Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides [Archive]

View Full Version : Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

gldstwmn

08-25-2005, 10:22 AM

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

President Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does a lot of these days.
Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “mother****ing traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bull**** protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

“Who gives a flying **** what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know ****.”

Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger at the camera before going live. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go **** yourself.”

Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.

Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.

“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”

vermicious knid

08-25-2005, 11:01 AM

Very interesting. This reminds me of something I had read before.

In early April 1986, for instance, George W. was miffed at a prediction by the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt that Jack Kemp --not Vice President Bush -- would win the GOP nomination in 1988. At a Dallas restaurant, Bush spotted Hunt having dinner with his wife, Judy Woodruff, and their four-year-old son.

Bush stormed up to the table and started cursing out Hunt. "You [expletive] son of a bitch," Bush yelled. "I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this."

link (http://victorian.fortunecity.com/brambles/499/Bush/BushFamilyPolitics/bushfamilypolitics.html)

golddustdragon

08-25-2005, 12:47 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if it's true that he's starting with the booze again. You would too if you finally realized not everyone agrees with your lunatic policies. Not everyone is for the war which you deem so great. Oh, and anti depressants. The new drug on the streets, just like coke and pot. I bet he's praying that there is another terrorist attack to divert attention from Cindy Sheehan.

LiquidBlue5000

08-25-2005, 12:51 PM

you know who he reminds me of?? The power-hungry nuclear war-starting president-to-be from the movie "The Dead Zone"... I swear he is a clone to Martin Sheens character in that movie... who knows, maybe GWB really is the antichrist... :shrug:

www.bushisantichrist.com

amber

08-25-2005, 01:03 PM

I'm not suprised, but I am shocked. :shocked: However, to anyone who was paying even the slightest bit of attention, this is exactly what they should have expected to happen.
His evil despotic crazy illogical bully personality has really been evident all along.
Thanks for posting, very interesting.

macfanken

08-25-2005, 01:27 PM

I don't know if it's just the alcohol... sometimes I think that Shrub probably suffers from some sort of psychosis. His inability to change his mind, compromise or admit mistakes says a lot. He has a tunnel-vision view of the world that is scary.

gldstwmn

08-25-2005, 01:52 PM

ontheEdgeof17

08-25-2005, 02:14 PM

who knows, maybe GWB really is the antichrist... :shrug:

I've always thought that. That's why I have never followed him and his ideas. He gives me a really odd feeling inside.

Nixxxed

08-25-2005, 02:54 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if it's true that he's starting with the booze again.

Or the coke. Or the pot. Or the...

littlecricket2

08-25-2005, 05:08 PM

gldstwmn

08-25-2005, 05:17 PM

I tried to open the original link posted at the top of this thread, and my browser could not open it.

It works fine for me.

LiquidBlue5000

08-25-2005, 05:21 PM

Don't get me wrong, here, I never liked Bush and I did NOT vote for him. However, can this information be verified? Has it been reported by any other sources? I tried to open the original link posted at the top of this thread, and my browser could not open it. Thanks for any info.

i've heard something about this about a year and a half ago in another article...

::sigh:: i just hope we can get through the next 3 years without crazy man pulling another stunt that could get us all killed... :distress:

littlecricket2

08-25-2005, 07:29 PM

It works fine for me.

I tried it again and it works for me now--I don't know what happened before. I wish the media giants would report on this more. Although I think we still need to scrutinize his policies more than we need to scrutinize his behavior--if we agreed with his policies we would be quicker to find more excuses for his behavior (oh, he's always being attacked and it's breaking him down--the popular choice isn't always the right one, etc.). I dislike him intensely but not because he swears and flips the bird--Tori Amos does that when she doesn't like something, and she gets thunderous applause (and I think she's pretty cool). Bush should continue to be criticized for his decisions, not necessarily for his personality or the "colorful" way he chooses to express himself (although it is telling). Anyway, I'm rambling.

*Lisa Anne*

dissention

08-25-2005, 07:32 PM

Remember when Capitol Hill Blue posted that piece last year about him being mentally ill and taking meds for his problems? The freepers went nuts. :laugh:

golddustdragon

08-25-2005, 07:57 PM

The blind lead the blind, and the mad lead the mad. It all makes sense now.

BombaySapphire3

08-25-2005, 08:18 PM

None of these behaviors of Smirky's surprise me in the least.IMO it is totally in character for him .The thing that continues to bother ,bewilder and boggle my mind is that a significant amount of people bought into his insanity and some continue to do so .Aren't his approval ratings still over 50% in Texass and the deep South?What he has managed to do is destroy my faith in the good judgement of quite a few Americans.

gldstwmn

08-25-2005, 09:34 PM

I tried it again and it works for me now--I don't know what happened before. I wish the media giants would report on this more. Although I think we still need to scrutinize his policies more than we need to scrutinize his behavior--if we agreed with his policies we would be quicker to find more excuses for his behavior (oh, he's always being attacked and it's breaking him down--the popular choice isn't always the right one, etc.). I dislike him intensely but not because he swears and flips the bird--Tori Amos does that when she doesn't like something, and she gets thunderous applause (and I think she's pretty cool). Bush should continue to be criticized for his decisions, not necessarily for his personality or the "colorful" way he chooses to express himself (although it is telling). Anyway, I'm rambling.

*Lisa Anne*

I don't hold Tori Amos to the same standard as the leader of the free world.
That said, President Johnson used to hunt from the back seat of his Lincoln Continental with his rifle and a plastic cup of scotch between his legs. Nixon used to talk to the portraits of former presidents. And I'm sure everybody's heard the stories about Kennedy and the White House pool. At least Johnson, Nixon and Kennedy were capable of leading.
In Nixon's final days, the "football" that contains the codes for a nuclear attack were taken from Nixon because he was deemed unstable. I'm thinking Bush never had the codes. :shrug:

gldstwmn

08-25-2005, 09:35 PM

Dreammms

08-25-2005, 10:14 PM

www.bushisantichrist.com

that is some scary ****...

tynan88

08-26-2005, 04:20 AM

I guess in a way I feel a bit sorry for him...he is doing what he thinks is right and doesn't he have a right to think the nation wants it too? I mea more than half of the country did still re-elect him.

I don't agree with Bush, but I think this kind of muck is excruciatingly painful to read because it is totally vague and slanderous.

LiquidBlue5000

08-26-2005, 04:31 AM

I mea more than half of the country did still re-elect him.

mmmm, yeah.. the big 51% majority :rolleyes:

tynan88

08-26-2005, 05:17 AM

Isn't that democracy though?

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:09 AM

...I mean more than half of the country did still re-elect him.

WRONG! the voting machines were tampered with, people were prevented from voting...Ohio was the 2nd Florida and I cant believe more people arent PISSED about it. Diebold manufactured this win, and the first time, the Supreme Court handed it to him. He's NEVER been my president, hes a USURPER, a Poseur, a POD PRESIDENT. I loathe him. I despise him. I wish I had my own bull**** protectors. I throw mental tomatoes and catbox offal at him daily. He is singlehandedly the WORST thing to EVER happen to this country, bottom line.

tynan88

08-26-2005, 08:38 AM

What I just don't understand is that why if there is all this uproar was he re-elected?(ok maybe I shouldn't use that term but I will) What I am trying to say is that like or not when you vote for someone you vote for their policies...
I also don't think that it is right regardless of who you are for their to be totally unverified allegations of mental instability being directed towards you.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:44 AM

Tynan, he WASNT reelected. he was GIVEN that win. For the first time in my life I am EXTREMELY unhappy that more Dems didnt stand up and HOWL about the skullduggery that went on with those freaking machines in Ohio. Those GOP stragegists are brilliant, they knew which state to target and went right in and saw to it by hook or by crook that W would again seize the White House. Those machines had been set to default a vote for Bush and even when people voted for Kerry, they saw their vote registered as "Bush". Something rotten here.

I will forever have major respect for Representative Conyers and Barbara Boxer and that other Congresswoman from Ohio for being the ONLY Dems with BALLS enuff to demand an inquiry.

tynan88

08-26-2005, 09:05 AM

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 10:12 AM

Sorry...I totally understand that you don't think he won...pfft...I wouldn't vote for him LOL, and I (along with 2/3 of the world) were pretty apalled to see him back in office (elected or not) but the main point I am making is that they are pretty hard accusations being made, and I just can't see how it is right for anyone to be subjected to such totally (at least in this article) baseless facts.

In our English classes we are taught to provide examples to help back up our case, all this story is is hear say, and slanderous hear say at that, and I don't think anyone should have that against them...you know it doesn't come down to political alliance and I am sure he has done it to other people, all I want to say is that I don't think it is right in any case.

I can tell you that there is proof positive that Bush flipped off journalists as it was caught on camera and a picture still from the film clip was posted on this forum. the title was "Bush flips off media"

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/macfanken/bush-finger2005.jpg
as for the "baseless" accusations, since we know that part is true, I believe the rest is as well. I find it highly believeable that Monkey Boy is losing his cool now that the proof of his idiocy is glaringly apparent. He is an arrogant jerk who is drunk with power (at the very least). I couldnt hate him more for what he's done to this country and he isnt finished yet..........

chiliD

08-26-2005, 11:27 AM

I mea more than half of the country did still re-elect him.

Did they? Or was there voter fraud that was never discovered; or discovered and covered up?

SuzeQuze

08-26-2005, 11:56 AM

Nationally, Bush is polling LOWER than Nixon at the time his articles of impeachment were being drawn (about 1 percentage point).

Depending on the poll. I saw one that had him 3 points lower.

SuzeQuze

08-26-2005, 11:59 AM

WRONG! the voting machines were tampered with, people were prevented from voting...Ohio was the 2nd Florida and I cant believe more people arent PISSED about it. Diebold manufactured this win, and the first time, the Supreme Court handed it to him. He's NEVER been my president, hes a USURPER, a Poseur, a POD PRESIDENT. I loathe him. I despise him. I wish I had my own bull**** protectors. I throw mental tomatoes and catbox offal at him daily. He is singlehandedly the WORST thing to EVER happen to this country, bottom line.

I love you. :xoxo: :)

dissention

08-26-2005, 12:31 PM

LiquidBlue5000

08-26-2005, 01:37 PM

WRONG! the voting machines were tampered with, people were prevented from voting...Ohio was the 2nd Florida and I cant believe more people arent PISSED about it. Diebold manufactured this win, and the first time, the Supreme Court handed it to him.

THANK YOU!!! if i remember correctly, the CEO of the manufacturer of those machines stated at a holiday party in 2003 "don't worry, we'll make sure Bush carries Ohio".... and they sure did...

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 02:37 PM

I totally agree, it's just too bad your beloved Democrats enable him every step of the way. We wouldn't be in such hot water if they actually had balls and/or backbones.

if I was lucky enuff to be in office you can bet yer sweet bippy I'd be showin' MY cojones! I havent changed MY politics and the Dems ought to remember their CORE groups and quit trying to be all things to all people cuz it aint gonna happen. I think they think they can run with the "Clinton success" model and the sad fact is, only CLINTON can do what he did. The rest of the party needs to acknowledge and embrace its LIBERAL roots and stop acting like being called Liberal is a bad thing!

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 02:40 PM

I love you. :xoxo: :)
Thank you! :angel:

Dark Angel

08-26-2005, 02:50 PM

www.bushisantichrist.com

That's some scary sh*t! :eek:

The Tower

08-26-2005, 03:30 PM

I can tell you that there is proof positive that Bush flipped off journalists as it was caught on camera and a picture still from the film clip was posted on this forum. the title was "Bush flips off media".
Dubya was actually giving a "thumbs up".

Bush thumbs up (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=374211&highlight=thumbs#post374211)
Since Jason is in Alaska, I'll have to be his side of your arguments....

"You always jump to conclusions because W is always bad no matter what"

:laugh: :laugh:

gldstwmn

08-26-2005, 03:56 PM

Dubya was actually giving a "thumbs up".

Not in these:

<img src="http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1004/1004_bush_finger_318x254.jpg">

<img src="http://www.publicadvocate.com/images/2004110404-bush-finger.jpg">

<img src="http://panzo.org/pboardimg/outside/bush_finger.jpg">

gldstwmn

08-26-2005, 04:07 PM

Depending on the poll. I saw one that had him 3 points lower.

You did? Oh man. :distress:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 04:08 PM

gldstwmn

08-26-2005, 04:09 PM

I totally agree, it's just too bad your beloved Democrats enable him every step of the way. We wouldn't be in such hot water if they actually had balls and/or backbones.

Not all of them do. In fact, I've seen a few Republicans speaking out lately too, in particular Lindsey Graham on the "intelligent design" business. He was on Larry King with Deepak Chopra and some right wing radical christian cleric. That Deepak's a tough cookie. :laugh:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 04:09 PM

strandinthewind

08-26-2005, 04:45 PM

Dubya was actually giving a "thumbs up".

Bush thumbs up (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=374211&highlight=thumbs#post374211)
Since Jason is in Alaska, I'll have to be his side of your arguments....

"You always jump to conclusions because W is always bad no matter what"

:laugh: :laugh:

My dear - BIG BROTHER is a watchin' from Sitka! :xoxo: :xoxo:

Wish you, Sparks, Glodie, Diss, Amber, and rest of us too many to name at $5.00 a minute loons were all here - its kareoke ce soir :eek: I may have to BELT something. I did do a little sua sponte harmony on Landslide last night in the bar with the band - good times.

As for W, he is the worst Pres. we have ever had. Is all the stuff true that is reported by mostly innuendo impossible to substantiate - probably not. But, there is some freaky shiitte out there that is jarring even if only 10 percent is true.

As for Mary - she thinks Lewinsky acted in good faith and with no pecuniary intent when she kept the dress, Clinton did not lie about the hummer, and Skankewinsky got the job at Revelon all by herself with no help from Vernon Jordan :eek: Need I say more!!!!!!! WE LOVE YOU MARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (btw that is a literal Mary and not a figurative name for you Tower - though it can apply in that meaning as well :wavey: )

strandinthewind

08-26-2005, 04:47 PM

Not in these:

<img src="http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1004/1004_bush_finger_318x254.jpg">

<img src="http://www.publicadvocate.com/images/2004110404-bush-finger.jpg">

<img src="http://panzo.org/pboardimg/outside/bush_finger.jpg">

SCOTTIE DOG

SCOTTIE DOG

SWOON

BTW - who gives a rat's ass if he is flipping someone off. I mean there are far larger issues to discuss IMO - but to each their own :cool:

amber

08-26-2005, 04:53 PM

Miss you, Strand. :xoxo: Are you really in Alaska????

strandinthewind

08-26-2005, 04:55 PM

Miss you, Strand. :xoxo: Are you really in Alaska????

I am on a cruise that goes to Vancouver, a glacier (which was STUNNING!!!) , Sitka, Juneau, the Inside Passage, and then back. It is beautiful. I will post pics when I get back next week!!!!!!

amber

08-26-2005, 04:56 PM

I am on a cruise that goes to Vancouver, a glacier (which was STUNNING!!!) , Sitka, Juneau, the Inside Passage, and then back. It is beautiful. I will post pics when I get back next week!!!!!!
:blob1: :blob2:
awesome!!! I want to go back sometime. Like on a cruise.... :p
can't wait to see pics, enjoy your millions of hours of daylight..... :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

08-26-2005, 04:59 PM

:blob1: :blob2:
awesome!!! I want to go back sometime. Like on a cruise.... :p
can't wait to see pics, enjoy your millions of hours of daylight..... :thumbsup:

Let me just say I am thinking there is lots of oil underneath here :eek:

:wavey: :D ;)

amber

08-26-2005, 05:01 PM

Let me just say I am thinking there is lots of oil underneath here :eek:

:wavey: :D ;)
yeah, i heard you in the other thread and decided to ignore that.... :cool: :laugh:
Isn't the excessive daytime a trip? what time is the sun going down there, now? I was there in July, and it went down at like...3 am?

strandinthewind

08-26-2005, 05:05 PM

yeah, i heard you in the other thread and decided to ignore that.... :cool: :laugh:
Isn't the excessive daytime a trip? what time is the sun going down there, now? I was there in July, and it went down at like...3 am?

