlights light up three people in the front row, I'm one of them. There's a blonde woman, a guy wearing a white t-shirt, and then my dumb ass. I'm just standing there, in awe of that man. ;) There are a few more shots of me, but I look bloody awful and won't disclose when. :lol:

Is it one of the times I mentioned? :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Here is a new article (too long to post the whole thing)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/17/911.commission.intl/index.html

Blair: Al Qaeda worked in Iraq
9/11 panel finds no link between terror network, Saddam
Thursday, June 17, 2004 Posted: 10:27 AM EDT (1427 GMT)

LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said al Qaeda agents operated in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a day after a U.S. panel said it had found no link between the terrorist network and the former Iraqi leader.
_______________________________________________________________

It seems to me the press and others are confusing two dintinct issues.

1. Did SH have any part of the events of 9/11? The ansewer is no.

2. Did SH aid and abett Al-Q and other terrorist groups? That answer is not as clear, but no direct significant link can or has been established. But, even if it is yes, that does not make SH complacent in the 9/11 events as espoused by Cheney :shrug:

[dissention]

Is it one of the times I mentioned? :wavey:

Nope, I'm not on during Rhiannon. They certainly must've thought I was quite photogenic because I'm shown about five times. :sorry: :lol: I look like an absolute fool during GYOW !!!!!!!!!!

[dissention]

Here is a new article (too long to post the whole thing)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/17/911.commission.intl/index.html

Blair: Al Qaeda worked in Iraq
9/11 panel finds no link between terror network, Saddam
Thursday, June 17, 2004 Posted: 10:27 AM EDT (1427 GMT)

LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said al Qaeda agents operated in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a day after a U.S. panel said it had found no link between the terrorist network and the former Iraqi leader.


Blair knows he's toast and this is his final stab at drumming up just a little support by lying. I'm surprised the Brits haven't kidnapped him and tarred 'n feathered him.

[gldstwmn]

One look at my ass and you'd know that I loved it, too.



BTW, doll, in case no one's told you today, you are perfect just as you are. :xoxo:

[dissention]

BTW, doll, in case no one's told you today, you are perfect just as you are. :xoxo:

Awww... :xoxo: I'm feeling the love. And ditto (I feel like Patrick Swayze every time I say that :laugh: ). :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

``This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida,'' he said.

``We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan.''

He has a point :shrug:
______________________________________________

Bush Disputes Panel's Conclusion on Al Qaeda-Iraq Ties

June 17, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no ``collaborative relationship'' between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.


"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida,'' Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida,'' he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan.''

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein -- a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Senior members of the commission seemed eager to minimize any disagreement.

"What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there,'' said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who is chairman.

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were "not that apparent to me.''

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,'' the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.''

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaida, but to other terrorist networks as well.

"He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq,'' he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.

Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaida leaders and Saddam, now jailed.

"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power,'' Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.

It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.

Bush said he told Cabinet members that he continues to have a "firm resolve'' in Iraq, the scene of escalating violence less than two weeks before the handoff of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

On Thursday, a sport utility vehicle packed with artillery shells blew up in a crowd of people waiting to volunteer for the Iraqi military, killing dozens and wounding over a hundred. Another car bomb north of the capital killed several members of the Iraqi security forces.

"We fully understand terrorists who try to shake our will, who try to shake our confidence to try to get us to withdraw from commitments we have made in places like Afghanistan and Iraq,'' Bush said. "They won't succeed. Iraq will be free. And a free Iraq is in our nation's interest.''

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Bush.html?ex=1088501957&ei=1&en=dfe27dca3f27833e

[strandinthewind]

Yet another story and a VERY interesting sort of "late in the day ally," esp. considering they, for financial reasons, did not support the Iraqi war. But, Putin makes no sense in what he says :shrug: I mean he says SH is planning to attack you, but don't go to war with him and if you do, we won't support it, even though over 3,00 of your people have been cruelly and without warning or provocation slain less by a terrorist attack from another vile organization than a year ago - I mean PLUUULLEEZZEEE :mad: Russia NEVER ceases to amaze me - they have no qualms about slaughterint heir own people at the drop of a hat - but are concerned about SH - that is just BS IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html
________________________________________________________________

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 8:38 AM EDT (1238 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday, according to the Interfax news agency.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"After September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Interfax quoted Putin as saying.

"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by Interfax.