It has been getting dark at around 10 ish. Though I am usually slung up at the bar or the blackjack table - so my source is a little sketchy come 10 o'clock :laugh:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 05:32 PM

As for Mary - she thinks Lewinsky acted in good faith and with no pecuniary intent when she kept the dress, Clinton did not lie about the hummer, and Skankewinsky got the job at Revelon all by herself with no help from Vernon Jordan :eek: Need I say more!!!!!!! WE LOVE YOU MARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (btw that is a literal Mary and not a figurative name for you Tower - though it can apply in that meaning as well :wavey: )

I KNEW I could smoke ya outa whatever corner of the globe you were lurking in!!! Alaska cold enuff for ya dear? wearin the wooly underwear are ya?

as for your comment, nice try, but Im not bitin. I have NO opinion on Monica, never have (except that bit about Vernon getting (or not getting) her a job...and its been too long ago for me to remember exactly what I DID say so Im passing on that smelly bait.

other than THAT, howthehellareya?

BombaySapphire3

08-26-2005, 06:10 PM

unfortunately, unless his middle finger is in reality a THUMB (in which case his face is actually his BUTT) In defense of Smirky I'm not totally sure that we can rule out this possibility.

The Tower

08-26-2005, 08:07 PM

unfortunately, unless his middle finger is in reality a THUMB (in which case his face is actually his BUTT) I most heartily and vigorously denounce your observation which begs the question: when did you last get yer peepers checked? :eek:
Oy vey.

All you have to do is look. As he's walking down the hall, he lifts his arm and throws his fist in the air with his thumb up. If he was flipping someone off with his middle finger, his hand would be flat and you would be able to see his thumb and index finger next to his middle finger.

But all you can see next to the upraised digit (his thumb) is the curve of his palm and the line of his wrist. Good gawd. I hate Dubya with a passion, but I'm not going to lie and say that's a middle finger.

Try this exercise:

1) Hold your hand in front of your face.

2) Pretend to flip someone off.

3) Look at the shape of your hand and your fingers

Now-

1) Hold your hand in front of your face.

2) Do the thumbs up sign

3) Look at the shape of your hand and fingers.

Are you getting it now?

Or better yet, compare the shape of his hand against the pictures gldstwmn posted. See how his hand in her pictures shows a folded index finger and a thumb? Now compare.....

*** jeezus ***

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:17 PM

Oy vey.

All you have to do is look. As he's walking down the hall, he lifts his arm and throws his fist in the air with his thumb up. If he was flipping someone off with his middle finger, his hand would be flat and you would be able to see his thumb and index finger next to his middle finger.

But all you can see next to the upraised digit (his thumb) is the curve of his palm and the line of his wrist. Good gawd. I hate Dubya with a passion, but I'm not going to lie and say that's a middle finger.

Try this exercise:

1) Hold your hand in front of your face.

2) Pretend to flip someone off.

3) Look at the shape of your hand and your fingers

Now-

1) Hold your hand in front of your face.

2) Do the thumbs up sign

3) Look at the shape of your hand and fingers.

Are you getting it now?

Or better yet, compare the shape of his hand against the pictures gldstwmn posted. See how his hand in her pictures shows a folded index finger and a thumb? Now compare.....

*** jeezus ***

the picture I posted (on page 2 at this point) shows CLEARLY that it was his middle finger NOT his thumb. his arm is straight UP. his hand is straight UP. His hand would have had to have been sideways to do the "thumbs up" sign...Your picture on the other hand was fuzzy so I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking its a thumb. Look at MY picture and try and argue that thats his thumb...not happening. The man is a cretin, a beetle brow, a knuckle dragger, a freakin POD PRESIDENT and I FART in his general direction.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:25 PM

Not that this matters at all and he's clearly doing it in other shots but I do think that is his thumb. You're looking at it as though the arm and hand is front-on to the camera whereas I think it's profiled, making that his thumb.
well yes I am because his back is dead on to the camera, his arm is straight, his hand is straight. you can see the finger in the MIDDLE of his hand, its not coming out the side.....therefore, a thumb in THAT position is a physical impossibility unless you are doing the old "got yer nose" trick and hes obviously NOT doing that.

I dont know about other shots, I am referring to the shot I posted same as the ones gldstwmn posted. its VERY clear to ME.....:shrug:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:34 PM

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/macfanken/bush-finger2005.jpg

I dont know how to crop but I think that is as clear as can be under the circumstances....

and just to compare the position of fingers (NO OFFENSE INTENDED, This is merely a scientific comparison! :eek: )
http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/41c4b3f7z9f67fefb/mail/__sr_/cb84.jpg?phjo8DDBt9au5lVT

The Tower

08-26-2005, 08:48 PM

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/macfanken/bush-finger2005.jpg

I dont know how to crop but I think that is as clear as can be under the circumstances....
Did you see the video?

This picture is a freeze frame of him as he was raising his arm up in the air while walking with his arms in motion. He dragged his arm forward, similar to the motion of extending your arm while bowling, clenched his fist and held up his thumb.

If you look at this picture, you can see the groove-outline-contour of the knuckles of the hand above his wrist on the right. If he were flipping them off, the digit would be much longer and you would be able to see the play of the thumb and forefinger on the left.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:54 PM

Did you see the video?

This picture is a freeze frame of him as he was raising his arm up in the air while walking with his arms in motion. He dragged his arm forward, similar to the motion of extending your arm while bowling, clenched his fist and held up his thumb.

If you look at this picture, you can see the groove-outline-contour of the knuckles of the hand above his wrist on the right. If he were flipping them off, the digit would be much longer and you would be able to see the play of the thumb and forefinger on the left.

no, I didnt see the video. I dont watch TV. but honestly, that hand isnt sideways, its straight on. there is less hand showing if you do the thumbs up sign:
http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/41c4b3f7z9f67fefb/mail/__tn_/edfb.jpg?phjo8DDB3F6GhAt_

wondergirl9847

08-26-2005, 08:55 PM

It's his thumb. The middle finger is the longest finger (well, some people are freaks, but for the most part...LOL), and that's too short to be a middle finger, I conclude that is his thumb.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 08:57 PM

Maybe we're talking about different ones, I was referring to this one.

If you profile your arm and do the thumbs-up sign, the thumb protrudes above the rest of the hand right about the middle. Judging by the size of the wrist, I'd say that his arm is profiled.

Of course this has no impact on how much we hate him but I find photographic "truth" very interesting.
he'd have to have an unnaturally long thumb for that to be a thumb. as for his wrist, it doesnt surprise me that its small. The man is a wimp (I mean chimp)

The Tower

08-26-2005, 08:57 PM

no, I didnt see the video. I dont watch TV. but honestly, that hand isnt sideways, its straight on. there is less hand showing if you do the thumbs up sign:
http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/41c4b3f7z9f67fefb/mail/__tn_/edfb.jpg?phjo8DDB3F6GhAt_
The part you are seeing on the left is the curl of his fingers. They are not firmly tucked into his hand.

If you saw the actual video, you would know what I'm talking about.

Eh, if you're not gonna budge, you're not gonna budge. :shrug:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 09:01 PM

The part you are seeing on the left is the curl of his fingers. They are not firmly tucked into his hand.

If you saw the actual video, you would know what I'm talking about.

Eh, if you're not gonna budge, you're not gonna budge. :shrug:
I budge occasionally but this isnt one of those times :sorry:

for the sake of peace I can say we eliminate my picture completely as exhibit A
and use gldstwmn's photos and it still proves the point that the man is obviously a cretin, who has no problem showing his lack of good taste for all the world to see. Therefore, based on HER photos, I TOTALLY and COMPLETELY believe the original article which states Monkey Boy is losing it. Oh YES. He's Bananas. :nod:

ps: Towie, its very possible that seeing the video, maybe slowing it down, would cause me to change my mind. Unfortunately, as I dont have cable, and I dont trust mainstream media, Im not likely to see the video, now or ever...
but, you may have a point. and thats as FAR as Im going :nod:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 09:03 PM

It's his thumb. The middle finger is the longest finger (well, some people are freaks, but for the most part...LOL), and that's too short to be a middle finger, I conclude that is his thumb.

well, MY middle finger didnt look so long in MY shot???? and from a distance? even shorter Im sure. Using YOUR logic, the thumb would be shorter yet, only a nub. sorry, its NOT his thumb. Face it: Cheney has no problem using the F-word in congress, W has no problem using the bird to the media. nuff said.

dissention

08-26-2005, 09:09 PM

if I was lucky enuff to be in office you can bet yer sweet bippy I'd be showin' MY cojones! I havent changed MY politics and the Dems ought to remember their CORE groups and quit trying to be all things to all people cuz it aint gonna happen. I think they think they can run with the "Clinton success" model and the sad fact is, only CLINTON can do what he did. The rest of the party needs to acknowledge and embrace its LIBERAL roots and stop acting like being called Liberal is a bad thing!

Why remember their core groups if people like you are going to vote for them regardless? With Hillary Clinton's recent whoring and the gradual leap to the right, I'm shocked that anyone as liberal as you can support them. They certainly aren't a liberal party. I cut off all ties with that joke of a party after the election and it'll take a miracle for them to get my vote or association again. They don't represent me any more than they represent the working class. Republicans, Democrats, they're all the same and everything is about how big business can benefit from us. It's simply a matter of which party screws us up the ass more delicately.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 09:17 PM

Why remember their core groups if people like you are going to vote for them regardless? With Hillary Clinton's recent whoring and the gradual leap to the right, I'm shocked that anyone as liberal as you can support them. They certainly aren't a liberal party. I cut off all ties with that joke of a party after the election and it'll take a miracle for them to get my vote or association again. They don't represent me any more than they represent the working class. Republicans, Democrats, they're all the same and everything is about how big business can benefit from us. It's simply a matter of which party screws us up the ass more delicately.
two things:
A) I sure as hell dont have anything in common with any other group except maybe the Greens but
B) they have no clout and by Gum, I want my vote to count for something.

The Democratic party used to represent minorities and the working class. you knew where you stood with the Dems once upon a time. but Clinton, with his move to the center, ruined the mind set of the Dems. I love Clinton but as I said, only HE could accomplish that sort of philosophical move to the middle.
Plus, he was smart and savvy and could out debate anyone. He KNEW the issues and had answers ready. I totally admire that man. I could care LESS what he did sexually. If anyone is offended by Clinton then they shouldnt delve too deeply into the private lives of ANY of the past presidents, because they almost all to a man cheated on their wives. it was almost de riguer. Puh Leez.
of course, now, with the recent fiasco in Ohio, (as I said before) Im not sure my vote WILL count from now on, therefore, if Ca ever goes to an electronic system, I am voting by MAIL, REGISTERED MAIL.

dissention

08-26-2005, 09:17 PM

Not all of them do.

No, not all of them, you're completely right. :) There are true patriots out there like Boxer and Kennedy, but for each one of them, you have five ****tards who will gladly send us down the river instead of representing us like they're supposed to. It's sad and it's depressing, but it's a fact. When a political party doesn't challenege the results of an obviously f*cked up and stolen election just because they want to save face, I have no respect for them. People like Boxer? I love them and support them completely, but a few true Democrats out of tens of asshats does not a party make for me.

In fact, I've seen a few Republicans speaking out lately too, in particular Lindsey Graham on the "intelligent design" business. He was on Larry King with Deepak Chopra and some right wing radical christian cleric. That Deepak's a tough cookie. :laugh:

:laugh:

That's desperation speaking, though, not their true feelings. Now that the radical right is temporarily (hopefully permanently) being looked down upon by the country, they want to distance themselves from the sinking ship.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 09:24 PM

but for each one of them, you have five ****tards who will gladly send us down the river instead of representing us like they're supposed to.

Diss, the pendulum WILL swing the other way, when the fundamentalists get too drunk with power and overreach themselves...
as for the Dems, dont give up on them yet...I think you'd see more backbone from them if you were to VENT to them and let them know they let you down! they need to hear the message that we are still out there and we still need representation :nod:

dissention

08-26-2005, 09:28 PM

two things:
A) I sure as hell dont have anything in common with any other group except maybe the Greens but

So change your affiliation to the Green party like I did.

B) they have no clout and by Gum, I want my vote to count for something.

You want your vote to count for the Democrats even though the interests of big business and their buddies are more important to them than yours? Imagine if you were on welfare and were really feeling the strain of what Clinton did with his reprehensible Welfare Reform Act. This country is politically disgusting, Mary. There is a very thin line between Democrats and Republicans, if any. The only thing, in my opinion, that anyone can do now is to vote on principle. The Democratic party doesn't share any of mine and probably won't for quite some time, so they won't get my vote.

The Democratic party used to represent minorities and the working class. you knew where you stood with the Dems once upon a time. but Clinton, with his move to the center, ruined the mind set of the Dems. I love Clinton but as I said, only HE could accomplish that sort of philosophical move to the middle.

"Used to" being the key phrase.

Plus, he was smart and savvy and could out debate anyone. He KNEW the issues and had answers ready. I totally admire that man. I could care LESS what he did sexually. If anyone is offended by Clinton then they shouldnt delve too deeply into the private lives of ANY of the past presidents, because they almost all to a man cheated on their wives. it was almost de riguer. Puh Leez.

Too bad he turned into a Republican as the years wore on. Clinton was a piece of ****, I'm sorry...the more I think about him, the more I dislike him. Remember when he phoned Kerry and told Kerry that he should denounce gays? I don't like the man, I don't care who sucked him off, and I'm not voting for his wife. Like I said, I'll actively campaign against her when she begins her race and I hope she falls on her face.

of course, now, with the recent fiasco in Ohio, (as I said before) Im not sure my vote WILL count from now on, therefore, I am seriously considering NOT voting--if Ca ever goes to an electronic system, I am voting by MAIL, REGISTERED MAIL.

It's scary to think that votes are thrown away and not counted, very scary. But that's our political system nowadays. I'm very scared of the future, to be honest.

dissention

08-26-2005, 09:33 PM

Diss, the pendulum WILL swing the other way, when the fundamentalists get too drunk with power and overreach themselves...

I hope so. But I won't support Republican Party Lite in the meantime. It's just not gonna happen.

as for the Dems, dont give up on them yet...I think you'd see more backbone from them if you were to VENT to them and let them know they let you down! they need to hear the message that we are still out there and we still need representation :nod:

I let them know all the time through faxes, letters, and telephone calls. :nod: I'm not someone who bitches about them and does nothing. The simple fact is that I'm not going to lend my support to a party unless they share the same principles that I do. When the Democratic party becomes the Democratic party again, I'll welcome them back with open arms. But until that day comes, I have as much use for those spineless wimps as I do for those hateful, evil bastards that run the Republican party. That's all. :)

gldstwmn

08-26-2005, 09:34 PM

That's desperation speaking, though, not their true feelings. Now that the radical right is temporarily (hopefully permanently) being looked down upon by the country, they want to distance themselves from the sinking ship.

I have no doubt.

dissention

08-26-2005, 09:39 PM

I have no doubt.

Let us toast to the utter devastation of the Republican party in as many upcoming elections as possible, love. :xoxo:

gldstwmn

08-26-2005, 09:43 PM

Let us toast to the utter devastation of the Republican party in as many upcoming elections as possible, love. :xoxo:

A hard rain's gonna fall. Let's break out the San Pellegrino! :woohoo:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 10:01 PM

Imagine if you were on welfare and were really feeling the strain of what Clinton did with his reprehensible Welfare Reform Act.
actually my dear, I WAS. I know firsthand the effects of that seminal piece of work. But as Clinton said, and I know this for a FACT, (since I happen to now WORK in social services) Clinton DID try to ease the blow of that reform
As president, Clinton worked to overcome these obstacles. He got Congress to enlarge the earned income tax credit. This allows low-wage earners who support a family to receive each year a sum of money from the Internal Revenue Service. Clinton also proposed that the government provide jobs for welfare recipients who couldn't find work. But Congress, with a new Republican majority, rejected this proposal. Here's the link (http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html#work)

You cant blame Clinton entirely for the effects of welfare reform. surely you remember that the balance of power shifted prior to the passage of that particular bill?

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 10:03 PM

I hope so. But I won't support Republican Party Lite in the meantime. It's just not gonna happen.

I let them know all the time through faxes, letters, and telephone calls. :nod: I'm not someone who bitches about them and does nothing. The simple fact is that I'm not going to lend my support to a party unless they share the same principles that I do. When the Democratic party becomes the Democratic party again, I'll welcome them back with open arms. But until that day comes, I have as much use for those spineless wimps as I do for those hateful, evil bastards that run the Republican party. That's all. :)
as is your right of course....I myself choose to keep faith.

btw: good to hear you still fax/write/call the party. I sincerely hope someone somewhere is paying attention.

SuzeQuze

08-26-2005, 10:16 PM

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 10:27 PM

That first photo of Bush is of his thumb. Make a fist with your thumb up and turn your wrist outward so your lower arm is in profile, you will see how that can be his thumb.

His house of cards is finally beginning to fall and I can hardly believe it. I did have faith it would happen some day but it was getting dimmer! The fact that he is on an extended vacation in wartime speaks volumes about his "character" and I think most Americans see that.

Sorry Suze, you know I love ya but I just dont see a thumb there. as I posted in MY "thumb" picture, there is less hand showing in a "thumb" shot. the hand I see is exactly in proportion to the middle finger being extended upward. the angle of the arm/wrist, everything. but, as I said to Towie, since I havent seen the video, I am willing to concede that there is a possibility I could be mistaken. But based on the still, it definitely looks like a middle finger to me. I can duplicate that shot of him with my own hand (I just cant get the right angle with my phone cam). In any event, I am positive that it is his MIDDLE finger. and Im familiar enuff with the human body to be able to spot the difference.

EDIT: in addition: as I recall, W was being Heckled by media journalists as that shot was being taken. I can TOTALLY see him flipping the bird in response, not giving a thumbs up victory sign...the man is treading on thin mental ice, he's showing his true colors, I imagine, without the guidance of Rove or Cheney he's feeling the strain of having to account for his actions.

dissention

08-26-2005, 10:28 PM

actually my dear, I WAS. I know firsthand the effects of that seminal piece of work. But as Clinton said, and I know this for a FACT, (since I happen to now WORK in social services) Clinton DID try to ease the blow of that reform

I'm glad you work in social services, more people should in order to gain a better understanding of just how hard it is for people. I used to work in a welfare office and I, personally, was appalled at the things I saw go on. Staff cutting corners, staff being instructed not to divulge all of the funds and programs available to people, people being treated as worthless because they needed government assistance, people without any faith in life, etc. It's heartbreaking to see people like that.

Here's the link (http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html#work)

You cant blame Clinton entirely for the effects of welfare reform. surely you remember that the balance of power shifted prior to the passage of that particular bill?

You can't dismiss him entirely, either. I don't cut Clinton any slack. He was all talk and charm, nothing else. As I've said for a long time, I have no bloody clue as to why liberals hold him up to God-like status. The man was barely even a Democrat.

macfanken

08-26-2005, 10:35 PM

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 10:44 PM

I'm glad you work in social services, more people should in order to gain a better understanding of just how hard it is for people. I used to work in a welfare office and I, personally, was appalled at the things I saw go on. Staff cutting corners, staff being instructed not to divulge all of the funds and programs available to people, people being treated as worthless because they needed government assistance, people without any faith in life, etc. It's heartbreaking to see people like that.
You can't dismiss him entirely, either. I don't cut Clinton any slack. He was all talk and charm, nothing else. As I've said for a long time, I have no bloody clue as to why liberals hold him up to God-like status. The man was barely even a Democrat.

Diss: I work in Social Services NOW, but I used to be a welfare mom, I was abandoned by two husbands when I became pregnant. I know what it is like to live on next to nothing, using every possible program available. you have to or you dont survive. I know firsthand the effects of the reform but I still know that Clinton's hands were basically tied. as for what you saw in your welfare office, I am surprised to say the least. I guess things are different in CA because none of that goes on in MY office. We have Resource Guides free for the taking, and we also network with the employment side and the resource side to assist clients with jobs/resources available to them. I myself have done outside research specifically aimed at helping ex felons get employed within my county. Ive even approached my supervisor with ideas about resources geared just for them! I now deal with General Assistance Clients (those who need cash assistance but dont have kids at home) and we have a higher than normal ratio of homeless clients which have their own needs...I do my best to help them as well.

About Clinton: I truly believe he had high hopes of making real change going into his first term but the changeover of the makeup of congress put a HUGE monkey wrench into his aspirations, and he spent the next 6 years playing "lets make a deal". Sad but true. His strength was that he truly was savvy.
and smart. much smarter than his opposition. Annnnnnnd: he had charisma.
fact. same as Kennedy.

Having said all of that, honesty compels me to say that your assessment of the Dem party at this point as "republican light" is pretty accurate. Do I like it? no. But do I think things will change? YES. Timing is everything.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 10:59 PM

Definately! Enough charisma to charm while he launched indiscriminate bombing raids.
oh? based on what? your definition of indiscriminate? I think NOT.
such a tired old refrain......
if you want indiscriminate, look to Monkey Boy. HE truly doesnt discriminate. He hates everyone equally.
and THAT boys and girls is true Democracy. Huzzah!

gldstwmn

08-26-2005, 11:09 PM

Hi SuzeQ! :)

I agree with you... I've always hated the man but taking a FIVE-WEEK (!) vacation while our soldiers are being killed on a daily basis is a new low for this idiot of a President. I think more and more people are starting to agree... I hope the protests follow shrub when he leaves Crawford... he deserves massive protests everywhere he goes.

They are planning to go back to Washington when he goes. :nod:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 11:18 PM

I'll let you in on a little secret, most of us know you're a loony. One would be excused for mistaking you for one of the 13 year olds. The trouble is that last year's 13 year olds are now 14 and they're gaining ground.
really? this from the person who revels in her insanity and talks about incessant mental noise and various emotional/familial issues? isnt that the pot calling the kettle black?

This has nothing to do with the topic (just as your post didn't), I realise. I won't bother arguing this particular one over and over, I'll leave that to Jason.

Good, he does a better job.

edit: I see you edited so I shall aswell. This is not a matter of comparison, Bush's hideous crimes do not rid Clinton of guilt.
Lux, in Clinton's entire time in office I can only recall ONE time when he bombed anyone, and that was shortly before he LEFT office. Therefore, in 8 years, one incidence of bombing does not make him an "indiscriminate" bomber. Besides. as Jason so readily points out, Clinton was acting on intelligence that indicated Saddam was a looming threat. That doesnt count as "indiscriminate" in MY book..... get a grip.

dissention

08-26-2005, 11:23 PM

r
Lux, in Clinton's entire time in office I can only recall ONE time when he bombed anyone, and that was shortly before he LEFT office. Therefore, in 8 years, one incidence of bombing does not make him an "indiscriminate" bomber. Besides. as Jason so readily points out, Clinton was acting on intelligence that indicated Saddam was a looming threat. That doesnt count as "indiscriminate" in MY book..... get a grip.

Well, as Jason would also say, why fault Bush for using the same intel? :shrug: I'm sorry, but they both knew the intel was **** and used it for their own means, anyway. They both bombed innocent people. Clinton needed something to divert attention away from having his dick in his intern's mouth and Bush already drew up plans to invade Iraq before he was even appointed president by the USSC.

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 11:29 PM

Well, as Jason would also say, why fault Bush for using the same intel? :shrug: I'm sorry, but they both knew the intel was **** and used it for their own means, anyway. They both bombed innocent people. Clinton needed something to divert attention away from having his dick in his intern's mouth and Bush already drew up plans to invade Iraq before he was even appointed president by the USSC.
and, as I have pointed out to Jason NUMEROUS times: Clinton didnt know it was faulty, Bush did. Bush was warned not to use that as a justification. Bush was told that the info was tainted. Colin Powell knew. Blair knew. Cheney knew. bit they had an agenda so away they went.

Still: that doesnt explain how Clinton's ONE TIME use of force constitutes "indiscriminate bombing" unless you are Lux and you view life thru a kaleidoscope....where everything is fractured and multiplied.........

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 11:31 PM

Well if he only did it once, bombing thousands of innocent people is just a formality. We all must do it once in our lives.
please understand: once does NOT equal "indiscriminate".

and Clinton believed at that time he was correct to do so. He's admitted since then that he was wrong, and that he regretted the loss of innocent lives. Ive yet to see Bushwhacker do the same...... :shrug:
Im not saying Clinton was right or wrong, Im merely pointing out the fact that he wasnt guilty of "indiscriminate bombing" as Lux accused him of. Apparently she succumbed to an urge to exaggerate...go figure:shrug:

irishgrl

08-26-2005, 11:42 PM

Oh no! You've quoted my pre-edit version. Now my early draft is on display for all your judgmental eyes to see. I am so ashamed.
As you should be. Assume the position. :eek:

dissention

08-26-2005, 11:53 PM

and, as I have pointed out to Jason NUMEROUS times: Clinton didnt know it was faulty

How are you sure of that? He was the bloody President of the United States. If he didn't know the intel was faulty, he looks like an incompetent, bumbling ****tard. If he did know the intel was faulty, he looks like a coldhearted bastard.

Bush did. Bush was warned not to use that as a justification. Bush was told that the info was tainted. Colin Powell knew. Blair knew. Cheney knew. bit they had an agenda so away they went.

I'd be willing to bet that Clinton was told not to use that intel as justification for bombing Iraq, too. Both Clinton and Shrub had agendas, they were simply different agendas.

Still: that doesnt explain how Clinton's ONE TIME use of force constitutes "indiscriminate bombing" unless you are Lux and you view life thru a kaleidoscope....where everything is fractured and multiplied.........

I agree with her. :shrug:

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:01 AM

please understand: once does NOT equal "indiscriminate".

What???

Iraq was bombed for 12 years straight by the United States during sanctions. During the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton not only bombed Iraq, but Sudan and Afghanistan, too. He shot cruise missiles without batting an eyelash.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:04 AM

How are you sure of that? He was the bloody President of the United States. If he didn't know the intel was faulty, he looks like an incompetent, bumbling ****tard. If he did know the intel was faulty, he looks like a coldhearted bastard.
I'd be willing to bet that Clinton was told not to use that intel as justification for bombing Iraq, too. Both Clinton and Shrub had agendas, they were simply different agendas.
I agree with her. :shrug:

AGAIN: the info was only shown to be faulty during BUSH'S term. NOT CLINTON'S. IE: Clinton didnt know. I dont buy into that stupid theory that Clinton bombed Iraq as a diversion from his domestic troubles. Thats stupid and he's NOT stupid. If you think he's going to bomb Iraq and hope that it would divert America's attention away from the Starr Report (the most lurid thing to come out of the annals of American Politics) then you're even more credulous than I imagined.......Clinton was too smart for that sort of pie in the sky thinking.....

btw: if you agree with Lux, then you are mathematically challenged as well.
ONE time does not equal indiscriminate. :sorry:

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:08 AM

What???

Iraq was bombed for 12 years straight by the United States during sanctions. During the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton not only bombed Iraq, but Sudan and Afghanistan, too. He shot cruise missiles without batting an eyelash.

Well, are we talking before Clinton here? from what I recall of the headlines, Clinton Bombed Iraq during the Lewinsky mess. that doesnt equal 12 years.

as for Sudan, as I recall, we had UN peacekeeping troops over there, therefore we were directly involved, and any such bombing would have been a military decision, right or wrong. As for Afghanistan, THEY were fighting Russia up until recently and I dont recall any real headlines dealing with US military action there until Bush Jr. ordered troops in. If you have other info, please post it and I will gladly say I stand corrected.

amber

08-27-2005, 12:08 AM

Not to jump into this semi boring yet almost informative debate, but I'm pretty sure Clinton bombed more than one place. :confused: Pretty darn sure. The super liberal and extremely knowledgeable guy at my work hates Clinton, and I asked why, and he named a few different places that Clinton bombed, and why he bombed them, and it was pretty ugly...

amber

08-27-2005, 12:09 AM

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:12 AM

Well, are we talking before Clinton here? from what I recall of the headlines, Clinton Bombed Iraq during the Lewinsky mess. that doesnt equal 12 years.

Honey, the United States was bombing Iraq during Clinton's entire run as POTU. Don't even get me started on Kosovo and Serbia.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:15 AM

Ah, yes, that was it. Thanks. Sorry for the repeat, didn't see this. :p
and yet, I stand firm. Sudan was a UN peacekeeping operation (therefore sanctioned and not a unilateral action contrary to Diss and Lux) and Afghanistan was fighting Russia and again, I repeat: if anyone can post articles/headlines that detail Clinton's actions there (and prove a lack of justification) I will gladly say I stand corrected.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:16 AM

amber

08-27-2005, 12:19 AM

Iraq.
Kosovo.
Serbia.
Belgrade.
Sudan.
Afghanistan.

The list is enormous. :shocked:
Right, exactly. The bad part is that some of the things Clinton did that guy told me, I had never even heard about, which is scary.
And I'm pretty sure I will never think all these bombings were justified, UN "peacekeeping" operation, unilateral decision or not.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:20 AM

Honey, the United States was bombing Iraq during Clinton's entire run as POTU. Don't even get me started on Kosovo and Serbia.
oh but I will: both of which were sanctioned by Lux's favorite World voice, the UN!!! Puh leez. We were there because we were asked to be there!
Clinton didnt go in there (or ANYWHERE) unilaterally like Monkey boy is doing.

Clinton didnt need to create the "pre-emptive strike" doctrine, like Monkey Boy.
there is NO comparison. Whatever Clinton did, he did at the request of another agency. He was a lame duck president after all, halfway into his first term.
Sorry. you just cant point to his few military forays (with UN approval) and call him an "indiscriminate bomber" nope. not happening.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:25 AM

as for Sudan, as I recall, we had UN peacekeeping troops over there, therefore we were directly involved, and any such bombing would have been a military decision, right or wrong.

Clinton bombed Khartoum in Sudan. Do you know how poor they are over there? His bombing destroyed over 50% of their pharmaceutical supply. He claimed that the plant he bombed was producing nerve gas. It was not. He claimed that the plant he bombed was connected to Bin Laden. He never showed anything that came close to proving such a thing. What he did was a violation of international law.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:30 AM

AGAIN: the info was only shown to be faulty during BUSH'S term. NOT CLINTON'S. IE: Clinton didnt know. I dont buy into that stupid theory that Clinton bombed Iraq as a diversion from his domestic troubles. Thats stupid and he's NOT stupid. If you think he's going to bomb Iraq and hope that it would divert America's attention away from the Starr Report (the most lurid thing to come out of the annals of American Politics) then you're even more credulous than I imagined.......Clinton was too smart for that sort of pie in the sky thinking.....

btw: if you agree with Lux, then you are mathematically challenged as well.
ONE time does not equal indiscriminate. :sorry:

BULL****.

Didn't Clinton order cruise missiles to attack Iraq because Saddam had ejected UNSCOM from Iraq...for spying for the United States? Kinda funny how the Washington Post knew all about it and were told to delay the article until the strikes.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:34 AM

Clinton bombed Khartoum in Sudan. Do you know how poor they are over there? His bombing destroyed over 50% of their pharmaceutical supply. He claimed that the plant he bombed was producing nerve gas. It was not. He claimed that the plant he bombed was connected to Bin Laden. He never showed anything that came close to proving such a thing. What he did was a violation of international law.

If what you are saying were true, why then isnt he being tried on charges?

Diss, I never said that people didnt suffer as a result of bombing, even Clinton said he regretted the loss of innocent life...but your continual jabs at him are unfair since he had the backing of the UN for those actions (except maybe Iraq, and even then, the UN recognized Saddam was a threat)
I dont condone baseless bombing.
All I am doing here is stating that you cant call Clinton's actions "indiscriminate" when he acted either under color of UN approval or by virtue of intelligence, and therefore, in the US interest. (Im not saying I agree with it)

Bush had more current intelligence than Clinton had and for him to use the SAME intelligence as Clinton is disingenuous to say the least. Bush knew better. Clinton didnt.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:37 AM

oh but I will: both of which were sanctioned by Lux's favorite World voice, the UN!!! Puh leez. We were there because we were asked to be there!
Clinton didnt go in there (or ANYWHERE) unilaterally like Monkey boy is doing.

Clinton bombed Serbia and Kosovo in 1999 on his own accord, Mary. The CIA even warned him against bombing Kosovo and Serbia, yet he didn't listen. He was told that any attacks would further more ethnic cleansing against the Albanians. Then Clinton attacked and acted as if he was surprised when there was a dramatic surge in ethnic cleansing.

there is NO comparison. Whatever Clinton did, he did at the request of another agency. He was a lame duck president after all, halfway into his first term.
Sorry. you just cant point to his few military forays (with UN approval) and call him an "indiscriminate bomber" nope. not happening.

BULL****. I think you should bone up on the things Clinton actually did while in office.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:41 AM

If what you are saying were true, why then isnt he being tried on charges?