U.S. President George W. Bush personally thanked the head of one of the Russian intelligence services for the information, which he called "very valuable," said CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty.

Russia opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, but Putin said the issue of going to war was separate from a potential Iraqi threat. He said there were international norms that weren't observed in carrying out the war.

The United States never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.

[strandinthewind]

and another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123043,00.html

Kerry: Bush Misled World on Iraq

Friday, June 18, 2004



WASHINGTON — With casualties mounting in Iraq and the president's justification for invading the country under increasing question, Democratic challenger John Kerry (search) is sharpening his attacks against the war.

The candidate who struggled to explain his position on Iraq during the primary campaign now has a more defined message — President Bush misled America about the reasons for war.

As his case against the president's foreign policy is becoming more succinct, his criticism of Bush's fiscal policies has become less direct as the economy rebounds.

Kerry can no longer point to rising unemployment as the main evidence that Bush's economic leadership is failing. So far this year, 1.2 million jobs have been created, although there is still a net job loss of more than 1 million jobs since Bush took office.

Kerry, in the midst of a two-week campaign swing focusing on ways to improve the financial standing of American families, uses statistics like rising bankruptcy rates and dropping wages as a share of national income to make his point. During a campaign stop in suburban Washington on Friday, Kerry planned to call for an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.00 by 2007 to bring Americans out of poverty.

Kerry said Thursday that more jobs will be created during the coming months, but "my candidacy is not based on the fact that we've lost a job here or there." He said the campaign will continue based on the need for better health care, education, environmental protections and foreign policy.

"What will not go away is the impact of the loss of moral authority of the United States in the world because of what's happened in the prisons in Iraq and because of the abuses that we've seen and the failure of this president to show that he can lead our country with the truth," Kerry said.

The Sept. 11 commission's found this week that Saddam Hussein (search) did not have ties to Al Qaeda (search), disputing a central justification Bush used for invading Iraq and toppling the former Iraqi regime.

Bush disputed the commission and continued to maintain the former Iraqi leader had numerous contacts with Al Qaeda. But Kerry said the report shows Bush "rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts."

"This administration took its eye off of Al Qaeda, took its eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq," Kerry said. "And the American people are paying billions of dollars now because of that decision. And most importantly, American families and American soldiers are paying the highest price of all."

Kerry was criticized during the last 18 months for failing to articulate a clear position on Iraq. He voted to give the president authority to go to war, but then criticized him for doing so without more diplomacy.

The nuance left some voters scratching their heads about whether Kerry was for or against the war. Democrats who were upset with Kerry's vote for the war said he had no standing to criticize it.

Republicans say Kerry tries to have it both ways. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry "has constantly displayed indecision and vacillation when it comes to the war on terror."

"His comments today is another example of John Kerry trying to exploit the war on terror for political gain and to contradict his previous statements," Schmidt said Thursday.

[strandinthewind]

and now the pundits:

Misleading Reporting

Friday, June 18, 2004

By Bill O'Reilly

Once again we are mislead by some in the press.

I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone.

The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."

The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."

And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.

The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah.

A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.

Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:

“The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have hear is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that is true.

And that's The Memo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123067,00.html

[The Tower]

Nope, I'm not on during Rhiannon. They certainly must've thought I was quite photogenic because I'm shown about five times. :sorry: :lol: I look like an absolute fool during GYOW !!!!!!!!!!

I saw you, I saw you, I saw youuuuu!!!!! Not during Go Your Own Way, though. I'll hafta look for that tonight!

:thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

One look at my ass and you'd know that I loved it, too.

And I found myself in the Boston DVD, looking like the biggest idiot in the world. :laugh: During "So Afraid," he goes over to Stevie's side of the stage for the big solo. The spotlights light up three people in the front row, I'm one of them. There's a blonde woman, a guy wearing a white t-shirt, and then my dumb ass. I'm just standing there, in awe of that man. ;) There are a few more shots of me, but I look bloody awful and won't disclose when. :lol:

Are you wearing what appears to be two shirts or a jacket and a shirt to the left of the blonde. OR - are you the one clapping and bowing in time!!!!