Diss, I never said that people didnt suffer as a result of bombing, even Clinton said he regretted the loss of innocent life...but your continual jabs at him are unfair since he had the backing of the UN for those actions (except maybe Iraq, and even then, the UN recognized Saddam was a threat)
I dont condone baseless bombing.
All I am doing here is stating that you cant call Clinton's actions "indiscriminate" when he acted either under color of UN approval or by virtue of intelligence, and therefore, in the US interest. (Im not saying I agree with it)

Bush had more current intelligence than Clinton had and for him to use the SAME intelligence as Clinton is disingenuous to say the least. Bush knew better. Clinton didnt.

When did the United Nations give Clinton their blessing to bomb an aspirin factory?!

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:41 AM

BULL****.

Didn't Clinton order cruise missiles to attack Iraq because Saddam had ejected UNSCOM from Iraq...for spying for the United States? Kinda funny how the Washington Post knew all about it and were told to delay the article until the strikes.
uh, whats yer point? we're still talking about Iraq here, and again, the UN had declared him to be non-cooperative therefore, subject to various actions, including economic sactions, and military strikes. and inspections, and checkpoints and on and on. give me a break...

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:44 AM

When did the United Nations give Clinton their blessing to bomb an aspirin factory?!
was that an INTENTIONAL target or an INCIDENTAL target?
again, we are talking about Iraq, which was viewed at least since Bush Sr's tenure, as an incalcitrant, obstructive, non cooperative nation who was also dangerous and capable of utilizing nuclear weapons.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:47 AM

uh, whats yer point? we're still talking about Iraq here, and again, the UN had declared him to be non-cooperative therefore, subject to various actions, including economic sactions, and military strikes. and inspections, and checkpoints and on and on. give me a break...

Yeah, really, give ME a break. The fact that you can defend his actions like this says a lot.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 12:48 AM

semi boring yet almost informative
in summary...we all suck :nod:

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:50 AM

was that an INTENTIONAL target or an INCIDENTAL target?

INTENTIONAL.

again, we are talking about Iraq, which was viewed at least since Bush Sr's tenure, as an incalcitrant, obstructive, non cooperative nation who was also dangerous and capable of utilizing nuclear weapons.

I thought you stated that:

"in Clinton's entire time in office I can only recall ONE time when he bombed anyone"

"that doesnt explain how Clinton's ONE TIME use of force constitutes 'indiscriminate bombing'"

"please understand: once does NOT equal 'indiscriminate'."

Lux never made any mention of Iraq in her first post, she simply said "he launched indiscriminate bombing raids." The facts back her up.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:51 AM

Clinton bombed Serbia and Kosovo in 1999 on his own accord, Mary. The CIA even warned him against bombing Kosovo and Serbia, yet he didn't listen. He was told that any attacks would further more ethnic cleansing against the Albanians. Then Clinton attacked and acted as if he was surprised when there was a dramatic surge in ethnic cleansing.

BULL****. I think you should bone up on the things Clinton actually did while in office.

OK. you are assuming I disagree with what he did. I can tell you now, that I fully sympathize with the Serbs against the Muslims, based on the many centuries of Muslim ethnic cleansing of Serbs. Yet, historically it is Serbian land, and Muslims are relative newcomers. I work with several Serbs and they can tell you that the US troops were viewed as liberators. Contrary to the spin machines. You can think what you want but I know what the ex-patriots say........

amber

08-27-2005, 12:51 AM

in summary...we all suck :nod:
:confused:
ha, no. I just wanted to use that phrase. Feeling peckish, a slightly insulting, slightly funny phrase brightens my spirits a little... :laugh:

But I don't get why Irishgirl is only talking about Iraq. Clinton clearly did many indefensible things, bombings specifically, so why bother to defend him about this? He still comes out to be a much less than ideal president... :shrug:

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:52 AM

If what you are saying were true, why then isnt he being tried on charges?

Why isn't Bush?

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:54 AM

OK. you are assuming I disagree with what he did. I can tell you now, that I fully sympathize with the Serbs against the Muslims, based on the many centuries of Muslim ethnic cleansing of Serbs. Yet, historically it is Serbian land, and Muslims are relative newcomers. I work with several Serbs and they can tell you that the US troops were viewed as liberators. Contrary to the spin machines. You can think what you want but I know what the ex-patriots say........

I will think what I want because I know right from wrong. If you can't admit that your beloved Clinton had an affection for indiscriminate bombing, that's your deal.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 12:58 AM

INTENTIONAL.

I thought you stated that:

"in Clinton's entire time in office I can only recall ONE time when he bombed anyone"

"that doesnt explain how Clinton's ONE TIME use of force constitutes 'indiscriminate bombing'"

"please understand: once does NOT equal 'indiscriminate'."

Lux never made any mention of Iraq in her first post, she simply said "he launched indiscriminate bombing raids." The facts back her up.

the definition of "indiscriminate": Haphazard, lacking in care, judgement.
Clinton never acted Haphazardly or without care. He could not do so and you know it. You may not have agreed with him (so what?) but it wasnt without judgement (or approval on some level) Clinton, by virtue of his weakened status, could not just go about willy nilly bombing anyone.

therefore, the FACTS do NOT back her up. I will concede that there may have been more than ONE engagement. but at NO time did Clinton act the way Bush is now, without regard to public sentiment or international input.

So. I was wrong about ONE bombing.
I was RIGHT that it wasnt indiscriminate.

dissention

08-27-2005, 12:59 AM

:confused:
ha, no. I just wanted to use that phrase. Feeling peckish, a slightly insulting, slightly funny phrase brightens my spirits a little... :laugh:

But I don't get why Irishgirl is only talking about Iraq. Clinton clearly did many indefensible things, bombings specifically, so why bother to defend him about this? He still comes out to be a much less than ideal president... :shrug:

Beats me. As a man, he was a cheating dog. As a president, he wasn't liberal and his favorite pastimes were dropping bombs, telling them queers to keep shut about their sexuality, and socking it to welfare moms. Only in America. :laugh:

dissention

08-27-2005, 01:04 AM

the definition of "indiscriminate": Haphazard, lacking in care, judgement.
Clinton never acted Haphazardly or without care. He could not do so and you know it. You may not have agreed with him (so what?) but it wasnt without judgement (or approval on some level) Clinton, by virtue of his weakened status, could not just go about willy nilly bombing anyone.

:laugh:

If the vast majority of his bombings weren't haphazard and lacking in judgement, I'm Barbra Streisand. Again, he's the one who bombed an aspirin factory and attacked Kosovo and Serbia against the pleas of the CIA and NATO. He's the one whose justification for sending missiles to Iraq were as tissue thin as Shrub's.

therefore, the FACTS do NOT back her up. I will concede that there may have been more than ONE engagement. but at NO time did Clinton act the way Bush is now, without regard to public sentiment or international input.

:laugh:

C'mon, Mary! When did the public back his bombings in the late nineties? They didn't.

So. I was wrong about ONE bombing.
I was RIGHT that it wasnt indiscriminate.

No, you were wrong in both instances, but believe what you want.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:05 AM

I can't say I'm surprised that you've continually used my insanity as evidence that you are correct. If the insanity of the person arguing the counter position is any kind of proof then I think we had this one down before it even started. In my informed opinion: Mary, go and make your bed, brush your teeth and get ready for school.

Lux, you've paraded your insanity like a blue ribbon from the beginning. Im only pointing out that you can hardly call ME loony when you point out to us daily that you've lost your tenuous grip......oh and for your information: I never alluded to your 'condition' before to support anything. I dont know any more about you than what you are disposed to shout from the rooftops.
or the cellar.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 01:06 AM

:confused:
ha, no. I just wanted to use that phrase. Feeling peckish, a slightly insulting, slightly funny phrase brightens my spirits a little... :laugh:

But I don't get why Irishgirl is only talking about Iraq. Clinton clearly did many indefensible things, bombings specifically, so why bother to defend him about this? He still comes out to be a much less than ideal president... :shrug: and i was just summizing that it doesnt matter which one we are talking about we/they all suck imo :wavey:

amber

08-27-2005, 01:08 AM

and i was just summizing that it doesnt matter which one we are talking about we/they all suck imo :wavey:
oh. I don't get calling U.S. presidents "we". I thought you were talking about all of us here right now.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:09 AM

:laugh:

If the vast majority of his bombings weren't haphazard and lacking in judgement, I'm Barbra Streisand. Again, he's the one who bombed an aspirin factory and attacked Kosovo and Serbia against the pleas of the CIA and NATO. He's the one whose justification for sending missiles to Iraq were as tissue thin as Shrub's.
:laugh:

C'mon, Mary! When did the public back his bombings in the late nineties? They didn't.

No, you were wrong in both instances, but believe what you want.

I guess you better start warming up yer vocal chords missy!
He HAD authorization/permission/etc. As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so....I remember when Bush Sr. accidentally hit civillian targets thinking they were military. but nobody castigated HIM to this degree..
I guess the only answer is you hate Clinton as much as I hate Bush. in which case, there really IS no point in going on because I wont give and you wont give.......so.......whatever.

amber

08-27-2005, 01:10 AM

As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so.....
:shocked: :confused:
you're not? Really?

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:14 AM

Why isn't Bush?
I can tell you this much:
in law everything hinges on WHAT you knew and WHEN you knew it
That is why Bush is more culpable that Clinton.
sorry.

dissention

08-27-2005, 01:15 AM

He HAD authorization/permission/etc.

Good christ, what are you reading?

As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so....

Oh, I don't know. Because I don't like to see bombs dropped for no reason. Because I don't like innocent people losing their lives for nothing. Because he never should have attacked Sudan in the first place...

Just a few reasons why it bothers me so.

I remember when Bush Sr. accidentally hit civillian targets thinking they were military. but nobody castigated HIM to this degree..

Justifying bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of someone else, eh? If that's the game we're gonna play, I also remember when Clinton "accidentally" bombed a Chinese embassy.

I guess the only answer is you hate Clinton as much as I hate Bush. in which case, there really IS no point in going on because I wont give and you wont give.......so.......whatever.

Precisely. They're both pigs.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:16 AM

:shocked: :confused:
you don't? Really?
really. its a fact that the military accidentally hits non-military targets all the time. its regrettable, but it happens.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 01:16 AM

oh. I don't get calling U.S. presidents "we". I thought you were talking about all of us here right now. nope i dont think you all suck...wouldnt be here if i did... :wavey:
well...maybe that is why im here...
cuz i know some of you suck
sometimes...
from what ive read...
oh for hell's sake...

SUCKME! :blob2:

dissention

08-27-2005, 01:17 AM

I can tell you this much:
in law everything hinges on WHAT you knew and WHEN you knew it
That is why Bush is more culpable that Clinton.
sorry.

Again, why isn't Bush?

amber

08-27-2005, 01:18 AM

really. its a fact that the military accidentally hits non-military targets all the time. its regrettable, but it happens.
it wasn't an accident. And even if it was, it should still bother you. Or at the very least you should understand why bombing would bother someone. :shrug:

dissention

08-27-2005, 01:18 AM

really. its a fact that the military accidentally hits non-military targets all the time. its regrettable, but it happens.

They intentionally attacked it.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 01:20 AM

They intentionally attacked it. take a bite out of me! :]
[edit:sorry out of context]
sos the ledge in desperate need of a perv thread a s a p

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:28 AM

No I think you've misinterpretted. I'm all too willing to announce my insanity, tendencies to dribble, stutter, scream and what have you. I giggle as they put me in the straight-jacket. However I'm referring to the fact that if I disagree with you my name will appear in your next 50 posts, accompanied by some reference to my lack of judgement, knowledge, sanity etc. And it is not just me but oh how you love it when it is me. Is it possible for you to create a sound argument and do so without excessive use of capital letters, usually emphasising how the other person is WRONG and you are RIGHT because the other person is PATHETIC? So yes I am insane, my you are observant, I try to keep a lid on it.
oh? keep up the GOOD WORK (note the CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH EMPHASIZE HOW YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE PATHETIC..are you pathetic?)

You and I have found ourselves on opposite sides of many a debate Lux. I dont mind holding a different opinion. Isnt it funny that there's been no name calling from any other person Ive debated with except you. hmmmm

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:35 AM

it wasn't an accident. And even if it was, it should still bother you. Or at the very least you should understand why bombing would bother someone. :shrug:
Um did I EVER say I wasnt bothered by bombing? Did I EVER say Clinton wasnt bothered by what he did?

I personally dont condone bombing, but, sadly, the powers that be do NOT run their agenda past me. If they did, there'd be a much different tone in the world today...
as for Clinton, he has said that he regrets the loss of innocent life. Unfortunately, as President, there are decisions you make that you know will have consequences. the difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton was SORRY for what he did and Bush is still trying to justify it.
:shrug:

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 01:41 AM

Yes I found it hilarious too. I have seen the light (and also the dark) and know that to argue with someone who is always right or simply has blind devotion, is pointless. I also know that in the past you have enjoyed emphasising my stupidity so I've simply avoided the tiresome argument and gone straight for the fun part, emphasising your stupidity.
ah yes. tit for tat, so mature. 12 at least.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 01:44 AM

yes an ageold argument...who is right and who is wrong...who feels sorry...who feels justified :shrug:

amber

08-27-2005, 01:46 AM

Um did I EVER say I wasnt bothered by bombing? Did I EVER say Clinton wasnt bothered by what he did?

I personally dont condone bombing, but, sadly, the powers that be do NOT run their agenda past me. If they did, there'd be a much different tone in the world today...
as for Clinton, he has said that he regrets the loss of innocent life. Unfortunately, as President, there are decisions you make that you know will have consequences. the difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton was SORRY for what he did and Bush is still trying to justify it.
:shrug:
You said this "As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so.."
which was what I was commenting on. I guess I inferred that since you were not sure why the bombing would bother someone else, you were also not bothered by it. Which seems like a logical conclusion to me.

You're moving the argument around again. Your logic is strange. It doesn't matter that much that Clinton is sorry about it, and Bush is not.
Clinton still did those things. Those things are still done.
What is your purpose in comparing them? Are you trying to make Clinton appear "good" by telling us how much worse Bush is? That doesn't make what Clinton did any different.

It's like comparing dog **** to cat ****. They're both ****, and they both reek.
Just because cat **** smells worse, it doesn't mean that dog **** smells good.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 01:49 AM

It's like comparing dog sh** to cat sh**. They're both sh**, and they both reek. Just because cat sh** smells worse, it doesn't mean that dog sh** smells good. maybe strand could help us out on this?

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:09 AM

BOM BOM! The correct answer was five. I'm afraid that YOU are WRONG and so your sanity shall be confiscated.
you may have it. You can use it.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 02:11 AM

BOM BOM! confiscated. now what shall we do with it? :blob2:

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:12 AM

It doesn't matter that much that Clinton is sorry about it, and Bush is not
it matters to me, and I bet it matters to the folks who got bombed....

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:14 AM

now what shall we do with it? :blob2:
CAREFUL! I may take it back if you dont treat it with respect!

amber

08-27-2005, 02:15 AM

it matters to me, and I bet it matters to the folks who got bombed....
Ah, okay then. My opinion now is that you are too illogical for me to argue with.
If that matters to you, perhaps you also think dog **** smells good.
I doubt very much it matters to the people who got bombed, most especially the dead ones.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:21 AM

You said this "As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so.."
which was what I was commenting on. I guess I inferred that since you were not sure why the bombing would bother someone else, you were also not bothered by it. Which seems like a logical conclusion to me.

You're moving the argument around again. Your logic is strange. It doesn't matter that much that Clinton is sorry about it, and Bush is not.
Clinton still did those things. Those things are still done.
What is your purpose in comparing them? Are you trying to make Clinton appear "good" by telling us how much worse Bush is? That doesn't make what Clinton did any different.

It's like comparing dog **** to cat ****. They're both ****, and they both reek.
Just because cat **** smells worse, it doesn't mean that dog **** smells good.

ok to clarify my original question…if the aspirin factory was an intentional target, then you need to ask why. if it was an UNintentional target then you need to ask why. If it was in fact MIS-identified as a military target then the sad fact is, accidents happen. if it was in fact the accidental target of a bomb, then we all acknowledge that accidents happen and that no one wanted innocents hurt.
and so SORRY but INTENT is a BIG (dare I say HUGE) element of a crime.
if you MEANT to do something, then you are exponentially more culpable than someone who didnt. Sorry Amber. So **** may be **** but the smell factor DOES make a difference. ask any lawyer. by the way, one mans **** is another man's fertilizer.