[gldstwmn]

By the way, guys, you'll like this. It's very long, but believe me, it's worth the read. Also, I needn't mention that I disagree with the writer on Nader. Here goes:

WITH TREMBLING FINGERS By Hal Crowther



I finally got time to read this today. Thank you Carne. :)

[gldstwmn]

Yet another story and a VERY interesting sort of "late in the day ally," esp. considering they, for financial reasons, did not support the Iraqi war. But, Putin makes no sense in what he says :shrug: I mean he says SH is planning to attack you, but don't go to war with him and if you do, we won't support it, even though over 3,00 of your people have been cruelly and without warning or provocation slain less by a terrorist attack from another vile organization than a year ago - I mean PLUUULLEEZZEEE :mad: Russia NEVER ceases to amaze me - they have no qualms about slaughterint heir own people at the drop of a hat - but are concerned about SH - that is just BS IMO.




Oh, but maybe it does make sense:

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2488&fcategory_desc=Carlyle%20Group

Bush Sr. Pays Visit to Putin in Sochi
September 15, 2003


SOCHI, Russia Former President George Bush met Sunday with President Vladimir Putin, less than two weeks before a summit meeting between the Russian leader and the former U.S. leader's son. . Bush and his wife, Barbara, traveled to the Black Sea resort of Sochi, on a plane provided by the airline that serves Putin and other Russian government figures. Putin greeted them on the tarmac, speaking English, shaking their hands and giving Barbara a bouquet of roses. . Putin rarely meets visitors to Russia at the airport, and Bush thanked him for his "extraordinary courtesy." The warm greeting set a cordial tone for the talks, which come as Russia and the United States seek to patch up relations after deep disagreement over the war in Iraq and international debate about the postwar situation. . The summit meeting is scheduled for Sept. 26 at Camp David.

Then this:
http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2003/10/27/50790.html
2003-10-27

Khodorkovsky arrested, Yukos keeps afloat

Mikhail Khodorkovsky's (head of Russian oil company, Yukos) arrest will not have a significant impact on Yukos' operations, according to a statement from Yukos, circulated Monday.

The statement also indicates that Yukos-affiliated companies are continuing to extract and process oil.

The company will strictly honor its liabilities to investors and creditors. Yukos remains responsible to its partners, shareholders, consumers and the personnel as well as society.

Further,
http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=41933
Khodorkovsky to remain in prison till after presidential election
December 23, 2003 Posted: 19:31 Moscow time (15:31 GMT)



MOSCOW - Moscow Basmanny court has ordered former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky to remain in custody till March 25, 2004, just 11 days after the presidential election slated for March 14.

The order followed a request from the General Prosecutor’s Office, which had petitioned the court to extend the detention period because Khodorkovsky could run from prosecution or exact pressure on potential witnesses if released on bail.

Khodorkovsky was arrested on Oct. 25, when he was promptly indicted on a series of charges, including fraud, violation of a court order, corporate tax evasion, falsification of documents and embezzlement. Other charges include non-payment personal income tax and compulsory contributions to the Pension Fund, totaling $1.7million between 1998 and 1999.

In a similar development, Menatep Group CEO Platon Lebedev, a co-principal Yukos shareholder with Khodorkovsky, was denied bail by Moscow City Court. According to the court order, Lebedev is to remain in custody till Dec. 30 for reasons similar to those of Khodorkovsky.

Then:
http://www.eng.yabloko.ru/Publ/2003/PAPERS/11/031107_la_times.html
Los Angeles Times, November 7, 2003

Financier's Institute in Moscow Is Raided

By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer


MOSCOW - In the wake of U.S. financier George Soros' public defense of jailed Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Moscow offices of the Soros Foundation were raided early today by dozens of men equipped with camouflage gear and stun guns, who hauled away 15 years worth of documents and computer data.
The operation, which began shortly after midnight, was carried out by private security forces ostensibly hired by a businessman with whom the foundation had been engaged in a legal dispute. But Soros Foundation officials said they could not rule out a connection to the Yukos Oil Co. case, in which offices throughout Moscow have been raided in recent months by authorities seeking evidence against the billionaire oil tycoon.

"I cannot rule out that it is some kind of revenge on the part of some agencies who resort to the use of bandits and thugs for Mr. Soros' position and his attitude toward Mr. Khodorkovsky," said Yekaterina Geniyeva, director of the Open Society Institute-Soros Foundation in Russia.

Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest oligarch, was arrested Oct. 25 on tax evasion, forgery and fraud charges in a case that has erupted into the most serious crisis of President Vladimir V. Putin's administration.