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 02:24 AM

CAREFUL! I may take it back if you dont treat it with respect!
awww i was just gonna tosss it a bit
like back and forth kinda
and maybe against the wall
just for a lil while...
i wanna have some fun :blob2:
im like a child at recess
bullyish if you will
we must play!

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:26 AM

Put it in a box for later.

I'm not so sure the deceased are capable of thought processes, nor even the families of the deceased probably. I'm tempted to insert a smilie of a lunatic.
yes you are correct. how remiss of me. lunatics rejoice.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:29 AM

awww i was just gonna tosss it a bit
like back and forth kinda
and maybe against the wall
just for a lil while...
i wanna have some fun :blob2:
im like a child at recess
bullyish if you will
we must play!

wellllllll I was gonna say: HOW COULD YOU? but then I realized:
whaddya mean?

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 02:36 AM

wellllllll I was gonna say: HOW COULD YOU? but then I realized:
whaddya mean? nuff said :thumbsup:

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 02:40 AM

nuff said :thumbsup:
may I compliment you on your scholarly utterings. :nod:

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 02:52 AM

may I compliment you on your scholarly utterings. :nod: only if you whisper it in my ear :nod:

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 03:01 AM

only if you whisper it in my ear :nod:
no problem dearie, I have a heavy lisp, and Im trying my best to correct it.
in your ear... thats my idea of physical therapy.......hah~

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 03:15 AM

:rolleyes: try not to dribble

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 03:18 AM

:rolleyes: try not to dribble
yeth dearetht.
(yeah right)

BTFLCHLD

08-27-2005, 03:22 AM

yeth dearetht.
(yeah right) interesting...what comes from your mouth isnt what you really mean but it sure is all wet :wavey:

SuzeQuze

08-27-2005, 08:37 AM

Sorry Suze, you know I love ya but I just dont see a thumb there. as I posted in MY "thumb" picture, there is less hand showing in a "thumb" shot. the hand I see is exactly in proportion to the middle finger being extended upward. the angle of the arm/wrist, everything. but, as I said to Towie, since I havent seen the video, I am willing to concede that there is a possibility I could be mistaken. But based on the still, it definitely looks like a middle finger to me. I can duplicate that shot of him with my own hand (I just cant get the right angle with my phone cam). In any event, I am positive that it is his MIDDLE finger. and Im familiar enuff with the human body to be able to spot the difference.

EDIT: in addition: as I recall, W was being Heckled by media journalists as that shot was being taken. I can TOTALLY see him flipping the bird in response, not giving a thumbs up victory sign...the man is treading on thin mental ice, he's showing his true colors, I imagine, without the guidance of Rove or Cheney he's feeling the strain of having to account for his actions.

Well, it was his thumb but if you haven't seen the video it is really hard to tell. In the video you can see the movement of his arm which gives it away. His arm is in profile and that is his thumb. It does seem he has a fondness for flipping the bird though which I don't think is at all appropriate for a president!

SuzeQuze

08-27-2005, 08:39 AM

Hi SuzeQ! :)

I agree with you... I've always hated the man but taking a FIVE-WEEK (!) vacation while our soldiers are being killed on a daily basis is a new low for this idiot of a President. I think more and more people are starting to agree... I hope the protests follow shrub when he leaves Crawford... he deserves massive protests everywhere he goes.

Hi Ken. :) He does deserve them. I really wish I could go to Crawford but cannot. I believe Randi Rhodes just headed down there but she said Air America could not get it together so she is going on her own.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:30 AM

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:35 AM

ok to clarify my original question…if the aspirin factory was an intentional target, then you need to ask why. if it was an UNintentional target then you need to ask why. If it was in fact MIS-identified as a military target then the sad fact is, accidents happen. if it was in fact the accidental target of a bomb, then we all acknowledge that accidents happen and that no one wanted innocents hurt.
and so SORRY but INTENT is a BIG (dare I say HUGE) element of a crime.
if you MEANT to do something, then you are exponentially more culpable than someone who didnt. Sorry Amber. So **** may be **** but the smell factor DOES make a difference. ask any lawyer. by the way, some **** DOES smell worse than others.

Oh man. It's obvious that you know nothing about his attack on Sudan, the one where he sent 16 cruise missiles to destroy an aspirin factory. He never apologized for it and he stuck to his phoney reasoning in his SOTU address after it happened. Sound like someone else we know?

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 10:11 PM

Oh man. It's obvious that you know nothing about his attack on Sudan, the one where he sent 16 cruise missiles to destroy an aspirin factory. He never apologized for it and he stuck to his phoney reasoning in his SOTU address after it happened. Sound like someone else we know?
I found this link (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/21/wemb21.html)
to this article:
THE United States launched cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two American embassies.

Gen Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said further military operations were being considered. The threat posed by terrorists meant no details would be given in case they endangered US troops.

"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear," President Clinton said last night in a television address to the nation after America hit training bases in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan with sea-launched missiles. The offensive had been mounted to "counter an immediate threat". He said military intelligence indicated that a "gathering of key terrorist leaders" was planned yesterday at the site in Afghanistan.

Acting on information that he said pinpointed "one of the most active terrorist bases in the world" and a plant that made agents for chemical weapons, Mr Clinton said he ordered the attacks not only in response to the embassy bombings but also to pre-empt more planned terrorist attacks on Americans. In defiant tones, he said: "The United States wants peace, not conflict. We want to lift lives around the world, not take them."

In an address from the Oval Office, just three days after he spoke to the nation about the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Mr Clinton said he ordered the strikes on the unanimous recommendation of his national security team. Mr Clinton, who interrupted his holiday at Martha's Vineyard to fly back to Washington, said: "The countries that persistently host terrorism have no right to be safe havens. No religion condones the murder of innocent men, women and children.

"I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world (but) at fanatics and killers who . . . profane the great religion in whose name they claim to act."

Mr Clinton and defence officials said the facilities were linked to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire whom US officials say is a major sponsor of terrorism. Bin Laden was unharmed, according to a spokesman for Afghanistan's Taliban rulers.

The attacks, starting at 5.30pm British time, took less than an hour, said William Cohen, the US defence secretary. Cruise missiles launched against Sudan came from navy vessels in the Red Sea, and those sent into Afghanistan came from ships in the Gulf. He said US forces alone were involved in the attacks on what he called a terrorist training and support compound in Afghanistan, 94 miles south of Kabul, and on the Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum.

Democrat and Republican politicians rallied behind the President. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, called it "the right thing to do". Mr Clinton telephoned Tony Blair and several congressional leaders before the strikes, among them Mr Gingrich and the Senate Republican leader Trent Lott.

With suspicions aroused that the attacks were timed to distract public attention from the grand jury's questioning of Miss Lewinsky, Mr Cohen was asked to respond to suggestions that the action bore a remarkable resemblance to a recently released film. Wag The Dog, starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman, concerns an American president who is caught fondling a teenage girl while she was touring the White House. As a diversion, his spin doctors invent a war with Albania.

Mr Cohen stressed that "the only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities. That is the sole motivation. No other consideration has been involved."

Earlier, Mr Clinton said: "Today, I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security. I have said many times that terrorism is one of the greatest dangers we face in this new global era. We saw its twisted mentality at work last week in the embassy bombings, which took the lives of innocent Americans and Africans and injured thousands more. Today, we have struck back."

Senior US military sources said cruise missiles were used exclusively in both operations although eye witnesses in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, claimed that they saw at least two aircraft involved in a number of bombing passes over the factory. Mr Cohen said the Pentagon's aim was to wreck bin Laden's "terrorist infrastructure". America had credible information that the renegade Saudi was planning new attacks on US facilities and "the United States", although it was not known if the plots involved "truck bombs" or otherwise. Mr Cohen said: "We took this action to interrupt the training for these activities."

He said the plant was producing chemicals to develop the deadly VX nerve agent. He said: "We have been planning this for several days. We are sending a very strong signal that there is nowhere safe to hide for terrorists."

The Sudanese government reacted with anger to the allegation that a chemical weapons plant had been operating in the country. Abdul Rahim, the interior minister, said the area hit by bombs contained only legitimate commercial facilities. He said to reporters: "This has nothing to do with chemical weapons." The plant, which is set in a heavily industrial area, was shown on Sudanese television last night to be on fire. The attack took place at 7.30pm local time after most of the plant employees would have gone home. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

Afghanistan's Taliban Islamic movement said US jets had bombed Khowst and Jalalabad in the east of the country, but claimed that bin Laden was safe. A spokesman, Abdul Hai Mutmaen, told Reuters by telephone from the southern Afghan town of Kandahar that the jets did not appear to have hit their targets and that Afghanistan would not be intimidated by the bombing.

Mutmaen said the jets appeared to be aiming at alleged training camps run by bin Laden. He said: "I assure you that he is alive." The raids came as the Taliban, the fundamentalist Muslims who control Afghanistan where bin Laden is being given haven after being chased out of Sudan, opened the door to discussions with the US for his capture.

You are entitled to your opinion of his actions, but neither you nor I have or had access to his information and therefore, I cannot condemn him. :shrug:

My personal wish is that we LEAVE all foreign countries. let THEM sort out their OWN messes. We certainly have enuff of our own to pay attention to.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:13 PM

You are entitled to your opinion of his actions, but neither you nor I have or had access to his information and therefore, I cannot condemn him. :shrug:

Using that logic, we can't condemn Shrub either.

And you should really look up the lies that were told in regards to that particular bombing. It's nauseating. They practically manufactured evidence to support a strike.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:18 PM

http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/sudan0304.php

Study proves Clinton & Co. lied about Sudan bombing

By John Parker

Once again, another finding discrediting President Bill Clinton and the Pentagon has surfaced regarding the brutal terrorist U.S. cruise-missile attack against Sudan's civilian population last summer.

The Aug. 20 assault against both Afghanistan and Sudan included at least 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles slamming into Khartoum in Sudan, one of the poorest countries in the world. As a result of the attack at least one person was killed, many were injured and a pharmaceutical plant providing over 50 percent of the country's medical production was destroyed.

Consequently, many thousands of Sudanese, especially children, will die from easily treatable diseases because of the lack of life-saving medicine formerly produced at the plant.

The Clinton administration has yet to even apologize for that war crime. Even at his State of the Union message, Clinton was sticking to his argument that there was physical evidence linking the plant to the production of VX nerve gas. The White House also claims the plant was somehow linked to Osama bin Laden, who it accuses of orchestrating the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Even if this charge regarding bin Laden were true, the U.S. bombing would still be a gross violation of international law. But recent findings disprove the VX nerve-gas justification and expose as phony any evidence linking bin Laden to the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

These findings carry even more authority since they came from a law firm with close ties to the Clinton administration, and the scientific research was led by the chair of the chemistry department at Boston University.

"The point of what we did was to carefully and scientifically collect samples from a variety of locations and have them analyzed by one of the top laboratories in the world for this kind of work," said Boston University Professor Thomas D. Tullius in a Feb 8 New York Times article.

No traces of nerve gas found

"What they found," he continued, "was that in those samples, to the practical limits of scientific detection, there was no Empta or Empa, its breakdown product."

Empta is the chemical substance supposedly found by CIA agents in the soil near the pharmaceutical plant. It was the primary evidence used to justify the U.S. attack.

Even if Empta were found near the plant, that would not prove the existence of VX nerve gas. As early as Sept. 10, Workers World conducted an interview with a U.S. commercial company producing Empta, the substance the Clinton administration claimed had no commercial uses. In that interview a technical and sales staff worker at the Milwaukee-based Aldrich Chemical Co. explained that the substance was not only an ingredient for a nerve gas, but could be the by-product of commercial goods like pesticides.

But the soil around the plant contained no Empta-related chemicals anyway.

The Times reported that Clinton administration officials responded to the new findings by claiming the research was done too late to find Empta and that rain and the bombing may have scattered the evidence.

Although administration officials hold degrees from some of the most prestigious institutions, their statements and answers to inquiries are surprisingly unsophisticated.

According to Professor Tullius, Empta does break down within days, but Empa--the subsidiary compound that Empta breaks down into--remains in the soil. Even in small quantities, Empa would be detectable for weeks or months after contact with the soil.

Truth in a septic tank

In addition, according to the article, several locations at the plant were tested, including interior sites in the plant that were covered by debris and protected from rain.

"One location," reads the article, "a septic tank, was found intact and provided what Professor Tullius said was historical record of the chemicals flushed through the plant drains."

Immediately after Sudan opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991, all favorable comments about the Sudanese government ceased. Lies, distortions and sanctions against Sudan were soon to follow in 1992.

Clinton administration misinformation about the pharmaceutical plant is just an extension of policy starting with former President George Bush.

For example, although the plant had been officially contracted by the United Nations to supply medicine to Iraq in the "Oil for Food" program, the State Department said the pharmaceutical facility had "no known commercial uses."

On Sept. 22 a fact-finding delegation to Sudan from the International Action Center held a news conference in New York about evidence including samples and government documents proving the non-existence of chemical weapons at the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant.

But it didn't stop Clinton then, or the Pentagon, or officials in his administration from continuing to lie about the nature of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant.

This is why the administration opposes Sudan's demand for a UN-led investigation of the plant. The truth is already known by Clinton, the Republicans and the Pentagon. Their actions were intentional.

But exposing the racist and genocidal bombing against the Sudanese people to people in the United States will show the imperialist nature of the United States government, which aims to terrorize working people around the world into submission for profits.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 10:20 PM

Using that logic, we can't condemn Shrub either.

And you should really look up the lies that were told in regards to that particular bombing. It's nauseating. They practically manufactured evidence to support a strike.
Bush wants control of Iraqi oil. Clinton had no such agenda. To me, there IS a difference.

as for manufactured evidence, you are quite probably right, I know its happening with Bush's little war, so Im sure its happened before. many many times. it IS nauseating, you are right.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:22 PM

Bush wants control of Iraqi oil. Clinton had no such agenda. To me, there IS a difference.

He had an agenda, it was simply a different one than Bush's.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 10:25 PM

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:31 PM

this article sounds like biased propaganda told from a particular viewpoint, not a journalistic piece. Thus, it lacks objectivity. They may have a valid point, but the links in my original article link show a completely different take on this issue. My article was from a BBC feed.

Yeah, and the article you posted was published the day after it happened. Doesn't exactly have much perspective, eh? In any event, here's more:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

The Bombing of the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Sudan is one of Clinton's lamest lies- but who cares?
1999-Mar-15, from the Village Voice, by Jason Vest

Despite all the bilge that's gushed through institutional Washington over the past year about the importance of "honesty" and "accountability" vis-=E0-vis the dishonorable, immoral Mr. Clinton- homilies to the importance of telling the truth, rebukes for lying under oath, anguished hand-wringing about how these tawdry lapses will warp a generation of children, etc.- one fundamental reality of Babel on the Potomac remains unacknowledged. Simply put: While the Domestic Lie will draw the wrath of Congress and the independent counsel and whip the Fourth Estate into a frenzy that flings all else aside, the National Security Lie- though more blatant and consequential- will be granted and allowed to fly off into the horizon of memory.

Case in point: Last August's obliteration of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Two Fridays ago, the Al Shifa's owner, Salah Idris, filed lawsuits against the U.S. government in Washington and San Francisco to release millions of dollars the Treasury Department ordered frozen last year, not long after the Defense Department- on instructions of the commander in chief- destroyed Idris's Khartoum plant with 13 cruise missiles on the heels of Clinton's grand jury testimony in the Lewinsky matter. The grounds for converting the Al Shifa to rubble, some may recall, were that the plant was supposedly the weapons-of-mass- destruction arm of new U.S. foreign policy bogeyman Osama bin Laden's international terror empire, churning out precursor chemicals to concoct VX nerve gas. At first, the U.S. government asserted that Al Shifa was financed by Bin Laden; upon finding out it wasn't, the government said that Idris was a front man, a Bin Laden confederate, and, despite not being on the State Department's list of "designated terrorists" (yes, Virginia, there is such a thing), the Sudanese-Saudi banking and investment magnate would have to deal with his U.S.-held millions being put into stasis.

Less than a month ago, the story's radar signature blipped briefly onto the front page of The New York Times , where it was reported that lawyers Idris had retained from Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, & Feld (how many international terrorists retain attorneys, much less from the law firm of Clinton crony Vernon Jordan?) were in receipt of two reports- one from Thomas D. Tullius, chair of Boston University's chemistry department, the other from ex-CIA agents now in the employ of Kroll O'Gara, the international investigative firm- that showed, respectively, no scientific evidence of chemical weapons production, and no financial, political, or terrorist ties between Idris and Bin Laden. Not that this should have been entirely unexpected. In September, another Times story had said that indicators were strongly pointing in a dubious direction. In October, The New Yorker published a penetrating piece by Seymour Hersh, whose demonstrations of national security ineptitude in regard to Al Shifa would have moved key officials to resign in most other countries.

One shouldn't forget the details, or think they've ceased to matter, according to a veteran intelligence agent who spoke with the Voice on condition of anonymity, and who has spent most of his career in the shadow of mosques- including those in Khartoum. "You once could have made the argument that the intelligence community was subverting the policy," he mused. "This is a case that shows a change- the policy subverting the intelligence community. And it underscores how oblivious Americans are to the rest of the world that they can be fed this ****. Al Shifa was bogus."

In the days immediately following the bombing, "senior U.S. officials" (including a few "names," like national security adviser Sandy Berger) repeatedly claimed that Al Shifa produced "no commercial products," had a "secured perimeter patrolled by the Sudanese military," "in fact makes the components for VX gas and other chemical weapons," and "had links to Osama bin Laden." No details were given about how any of this was known. Within days, though, it all began to break down: it turned out that the plant was not only commercial but had been approved by the UN Security Council to package veterinary medicines for relief shipments to Iraq. (Indeed, medical vials and pharmaceutical parcels were identifiable among the wreckage at the plant formerly known as Al Shifa.) Scores of foreigners who had toured the facility- including the German and Italian ambassadors to Sudan- couldn't recall any security. And the British designers of the plant testified that it hadn't been built for, and couldn't produce, chemical weapons.

Then the administration changed its tune: Al Shifa had, officials claimed, been under CIA investigation for 18 months, and the CIA had a soil sample to prove that it had been up to no good. However, the agent who spoke to the Voice said there were problems on both fronts. Since the U.S. pulled out of Khartoum in 1996 (a decision based largely on false intelligence reports by a CIA asset), the CIA has treated Sudan as a "denied area"- off- limits to actual CIA officers. This led the CIA to depend on either recruiting a foreign national or one on loan from a friendly neighboring intelligence service. Egypt has no love for Sudan, and Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Uganda all receive "non-lethal" U.S. military aid used to help the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement fight the Islamist regime in Khartoum. While declining to confirm specifics about how the sample was collected, the agent stated that the choice of operative for the mission likely did not lend itself to ensuring entirely objective results.

Immediately after the bombing, the U.S. propagated the notion that Al Shifa had vats of lethal brew ready for action. Indeed, unnamed government sources told U.S. News & World Report that this was old news: that Al Shifa "had been in the Pentagon's inventory of targets for several years," and that "one final step" before loosing the Tomahawks was running "computer models of the risk that explosions at the chemical factory would unleash a plume of poison gas across Sudan." However, when it quickly became evident that the plant was not the "clear and immediate danger" that Clinton had declared it to be, backpedaling commenced: the scientific basis for the attack was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a non-lethal VX precursor.

No more details than that, sayeth the White House, in the name of protecting intelligence "sources and methods." However, everyone from an EMPTA authority at Oxford's chemistry department to the American Chemical Society has pointed out that the presence of commercially used EMPTA proves nothing. According to a recent issue of ACS's Chemical & Engineering News , the administration's refusal to examine the results of Professor Tullius's investigation, and its contention that intelligence activities would be "jeopardized by disclosing the amount found, the analytical techniques used, or the other chemicals detected . . . [serve] only to exacerbate people's disbelief of the U.S. government's claims."

No matter. On January 22, as demonstrated in The Washington Post , the government's story underwent yet another permutation. Currently, according to White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, the U.S. is "sure" that the Iraqis were the sinister force behind Al Shifa, producing what the Post characterized as "powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active nerve gas." This, says Professor Tullius, strains credulity: "Bleach is often used to detoxify nerve agents," he says. "Using bleach to activate an agent makes no sense." While the Iraqi and Sudanese militaries are known to have collaborated on limited munitions projects, says investigative reporter Frank Smyth, there is nothing linking these endeavors to Al Shifa or Bin Laden. "It looks like the administration acted based on inferences drawn from pieces of intelligence they presumed were connected," he says.

That seems to be about par for the Clinton foreign policy course. According to the intelligence agent who once hung his cloak and dagger in Khartoum, behind every intelligence failure is a policy failure, and, he says, one has to question the U.S. approach to Sudan. Currently controlled by a government with a horrible human rights record- which is at war with Christian and animist rebels with somewhat less horrible human rights records- the Khartoum government has been the focus of a hard-line approach by a clique of U.S. foreign policy officials: Berger, Clarke, Madeline Albright, and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice. This has been the case despite Khartoum's attempts at international outreach, through acts such as delivering Carlos the Jackal to the French and expelling Osama bin Laden for the U.S. ("The Sudanese aren't sweethearts, but even the Taliban in Afghanistan get more respect than Khartoum does," a rueful mid-level State Department official says.) If the U.S. government is serious about neutralizing threats of Islamist terrorism from Sudan, says former Sudanese foreign minister Francis Deng, it should try to understand this famine-plagued country and work to change it from the inside rather than bombing it.

At this stage, the truth about Al Shifa remains elusive. It used to be that embarrassing front-page disclosures in The New York Times , lengthy investigative articles by Sy Hersh, and aggressive congressional probes by the likes of Senator Frank Church and New York's late, lamented Representative Otis Pike were enough to instill fear- and even inspire change- in the establishment gray zone where spooks, soldiers, and diplomats converge. The presence of two of these factors seems to have made little difference in this instance; as for Congress, shortly after the bombing, CIA Director George Tenet and Defense Secretary William Cohen convened an ad hoc closed briefing for curious senators. Almost all emerged satisfied- and bound to secrecy.

Not long after that briefing, this reporter had occasion to interview Senator John McCain, who was asked his opinion on the matter of the bombings. "It's entirely appropriate for us to examine whether they were well-motivated and whether the national interest was clearly served," McCain said. "I still have some major questions. One, the factory: Why did it have to be struck exactly then? The factory was not going to go away. It was not going to launch a missile. What was the rationale for saying this has to be done now?"

Nice sentiment. It seems, though, that the senator has decided that trips to Las Vegas to rattle the tin cup for presidential campaign donations, and pushing an aviation bill that would add more flights to Washington's already overburdened National Airport, take priority over agitating for a congressional probe into the bombing of the Al Shifa plant. No driving interest in the House either. So where are the Churches and the Pikes of 1999? Somewhere, perhaps, out on the horizon.

Experts Find No Arms Chemicals at Bombed Sudan Plant
1999-Feb-9, from the New York Times, by James Risen and David Johnston

WASHINGTON -- Chemists who examined soil, sludge and debris samples from a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant destroyed in August by American cruise missiles found no traces of chemical weapon compounds, according to a scientist hired by the owner of the plant.

The findings, though prepared privately for lawyers for the owner, who is now seeking redress from the United States, raise new questions about the government's reliance on tests of soil samples from the site obtained clandestinely by the CIA. American officials had said the samples contained traces of Empta, a precursor used in the production of deadly VX nerve gas.

The United States attacked the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and suspected terrorist training camps near Khost, Afghanistan, on Aug. 20 in an effort to curb the activities of the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden after the bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. American officials have said the bin Laden terrorist network was behind the bombings of the diplomatic missions in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden has denied any role in the bombings.

At the heart of the new evidence are 13 carefully cataloged samples taken from the wrecked plant and its grounds late in October. The sampling project was designed and supervised by Thomas Tullius, chairman of the chemistry department at Boston University.

"The point of what we did was to carefully and scientifically collect samples from a variety of locations and have them analyzed by one of the top laboratories in the world for this kind of work," Tullius said in an interview. "What they found was that in those samples, to the practical limits of scientific detection, there was no Empta or Empa, its breakdown product."

In response to the new findings, Clinton administration officials said they stood by their decision to strike the plant. The officials dismissed the findings of chemists working on behalf of the plant's owner, Salih Idris, noting that their soil samples were taken long after the United States obtained its soil from the site and long after the bombing and rains could have dispersed incriminating evidence.

Moreover, while they acknowledged that they did not know that Idris owned the plant at the time of the attack, other American officials say they now have strong evidence linking him to bin Laden.

"We stand by our evidence indicating the presence of a chemical weapons precursor at this plant," said P.J. Crowley, a spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House. "We stand by our evidence linking this plant to Osama bin Laden's network. We continue to believe that this was an appropriate action to pre- empt Osama bin Laden from further attacks against the United States."

Several ground locations at the plant were surveyed, along with interior sites in the plant that were covered by debris and partly protected from rain. One location, a septic tank, was found intact and provided what Tullius said was a historical record of the chemicals flushed through the plant drains.

The lab analysis found that none of the samples contained detectable levels of Empta, nor did they find Empa, the subsidiary compound into which Empta rapidly breaks down. Empta, Tullius said, breaks down within days, but Empa remains in the soil, and even in small quantities would be detectable for weeks or months after contact with the ground.

In addition to the evaluation of the new soil samples, an international security company, Kroll Associates, was hired by Idris' lawyers to conduct a detailed review of the Shifa controversy. In their report, made available to The New York Times, Kroll Associates found no evidence of a direct link between Idris and bin Laden.

The scientists and investigators were hired by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, which represents Idris, a Sudanese- born Saudi businessman. The law firm has a long-held reputation of influence in Democratic circles with partners like Robert Strauss, the former Democratic Party chairman, and Vernon Jordan, a close friend of President Clinton.

But its credentials have not benefited Idris. The firm's lawyers have been flatly rebuffed in their efforts to present their findings to the White House, National Security Council or the Justice, Treasury and Defense Departments.

"We've been confronted with the problem of proving a series of negatives that there was no Empta at the plant and that Idris was not a terrorist," said Mark MacDougall, a partner at the law firm. "We think we've done that with evidence that can be admitted in court. But to date responsible officials, including at the White House, have flatly refused to look at the facts. We're sorry about that."

The lawyers have not yet decided whether they will sue the government, in what would probably be complex litigation with an uncertain outcome. Nevertheless, MacDougall said Idris wanted to clear his name and unfreeze millions of dollars in bank accounts at the Bank of America that the Treasury Department's office of foreign-assets control blocked after the Shifa attack. In addition, Idris is seeking millions of dollars to replace the plant.

In interviews with Western consultants to the factory, employees and others, the Kroll investigators said they had found no evidence that the plant had been heavily guarded or that there had been secret areas in the factory off-limits to outsiders, where chemical weapons might have been produced or stored. The report concluded that the plant produced only veterinary medicines and pharmaceuticals for human consumption. While Al Shifa did export to Iraq, Kroll found no evidence of a chemical weapons link to Baghdad.

But the Kroll investigation did provide new details about Idris and confirmed his commercial links to Sudan's Military Industrial Corp., the government entity that produces weapons for the Sudanese army. The United States charged that the industrial corporation was also responsible for chemical weapons production in the country, and that bin Laden had provided financing for the agency.

The Kroll report determined that Idris had links to the military corporation through his other business interests in Sudan, but not through Al Shifa. Kroll investigators said the industrial corporation was a powerful military-based organization that reaches into many parts of the Sudanese economy, including Idris' business empire.

Flaws in U.S. Account Raise Questions on Strike in Sudan
1998-Aug-29, from the New York Times, by Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON -- In the days since the United States bombed what it called a secret chemical weapons plant in Sudan, some of the key statements made by administration officials to justify the attack have proven to be inaccurate, misleading or open to question.

U.S. officials continue to say they bombed a facility that produced a key ingredient for a deadly nerve agent. But their descriptions of the plant as a highly secretive, tightly secured military-industrial site, their initial statement that the plant produced no commercial products, and their statements that the exiled Saudi millionaire, Osama bin Laden, directly financed the plant, do not appear to be factual.

Administration officials' efforts to strengthen their case have been complicated by the extreme secrecy they imposed in launching the attack, which they now say prevents them from showing their evidence to the world. That secrecy and the inconsistencies in their public statements have given the Sudanese government, which the United States calls a sponsor of international terrorism, a chance to challenge the justification for the attack and call for an international inquiry. The administration's refusal to endorse an inquiry also has become an issue in the international debate over the attack.

President Clinton personally chose the bombing site, a pharmaceutical plant in an industrial area of northern Khartoum, as the target for U.S. cruise missiles, declining to strike any other among a larger set of targets presented to him by military planners.

But it is unclear whether the CIA ever told Clinton that it was also a medicine factory with a United Nations contract.

"There may have been better places to go," a Pentagon official said Friday. "That doesn't mean it was the wrong place to go."

Clinton said Monday that he stayed awake "up till 2:30 in the morning trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no night shift." He added: "I didn't want some person who was a nobody to me, but who may have a family to feed and a life to live, and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there, to die needlessly."

The plant made both medicine and veterinary drugs, according to U.S. and European engineers and consultants who helped build, design and supply the plant. The plant they describe was not a tightly guarded chemical-weapons facility patrolled by Sudanese soldiers, as a senior intelligence official described it last week.

Briefing reporters hours after the attack on the plant, the senior intelligence official said: "We have no evidence -- or have seen no products, commercial products that are sold out of this facility." That representation was also made by the CIA to the nation's most senior military officers, Pentagon officials said.

The point the senior intelligence official was trying to make in his briefing was that "this was not a normal pharmaceutical facility," his spokesman said Friday. His focus was on the presence at the plant of Empta, a precursor chemical used to make VX, a deadly nerve gas, the spokesman said. Senior U.S. officials said that the CIA secretly took a soil sample from a few yards outside the plant that, upon analysis, contained Empta.

The plant "just didn't lend itself to making chemical weapons," said Tom Carnaffin, a British mechanical engineer who served as technical manager at the plant during its construction from 1992 to 1996. Workers there mixed pre-formulated chemicals into medicines, he said, and lacked the space to stockpile or manufacture other chemicals.

But another government official said "you could spin several scenarios" as to why Empta was found at the plant, including suppositions that the chemical was stored or transported there. Other officials now say it is unclear that Empta was actually produced at the plant, but insisted that the soil sample proved the factory's complicity in making VX.

Several chemical-weapons experts outside the government say the single soil sample, if it was not carefully preserved and quickly tested, could have misidentified the key ingredient. They said Empta is chemically similar to several commercially available pesticides and herbicides, including the well-known commercially available weedkiller called Round-Up. Senior government officials say they are sure the CIA's chemical analysis was correct, and the most compelling evidence they saw for attacking the plant.

The CIA did not make clear to senior military officials that the plant produced a large share of the medicine used in Sudan, a Pentagon official said.

The Pentagon official said: "Some of the intelligence people didn't know they would find any of that there," referring to shattered remnants of medical products found in the wreckage of the plant after the attack.

A spokesman would not say Friday whether the intelligence agency told Clinton that the plant made medicine, or whether the agency deemed that fact important. Several government officials said any aspect of the plant beyond the presence of Empta in it was irrelevant.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen, in briefing reporters shortly after the attack, said that bin Laden, the exiled Saudi multi-millionaire whom the U.S. blames for the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, helped finance the plant.

"We do know that he had contributed to this particular facility," Cohen said. The U.S. government has presented no evidence to support that, and some U.S. officials now say bin Laden's financial support for Hassan al Turabi, Sudan's leading political figure, as well as for the Sudanese military and intelligence services did not directly flow to the plant itself.

Officials at the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA insist that they hit the right target, and cite the soil sample as proof.

"I do not sense here any question about the legitimacy of this target," one administration official said. "We have confidence in the soil sample. It categorically demonstrates the presence of a compound good for just one thing -- making VX by the Iraqi method. The plant was set up with the encouragement of Turabi who urged bin Laden to finance it. End of story."

An intelligence official said: "In retrospect and with the benefit of hindsight it was the right target."

The decision to attack the plant was made in extreme secrecy by a very small circle of senior officials, including few beyond Clinton, Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, national security adviser Sandy Berger and Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region, drew up the plans.

In less lofty circles of the government, there is some controversy about the attack on the plant in Khartoum. "This is all anybody in these corridors is talking about," one official said. "Why this facility? Why did nobody bother to talk to the technical people who know about the evidence they had? Why was there only one soil sample? And one lab test?"