Khodorkovsky's supporters claim that the arrest was the punitive action of an anti-democratic faction within the Kremlin seeking to clamp down on the businessman's political influence.

The New York-based Soros Foundation has spent more than $1 billion on charitable projects in Russia during the last 15 years. Khodorkovsky had based his own charitable organization, the Open Russia Foundation, on Soros' Open Society Institute and had close links to the Soros Foundation's work in supporting libraries, Internet education, community development and the promotion of civil society.

This week, Soros spoke out against Khodorkovsky's arrest, saying "the crackdown by Mr. Putin sends an unmistakable message that independence of action will not be tolerated." Soros said that pressure from the West against a trend toward "state capitalism" could result in "Russia being forced out" of the Group of 8 industrialized nations.

Geniyeva, who was in Florence, Italy, when the raid began, said she was convinced that it was related to the foundation's dispute with the building's landlord - until Soros officials found themselves unable to persuade Russian authorities to intervene.

"What's happening now is the Soros Foundation has physically ceased to exist in Russia," she said. "It's been plundered down to the last thread. And with this in mind, I would very much like to rule out any connection to Khodorkovsky, but unfortunately, I can't. There are just way too many coincidences here."

[CKFive]

First off a vote for John Kerry is not a vote for George Bush. Senator Kerry may not have been my first choice for the candidate from my party, but he’s not a bad one.
George Bush conveniently has made himself an iconic figure in the worlds growing hatred of the US. Where hating anyone is frowned upon it seems okay to hate Bush. John Kerry would relieve some of the world’s hatred for America simply by not being George Bush. Moreover he would be more beholden to the will of the people than Bush, who feels that he is anointed by god to lead us into dangerous and personally profitable (for Bush and Cheney, and their cronies) foreign adventures.
What gets me is that the 911 commission released it’s findings, and just hours later the administration contradicts it. Cheney says in a public interview that he knows more about it than the commission. He testified without taking the oath, it seems obvious that that was designed to create a situation where he could undermine the commission’s work.
As far as Dick Cheney being removed from the ticket I would love that, he has a consistently higher approval rating than Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for posting those. I agree the Putin thing smacks of some kind of foul play and Putin and W have been friendly, etc. But, why wouldn't Putin just favor the war in Iraq if they were such buddies. Russia will lose and has lost money by not favoring it. Then, this after the fact statement with no support. That is just too unbelievable to me. But, it does sort of smack of Rove and his methods, e.g. "British intelligence . . . yellow cake from Niger" - then when called on it, the US says, well we were telling the truth because although our sources were wrond and we knew that, we were quoting British cources, so go ask them and quit bothering me - JERKS :mad:

[gldstwmn]

Thanks for posting those. I agree the Putin thing smacks of some kind of foul play and Putin and W have been friendly, etc. But, why wouldn't Putin just favor the war in Iraq if they were such buddies. Russia will lose and has lost money by not favoring it. Then, this after the fact statement with no support. That is just too unbelievable to me. But, it does sort of smack of Rove and his methods, e.g. "British intelligence . . . yellow cake from Niger" - then when called on it, the US says, well we were telling the truth because although our sources were wrond and we knew that, we were quoting British cources, so go ask them and quit bothering me - JERKS :mad:

Here is another interesting tidbit:

The Moscow Times : "You name it and market players were buzzing Thursday about the real reasons behind the former American leader's visit -- an $18 billion play by U.S. oil giant ChevronTexaco for a blocking stake in the new Yukos-Sibneft combo? The launch of a $500 million private tie-up between Alfa Group and Pentagon-connected Carlyle Group? Divvying up the hydrocarbon resources of postwar Iraq?"

[dissention]

Here is another interesting tidbit:

The Moscow Times : "You name it and market players were buzzing Thursday about the real reasons behind the former American leader's visit -- an $18 billion play by U.S. oil giant ChevronTexaco for a blocking stake in the new Yukos-Sibneft combo? The launch of a $500 million private tie-up between Alfa Group and Pentagon-connected Carlyle Group? Divvying up the hydrocarbon resources of postwar Iraq?"

:eek: Minute Rice must be involved, too.

[gldstwmn]

Thanks for posting those. I agree the Putin thing smacks of some kind of foul play and Putin and W have been friendly, etc. :

You do know that I'm talking about 41 and not 43, right? Also, he took Henry Kissinger along with him on the trip. Then, he went to Saudi to meet with Crown Prince Abdullah right around the time that Abdullah was meeting with the Russinas to make a $60 billion investment and planning an "energy accord between the two countries. Tinfoil hat, anyone?