Other government officials have suggested privately that the United States would have done better to strike other military-industrial sites in Khartoum that, they say, are more closely linked to chemical-weapons production. But this is armchair generalship to senior military officials.

In the days after the strike, the Pentagon conducted a thorough review of all the evidence and reasoning that went into choosing the factory. A senior military officer said that "had we to do it over again," the plant would remain a target.

"My feeling is the evidence is there," the officer said.

The small amount of intelligence information released by the Clinton administration to justify the attack contrasts with the detailed intelligence made public by other administrations to justify military strikes.

In April 1986, President Reagan went so far as to make public the contents of decoded Libyan diplomatic cables in explaining why he had ordered a U.S. bombing raid that month on Tripoli, the Libyan capital. In a White House speech, Reagan said the United States had "irrefutable" evidence linking Libya to the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque that killed a U.S. serviceman.

While he did not divulge the exact source of the information, he said that the Libyan government had sent messages to its embassy in East Berlin about a week before the bombing at the discotheque to conduct a "terrorist attack against Americans."

The day before the attack, he said, the Libyan embassy "alerted Tripoli that the attack would be carried out the following morning -- the next day, they reported back to Tripoli on the great success of their mission."

His move outraged intelligence officers, who said the disclosure had damaged their ability to gather information on terrorist groups, but it was seen by the Reagan administration as vital in winning the support of U.S. allies and the public.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:33 PM

again: I wish we'd stay OUT of other people's business...

I agree. Clinton was a lousy president, they had plenty of ammo without having to expose his Oval Office oral.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 10:38 PM

Officials at the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA insist that they hit the right target, and cite the soil sample as proof.

"I do not sense here any question about the legitimacy of this target," one administration official said. "We have confidence in the soil sample. It categorically demonstrates the presence of a compound good for just one thing -- making VX by the Iraqi method. The plant was set up with the encouragement of Turabi who urged bin Laden to finance it. End of story."

An intelligence official said: "In retrospect and with the benefit of hindsight it was the right target."

The decision to attack the plant was made in extreme secrecy by a very small circle of senior officials, including few beyond Clinton, Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, national security adviser Sandy Berger and Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region, drew up the plans.

In less lofty circles of the government, there is some controversy about the attack on the plant in Khartoum. "This is all anybody in these corridors is talking about," one official said. "Why this facility? Why did nobody bother to talk to the technical people who know about the evidence they had? Why was there only one soil sample? And one lab test?"

Other government officials have suggested privately that the United States would have done better to strike other military-industrial sites in Khartoum that, they say, are more closely linked to chemical-weapons production. But this is armchair generalship to senior military officials.

In the days after the strike, the Pentagon conducted a thorough review of all the evidence and reasoning that went into choosing the factory. A senior military officer said that "had we to do it over again," the plant would remain a target.

"My feeling is the evidence is there," the officer said.

interesting.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:38 PM

They may have a valid point, but the links in my original article link show a completely different take on this issue.

Why did Clinton block a UN inquiry into the Sudan bombings?

skcin

08-27-2005, 10:40 PM

I agree. Clinton was a lousy president, they had plenty of ammo without having to expose his Oval Office oral.

Still better than Shrub.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 10:41 PM

Why did Clinton block a UN inquiry into the Sudan bombings?

what reason did he give? National Security? Protected Intelligence?
At any rate, I accept that you suspect dire motives from Clinton. You'll just have to accept that I do not.
Im done with this topic its managed to hijack the thread, and I think it needs to die a quiet death.

macfanken

08-27-2005, 10:42 PM

Still better than Shrub.

A cockroach would be better than Shrub.

amber

08-27-2005, 10:42 PM

Wow, thanks Diss, very interesting.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:43 PM

interesting.

In what way? Interesting because of it's secrecy? Interesting because they didn't consult with professionals in regard to the ****ty "evidence" they had? Interesting because the chemical EMPTA that they were so up in arms over supposedly being produced at that plant is actually manufactured in Milwaukee by Aldrich Chemicals?

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:44 PM

Still better than Shrub.

I've **** better specimens than Shrub, but Clinton wasn't better by much.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:45 PM

what reason did he give? National Security? Protected Intelligence?
At any rate, I accept that you suspect dire motives from Clinton. You'll just have to accept that I do not.

Therein lies the problem. You have blind hatred for Bush, yet never have anything bad or negative to say about Clinton simply because he isn't Bush.

amber

08-27-2005, 10:46 PM

In what way? Interesting because of it's secrecy? Interesting because they didn't consult with professionals in regard to the ****ty "evidence" they had? Interesting because the chemical EMPTA that they were so up in arms over supposedly being produced at that plant is actually manufactured in Milwaukee by Aldrich Chemicals?
That's just scratching the surface of things that are "interesting" about it.

oh, and don't make me break out my analogy again.

dissention

08-27-2005, 10:51 PM

That's just scratching the surface of things that are "interesting" about it.

oh, and don't make me break out my analogy again.

:laugh: I seriously spittled when I read that particular post that contained your analogy.

And have you read about how Clinton intentionally ignored genocide in Rwanda? I think that particular thing is what I find so disturbing about his presidency.

amber

08-27-2005, 10:56 PM

:laugh: I seriously spittled when I read that particular post that contained your analogy.

And have you read about how Clinton intentionally ignored genocide in Rwanda? I think that particular thing is what I find so disturbing about his presidency.
No, I knew he did, but I don't know the details.

irishgrl

08-27-2005, 10:59 PM

Therein lies the problem. You have blind hatred for Bush, yet never have anything bad or negative to say about Clinton simply because he isn't Bush.
My feelings for Bush are not connected to my feelings about Clinton. I hate Bush on his own merits. I happen to admire Clinton immensely. He made mistakes but at least he has the grace to apologize when he realizes he's wrong.
as for my comment ("interesting") I was referring to the part I quoted. That the Pentagon reviewed all the intelligence Clinton had with reference to bombing Sudan, and declared Clinton's actions appropriate, and that another official declared "if we had to do it all over again, we would".

btw: the following are excerpts from a blog that asks muslims what they think of the US policies (in Sudan and elsewhere)

The United States was completely justified in carrying out missile strikes on the alleged terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. I believe that the US did not make this move lightly but was forced to show its hand. Had an Islamic country been threatened by a radical Christian group, I am sure that all of us would be condemning that group and any nation that supported it. How sad it is then that the people, not the government but the innocent people, of the United States are threatened and we say and do nothing.
I do not presume to think that I can convince the radicals of the moronic nature of their argument. However if someone, anyone, threatened my country and it's people, I would think that I would be well within my rights to hurt them, their followers and any nation that supported their cause.
That is what the US has done and I cannot, in all good conscience, condemn them for it.

# Syed Mohib ul Islam Bukhari
# The USA was justified in retaliating as her passivity in the past encouraged terrorists to continue killing innocent people. What these people do in the name of Islam is shameful. No religion, including Islam, permits violence. I hope these reprisals will make them think twice before they embark on one of their crazy acts.

Umair Pirzada.
# Terrorism should be stamped out at all costs, especially fanatical Muslims. The US was correct to bomb the bases in Afghanistan. With the spy satellite, there was obviously more than sufficient proof. The factory in Sudan is a different story. People and animals that needed that medication that was also being produced there will suffer. But then again, do the terrorists think about the innocent people they killed with their bomb blasts.
The Sudanese government is to blame. They allowed that factory to produce other products. They are just as fanatic as the Afghans. Fight fire with fire. Bomb them again if necessary.

# Mohammad Amir Aslam
Florida
# I would condemn the US for its actions but I cannot; in this instance, Mr. Osama Bin Laden asked for it. Cowards
like Mr. Osama Bin Laden should take their fight to Saudi Arabia and not to hotels, restaurants and embassy's around the world. The Afghan government should kick him out of Afghanistan before he comes to bite them as well.
He has the blood of 300 poor and innocent Kenyans and Tanzanians on his hands.
Muslims around the world should develop consistency in their opinions and stop blaming Jews for their
dilapidation. The pathetic state of the Muslims around the world is their own doing and no one else's, shifting blame to others particularly the Jewish community is ignorant and racist.

# Atif Hassan
# As a US citizen, I am glad that our nation launched these missiles against those who are sworn to attack and destroy our people and their properties around the world. I hear so much about moderate Islamic people who do not support the taking of innocent lives. If such people exist, or if, as I am told, they constitute the majority of the Muslim people, then I suggest that those sensible Muslims themselves take up arms against their terrorist brothers. Doing so will lend credibility to the claim of Muslims that they are a peace loving people who do not support attacks on innocent people, and put a stop to the general belief that Islam and terrorist are one and the same thing. Before pointing at US for attacks against such Muslims, perhaps the Muslims of Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. should eliminate such undesirable people from among their own midst.

# Sohaib Faruqi
Mississipi
US
# Yes. The US did the right thing by attacking these countries that support terrorists. Just because of some extremists our religion is considered bad in the world. Think how many innocent people have died in the bombing of the World trade center. And how many have died in the recent bombing in Kenya. And who gets caught? As usual, the Muslims. I`m a Moslem too but our religion does not order us to blow away innocent people.Islam is a religion of peace and Quran does not tell us to kill innocent people.

Sheikh Faisal N.

# Cynthia T. Zai
Louisiana
# I believe that the US is completely justified in carrying out missile strikes against Taliban militia. Taliban are becoming a disgrace to Muslims all over the world and with the advent of Taliban, Muslims in the western hemisphere are being stamped as people of a terrorist religion.

Qari Ghulam Buksh Chaudhry
Lala Musa.
# I see no harm in striking the Muslim countries, those who have already sold their wills to the US and European powers. Muslims are cowards, and cowards say nothing but cry over spilt milk. If we can not defend our Muslim brothers in Afghanistan and Sudan, then we will not be able to defend even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia once they become the next targets.

# Abed Qureshi
# Yes, the US was justified in the recent attacks on terrorists. Evidence of the guilt of Osama bin Laden was shown to the leaders of the Taliban and they were asked to turn him over to stand trial. They chose to shelter him, becoming de facto accomplices in his declaration of war against the US.
President Clinton was forced to show Bin Laden that there is no safe shelter for him anywhere on earth. If there is evidence that the chemical factory in Sudan was being used to manufacture weapons for Bin Laden, it should have been closed immediately. It was. It is better to wrangle over the validity of the evidence after the forced closure rather than after chemical weapons have been used in a terrorist attack.

# Waqas Cheema
USA
# Yes they are justified in attacking the so-called terrorist camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. They missed one terrorist, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who allowed them to do so. He should be ashamed.

As you can see, not every Muslim is angry with the actions of the US. In fact I think its significant that ANY Muslims are speaking out in support.
and then there's this: (note the publication date, its fairly recent)

Bill Clinton Was Right
From the July 5 / July 12, 2004 issue: There was a Saddam-Osama connection and we're learning more every day.
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/05/2004, Volume 009, Issue 41
On February 17, 1998, President Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon, warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said, these enemies of America, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Later that spring, the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney involved in the preparation of the indictment, testified before the 9/11 Commission. He said the intelligence behind that assertion came from Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al Qaeda terrorist who before the 9/11 attacks gave the U.S intelligence community its first intimate look at al Qaeda. According to Fitzgerald, al Fadl told his interrogators that bin Laden associate Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) "tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other--sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend--and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there,

which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons."

Several months later, after al Qaeda bombed two American embassies in East Africa, numerous Clinton officials cited an Iraq-al Qaeda connection as the basis for retaliatory U.S. strikes against the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

On August 24, 1998, the Clinton administration made available a "senior intelligence official" who cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq." The following day, Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of a handful of Clinton officials involved in the decision to strike al Shifa, briefed foreign reporters at the National Press Club. He was asked directly whether he knew "of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX" nerve gas.

Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

Five days after that, U.N. ambassador Bill Richardson appeared on CNN and pointed to "direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden" and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation. "You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case."

Sandy Berger, then Clinton's national security adviser and now a top adviser to the Kerry campaign, made the connection in an October 16, 1998, op-ed in the Washington Times. "To not have acted against this facility would have been the height of irresponsibility," he argued. The Clinton administration had "information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and to the al Shifa plant."

Berger explained that al Shifa was a dual-use facility. "We had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity," Berger wrote. "Other products were made at al Shifa. But we have seen such dual-use plants before--in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan."

Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official under both Clinton and Bush, confirmed this in an interview with the Washington Post on January 23, 1999. Clarke said the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq was behind the VX precursor produced at the factory. The story continued, "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

More recently, former Clinton defense secretary William Cohen affirmed the Baghdad-Khartoum connection in testimony before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004. Cohen told the panel that an executive from al Shifa had "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

Many of these same officials now disclaim any knowledge of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. Daniel Benjamin, a top counterterrorism official on Clinton's National Security Council, makes the strongest case that intelligence cited by Clinton officials did not amount to a direct Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Benjamin has pointed out that it is unclear that the Iraqis knew the chemical weapons technology they provided to the Sudanese Military Industrial Corporation would end up in the hands of al Qaeda or that al Qaeda knew that the assistance it was receiving came from Iraq.

But now the New York Times--a newspaper heretofore dismissive of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection--has revealed the contents of an Iraqi Intelligence document that discusses the Iraq-bin Laden "relationship" and plans for bin Laden to work with Iraq against the ruling family in Saudi Arabia. The document states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." The Iraqi document, which refers to the period of the first Clinton term, has been "authenticated by the U.S. government," according to the front-page story in Friday's Times.

Taken together with other evidence of the close relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudanese government, the information in the Times article makes it less likely that Iraq and al Qaeda were unwitting allies. The Times reported that a representative of the Sudanese government approached the Iraqis at bin Laden's behest: "The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein, the leader's son, as well as the director of Iraqi Intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan."

Virtually no one disputes the significant overlap between the government in Sudan and al Qaeda. As President Clinton said last week, in an interview on CBS: "Mr. [Hassan] al Turabi, the head of the Sudanese government, was a buddy of bin Laden's. They were business partners together."

According to al Fadl, the close associate of bin Laden who has cooperated with the U.S. government since 1996, bin Laden himself said his businesses were run in support of the government in Sudan. Al Fadl, testifying at the trial of al Qaeda terrorists who plotted the 1998 embassy bombings, recalled in broken English a 1992 conversation he had with bin Laden. "He say our agenda is bigger than business. We not going to make business here, but we need to help the government and the government help our group, and this is our purpose."

Al Fadl and other high-level al Qaeda detainees have described the group's relationship with Sudan in detail. The relationship included: al Qaeda terrorists assigned by the Sudanese government to assassinate political opponents; al Qaeda's providing communications equipment and arms--"Kaleshnikovs"--on behalf of Defaa al Shabi, a division of the Sudanese Army fighting Christians in southern Sudan; training exchanges--going both ways--between Sudanese intelligence and bin Laden's group; and Sudanese intelligence providing perimeter security for al Qaeda training facilities and safehouses.

Concerns that Iraq would work with al Qaeda against the Saudis did not end when bin Laden left Sudan in 1996. According to a CIA report summarized in a top-secret memo sent from the Pentagon to the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2003: "The Saudi Arabian National Guard went on a kingdom-wide heightened state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S. and U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia."

So the Clinton administration, based on the evidence it had, was right to express concerns about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. We now know more. And given the vast number of documents from the former Iraqi regime that sit untranslated, we are certain to learn more still. It's an odd time for the former president and his old advisers to be backing away from what they once so confidently told us.

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. Parts of this article are drawn from his new book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins).

I want to say that I concede (without having seen the video) that the hand gesture Bush is making is the "thumbs up" sign. I trust that enough people saw it and determined thats what that was. Ok. I stand corrected.

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:04 PM

My feelings for Bush are not connected to my feelings about Clinton. I hate Bush on his own merits. I happen to admire Clinton immensely. He made mistakes but at least he has the grace to apologize when he realizes he's wrong.

Clinton doesn't apologize for ****. He feigns ignorance and then apologizes. It doesn't cut the mustard.

How anyone could admire Clinton is something I probably will never comprehend, I just wish that you could help me understand it a little better, especially in the face of his numerous lies, inaction, and half-assed policies.

as for my comment ("interesting") I was referring to the part I quoted. That the Pentagon reviewed all the intelligence Clinton had with reference to bombing Sudan, and declared Clinton's actions appropriate, and that another official declared "if we had to do it all over again, we would".