[dissention]

You do know that I'm talking about 41 and not 43, right? Also, he took Henry Kissinger along with him on the trip. Then, he went to Saudi to meet with Crown Prince Abdullah right around the time that Abdullah was meeting with the Russinas to make a $60 billion investment and planning an "energy accord between the two countries. Tinfoil hat, anyone?

I've had tinfoil glued to my head for years, doll. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

You do know that I'm talking about 41 and not 43, right? Also, he took Henry Kissinger along with him on the trip. Then, he went to Saudi to meet with Crown Prince Abdullah right around the time that Abdullah was meeting with the Russinas to make a $60 billion investment and planning an "energy accord between the two countries. Tinfoil hat, anyone?

Yep - and I agree a tin foil hat may be helpful!!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

:eek: Minute Rice must be involved, too.

For what it's worth, I was talking about a completely different subject with someone when I stumbeld across this info. Their theory is that this latest thing from Putin is really a product of the ongoing struggle between the State Department/CIA vs. PNAC/OSP (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, et. al). With Watergate, it was "follow the money." With this administration, it seems to be follow the oil. Their hands are in so many pockets that it is truly frightening.

[gldstwmn]

Yep - and I agree a tin foil hat may be helpful!!!! :cool:

The thing is though, it's not that far fetched.

[dissention]

For what it's worth, I was talking about a completely different subject with someone when I stumbeld across this info. Their theory is that this latest thing from Putin is really a product of the ongoing struggle between the State Department/CIA vs. PNAC/OSP (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, et. al). With Watergate, it was "follow the money." With this administration, it seems to be follow the oil. Their hands are in so many pockets that it is truly frightening.

Of course. Shrub should be renamed "Georgy Pie Hands" because he has his hand in every pie that could possibly put more dollars in his fat wallet. His past realtionships with big oil speak for themselves, he's a businessman, not a politician.

Interestingly, in the latest polls, Kerry is viewed much more favorably over Bush when it comes to understanding the plight of the poor and middle class. ;)

[dissention]

Eek! I forgot you're seeing Kerry today!

*rushes to see if it's on C-SPAN*

Let us know how it was, darling. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Eek! I forgot you're seeing Kerry today!

*rushes to see if it's on C-SPAN*

Let us know how it was, darling. :wavey:

Did he wear a tin foil hat :laugh: :wavey: :p :p :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Eek! I forgot you're seeing Kerry today!

*rushes to see if it's on C-SPAN*

Let us know how it was, darling. :wavey:

It poured. I didn't get to see him. It was being held outside, rain or shine. :(

[gldstwmn]

Did he wear a tin foil hat :laugh: :wavey: :p :p :cool:

He did when he busted the BCCI for laundering the Iran Contra drug money. And he was right. :)

[strandinthewind]

He did when he busted the BCCI for laundering the Iran Contra drug money. And he was right. :)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

It poured. I didn't get to see him. It was being held outside, rain or shine. :(

That sucks. :distress:

Who knows, maybe the opportunity will arise again! ;)

[gldstwmn]

That sucks. :distress:

Who knows, maybe the opportunity will arise again! ;)

It's close here so I think he might come back. I hope he does. I heard at the fundrasier later on he jokingly said he was going to nominate (Aspen resident) Hunter S. Thompson for VP. :lol:

[dissention]

It's close here so I think he might come back. I hope he does. I heard at the fundrasier later on he jokingly said he was going to nominate (Aspen resident) Hunter S. Thompson for VP. :lol:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

What a ticket that would be.

[gldstwmn]

SAUDI PRINCE THOUGHT TO HAVE LEFT U.S. WHILE AIR TRAVEL RESTRICTED

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/8885976.htm


After nearly three years during which federal officials denied the story, officials at Tampa International Airport have now confirmed that a small jet flew from Tampa to Lexington just two days after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a published report.

Details of the flight, supplied by the Tampa airport at the request of the national Commission on Terrorist Attacks, indicate that the plane picked up three young Saudi men there and left for Lexington's Blue Grass Airport.

The men, one of whom was thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight, according to an article in yesterday's editions of the St. Petersburg Times.