Yeah, Clinton's own Pentagon is going to turn against him. Just like Bush's, right? :laugh:

skcin

08-27-2005, 11:10 PM

Hillary in 2008!!! Woot!!!

:D

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:15 PM

Hillary in 2008!!! Woot!!!

:D

*shudders*

I'll most definitely move to Canada if that happens. :lol:

skcin

08-27-2005, 11:24 PM

*shudders*

I'll most definitely move to Canada if that happens. :lol:

That's what I said I would do if Shrub got back in. Still here. I'm lazy. :shrug:

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:30 PM

That's what I said I would do if Shrub got back in. Still here. I'm lazy. :shrug:

Me, too. I'll probably be in this same apartment when I'm 87 and prepping for my 19th facelift.

amber

08-27-2005, 11:33 PM

Me, too. I'll probably be in this same apartment when I'm 87 and prepping for my 19th facelift.

*shudder*
..........

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:40 PM

*shudder*
..........

I doubt any facelift could look as heinous as Rupert Everett's, so I'm not worried. :laugh:

skcin

08-27-2005, 11:41 PM

Me, too. I'll probably be in this same apartment when I'm 87 and prepping for my 19th facelift.

Diss, please who are you kidding? You'll be on #19 by the time you're 50.

Is plastic surgery covered on Canada's health insurance? Hmmmm...

amber

08-27-2005, 11:42 PM

I doubt any facelift could look as heinous as Rupert Everett's, so I'm not worried. :laugh:
no, the worst face lift is David Guest (is that right?) And I have a new worst one, Tommy Hilfiger...*shudder*. Those gay old designer guys look heinous all lifted.

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:43 PM

Diss, please who are you kidding? You'll be on #19 by the time you're 50.

Is plastic surgery covered on Canada's health insurance? Hmmmm...

If it is, that gives me quite the incentive to get over there ASAP. :p

(I would never have a facelift.)

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:44 PM

no, the worst face lift is David Guest (is that right?) And I have a new worst one, Tommy Hilfiger...*shudder*. Those gay old designer guys look heinous all lifted.

Nope, I think Everett trumps them all. :laugh: Those men were ugly to begin with, but Everett used to be very dashing and very lovely to look at. Now it hurts to look at him. It's so sad. :laugh:

amber

08-27-2005, 11:46 PM

Nope, I think Everett trumps them all. :laugh: Those men were ugly to begin with, but Everett used to be very dashing and very lovely to look at. Now it hurts to look at him. It's so sad. :laugh:
okay, but no.
I will agree it is heinous, though, and a tragedy.
The other ones just make me barf a little more. :laugh:

dissention

08-27-2005, 11:50 PM

okay, but no.
I will agree it is heinous, though, and a tragedy.

A tragedy it is. He doesn't even look like the same person. I can't figure out if he wanted those results or if he just had a really, really, really really really ****ty surgeon. He destroyed his beautiful face, what a ****tard. I wonder what Madonna thinks about it...

The other ones just make me barf a little more. :laugh:

What makes me barf is watching David gest on Dateline NBC, getting shot up with botox. That **** was vile. Of course, I couldn't look away, but it was horrendous nonetheless. :laugh:

DavidMn

08-28-2005, 12:59 AM

Kumbaya..... :D

irishgrl

08-28-2005, 09:56 AM

Awful Plastic Surgery (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/)
Rupert Everett before/after (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/005451.html)

dissention

08-28-2005, 11:44 AM

What does he look like? Your description made me look for a picture but all I got was a naked man so I ceased immediately. I'm not really familiar so I wouldn't know if I was looking at the old or the new version.

Before:
http://www.likesbooks.com/cover13s.jpg

After:
http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/ce/Dec/RupertEver_Devan_150x208.jpg

He's the poster child for bad plastic surgery.

dissention

08-28-2005, 11:46 AM

Awful Plastic Surgery (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/)
Rupert Everett before/after (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/005451.html)

Eek, that's another awful picture. Dude has had more than a little brow lift, though. He's definitely had some horrific eyework done and they pulled his face so tightly that he looks positively gaunt. His jaw is especially scary to me.

LiquidBlue5000

08-28-2005, 01:35 PM

Before:
http://www.likesbooks.com/cover13s.jpg

After:
http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/ce/Dec/RupertEver_Devan_150x208.jpg

He's the poster child for bad plastic surgery.

question: what does Rupert Everett's plastic surgery have to do with George Bush's temper tantrums?? :p

amber

08-28-2005, 01:38 PM

question: what does Rupert Everett's plastic surgery have to do with George Bush's temper tantrums?? :p
I'd have a temper tantrum too, if I saw plastic surgery that bad....George must have caught a glimpse.

:laugh:

gldstwmn

08-28-2005, 01:49 PM

What makes me barf is watching David gest on Dateline NBC, getting shot up with botox. That **** was vile. Of course, I couldn't look away, but it was horrendous nonetheless. :laugh:

With botox, the rule is less is more. :lol:

amber

08-28-2005, 01:52 PM

With botox, the rule is less is more. :lol:
I bet his statue in Madame Tussaud's looks more lifelike than he does.

gldstwmn

08-28-2005, 01:53 PM

Awful Plastic Surgery (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/)
Rupert Everett before/after (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/005451.html)

That's not bad at all. :confused:

gldstwmn

08-28-2005, 01:54 PM

irishgrl

08-28-2005, 01:57 PM

his jaw is lopsided.

irishgrl

08-28-2005, 01:59 PM

I was only posting that in reference to Lux's question (what did he look like) Im not making a judgement on his looks. there are some pretty bizarre pix on the first link tho...

dissention

08-28-2005, 02:44 PM

That's not bad at all. :confused:

:eek:

It's putrid! And the eyeliner he's sporting so often these days does NOT help.

dissention

08-28-2005, 02:46 PM

With botox, the rule is less is more. :lol:

Remember he said on Datleine that the botox injections help the pain he suffers from when Liza supposedly beat him on top of his head with her fists in a drunken rage? :laugh:

irishgrl

08-28-2005, 08:19 PM

bump. its time that another viewpoint was posted. and its actually one from an unexpected source, therefore I can be invisible and STILL have a voice.

btw: the following are excerpts from a blog that asks muslims what they think of the US policies (in Sudan and elsewhere)

The United States was completely justified in carrying out missile strikes on the alleged terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. I believe that the US did not make this move lightly but was forced to show its hand. Had an Islamic country been threatened by a radical Christian group, I am sure that all of us would be condemning that group and any nation that supported it. How sad it is then that the people, not the government but the innocent people, of the United States are threatened and we say and do nothing.
I do not presume to think that I can convince the radicals of the moronic nature of their argument. However if someone, anyone, threatened my country and it's people, I would think that I would be well within my rights to hurt them, their followers and any nation that supported their cause.
That is what the US has done and I cannot, in all good conscience, condemn them for it.

# Syed Mohib ul Islam Bukhari
# The USA was justified in retaliating as her passivity in the past encouraged terrorists to continue killing innocent people. What these people do in the name of Islam is shameful. No religion, including Islam, permits violence. I hope these reprisals will make them think twice before they embark on one of their crazy acts.

Umair Pirzada.
# Terrorism should be stamped out at all costs, especially fanatical Muslims. The US was correct to bomb the bases in Afghanistan. With the spy satellite, there was obviously more than sufficient proof. The factory in Sudan is a different story. People and animals that needed that medication that was also being produced there will suffer. But then again, do the terrorists think about the innocent people they killed with their bomb blasts.
The Sudanese government is to blame. They allowed that factory to produce other products. They are just as fanatic as the Afghans. Fight fire with fire. Bomb them again if necessary.

# Mohammad Amir Aslam
Florida
# I would condemn the US for its actions but I cannot; in this instance, Mr. Osama Bin Laden asked for it. Cowards
like Mr. Osama Bin Laden should take their fight to Saudi Arabia and not to hotels, restaurants and embassy's around the world. The Afghan government should kick him out of Afghanistan before he comes to bite them as well.
He has the blood of 300 poor and innocent Kenyans and Tanzanians on his hands.
Muslims around the world should develop consistency in their opinions and stop blaming Jews for their
dilapidation. The pathetic state of the Muslims around the world is their own doing and no one else's, shifting blame to others particularly the Jewish community is ignorant and racist.

# Atif Hassan
# As a US citizen, I am glad that our nation launched these missiles against those who are sworn to attack and destroy our people and their properties around the world. I hear so much about moderate Islamic people who do not support the taking of innocent lives. If such people exist, or if, as I am told, they constitute the majority of the Muslim people, then I suggest that those sensible Muslims themselves take up arms against their terrorist brothers. Doing so will lend credibility to the claim of Muslims that they are a peace loving people who do not support attacks on innocent people, and put a stop to the general belief that Islam and terrorist are one and the same thing. Before pointing at US for attacks against such Muslims, perhaps the Muslims of Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. should eliminate such undesirable people from among their own midst.

# Sohaib Faruqi
Mississipi
US
# Yes. The US did the right thing by attacking these countries that support terrorists. Just because of some extremists our religion is considered bad in the world. Think how many innocent people have died in the bombing of the World trade center. And how many have died in the recent bombing in Kenya. And who gets caught? As usual, the Muslims. I`m a Moslem too but our religion does not order us to blow away innocent people.Islam is a religion of peace and Quran does not tell us to kill innocent people.

Sheikh Faisal N.

# Cynthia T. Zai
Louisiana
# I believe that the US is completely justified in carrying out missile strikes against Taliban militia. Taliban are becoming a disgrace to Muslims all over the world and with the advent of Taliban, Muslims in the western hemisphere are being stamped as people of a terrorist religion.

Qari Ghulam Buksh Chaudhry
Lala Musa.
# I see no harm in striking the Muslim countries, those who have already sold their wills to the US and European powers. Muslims are cowards, and cowards say nothing but cry over spilt milk. If we can not defend our Muslim brothers in Afghanistan and Sudan, then we will not be able to defend even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia once they become the next targets.

# Abed Qureshi
# Yes, the US was justified in the recent attacks on terrorists. Evidence of the guilt of Osama bin Laden was shown to the leaders of the Taliban and they were asked to turn him over to stand trial. They chose to shelter him, becoming de facto accomplices in his declaration of war against the US.
President Clinton was forced to show Bin Laden that there is no safe shelter for him anywhere on earth. If there is evidence that the chemical factory in Sudan was being used to manufacture weapons for Bin Laden, it should have been closed immediately. It was. It is better to wrangle over the validity of the evidence after the forced closure rather than after chemical weapons have been used in a terrorist attack.

# Waqas Cheema
USA
# Yes they are justified in attacking the so-called terrorist camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. They missed one terrorist, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who allowed them to do so. He should be ashamed.

As you can see, not every Muslim is angry with the actions of the US..

gldstwmn

08-28-2005, 10:43 PM

Remember he said on Datleine that the botox injections help the pain he suffers from when Liza supposedly beat him on top of his head with her fists in a drunken rage? :laugh:

Whilst she was passed out on the floor? Sure David.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/sarge/Whatever_anim.gif

Brwn_eyes0511

08-28-2005, 11:35 PM

He looks ill in the second picture. :distress:

He looks HORRID! I like to look at that plastic surgery site...interesting.

Although I disagree w/ some folks and what they say about Cilla Presley...obviously she has had work done (get's regular chemical face treatments), but for 60 I think she looks great...oh well.

Still...Rupert Everett does look REALLY ILL!

LiquidBlue5000

08-28-2005, 11:41 PM

He looks HORRID! I like to look at that plastic surgery site...interesting.

Although I disagree w/ some folks and what they say about Cilla Presley...obviously she has had work done (get's regular chemical face treatments), but for 60 I think she looks great...oh well.

Still...Rupert Everett does look REALLY ILL!

Pricilla is smokin' hot!! i always thought she was such a pretty little woman... and she still is.. :nod:

Brwn_eyes0511

08-28-2005, 11:44 PM

Pricilla is smokin' hot!! i always thought she was such a pretty little woman... and she still is.. :nod:

Glad you agree! I love her, always have thought she was a major hottie! She just puts forth a youthful image, in her style and the way she carries her self!

oh and btw...NAKED GUN MOVIES ROCK! haha

dissention

08-29-2005, 10:39 AM

He looks HORRID! I like to look at that plastic surgery site...interesting.

Although I disagree w/ some folks and what they say about Cilla Presley...obviously she has had work done (get's regular chemical face treatments), but for 60 I think she looks great...oh well.

Still...Rupert Everett does look REALLY ILL!

:shocked:

Priscilla looks atrocious. She's looked like Jocelyn Wyldenstein for the past few years. Awful awful awful.

Brwn_eyes0511

08-29-2005, 11:14 AM

:shocked:

Priscilla looks atrocious. She's looked like Jocelyn Wyldenstein for the past few years. Awful awful awful.

well I think she looks great...i don't see what some others see I guess. :shrug:

http://www.priscillapresley.com/gallery/Glamour/1ggl.jpg
Looks Great Then...actually one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen!

http://www.priscillapresley.com/gallery/Current/3gcu.jpg
Looks Great Now...to me and her fans anyways...

Brwn_eyes0511

08-29-2005, 11:19 AM

:shocked:

Priscilla looks atrocious. She's looked like Jocelyn Wyldenstein for the past few years. Awful awful awful.

eww ok I just saw a picture of this Jocelyn Wyldenstein...and I have to disagree with you here...Cilla looks NOTHING like this creature...maybe Michael Jackson does...but not Cilla!!!

dissention

08-29-2005, 11:26 AM

eww ok I just saw a picture of this Jocelyn Wyldenstein...and I have to disagree with you here...Cilla looks NOTHING like this creature...maybe Michael Jackson does...but not Cilla!!!

http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000562.html

She looks awful to me. Used to be a stunner, but now she went overboard.

Brwn_eyes0511

08-29-2005, 11:29 AM

http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000562.html

She looks awful to me. Used to be a stunner, but now she went overboard.

naw...still don't see awful when I look at her...jmo.

dissention

08-29-2005, 11:30 AM

http://planete.qc.ca/images/showbiz/priscillapresley.JPG
http://lisamariepresleyfans.com/20040501lisacillaaward.jpg
http://www.tiscali.nl/images/1/0/Priscilla.jpg
http://www.cchr.com/news/photos/img/page02_02.jpg
http://www.rockinjasondwilliams.com/images/Family%20and%20Friends/Jason_Priscilla_2003_Blues_Ball.jpg

Brwn_eyes0511

08-29-2005, 11:35 AM

seen all those pics before (I'm a fan...). I still don't see awful... :shrug:

dissention

08-29-2005, 11:37 AM

seen all those pics before (I'm a fan...). I still don't see awful... :shrug:

Then you don't know bad plastic surgery when you see it. :laugh:

She used to be naturally gorgeous, but she's literally ruined her face. The lips, the cheeks, the eye work, the botox, etc. Ugh.

Mari

08-29-2005, 12:10 PM

she looks like a cat.. ew, makes me think of that plastic surgery nut who actually turned into a cat. Tried to google for it but couldn't find a picture.

irishgrl

08-29-2005, 12:31 PM

she looks like a cat.. ew, makes me think of that plastic surgery nut who actually turned into a cat. Tried to google for it but couldn't find a picture.
Look under "Bride of Wildenstein"
here is a link (http://website.lineone.net/~a1/jocelyne/) to various pix of her.

Mari

08-29-2005, 12:40 PM

No, that's not the one I meant. Someone who actually got tattood and had whiskers implanted.

gldstwmn

08-29-2005, 01:11 PM

amber

08-29-2005, 01:22 PM

Then you don't know bad plastic surgery when you see it. :laugh:

She used to be naturally gorgeous, but she's literally ruined her face. The lips, the cheeks, the eye work, the botox, etc. Ugh.
Not to mention the way her face is almost completely immobile when she talks. Yep, I think she looks bad, one or two too many procedures.

Brwn_eyes0511

08-29-2005, 02:47 PM

Then you don't know bad plastic surgery when you see it. :laugh:

She used to be naturally gorgeous, but she's literally ruined her face. The lips, the cheeks, the eye work, the botox, etc. Ugh.

Guess I don't then...but still think she looks great for 60...

I think all three Presley women are classic beauties...but to each his own.

http://www.simplymisty.com/simplycilla/images/mag%2000s/Vogue/images/vogue-aug_2004_pg_8.jpg

SuzeQuze

08-30-2005, 07:41 AM

http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000562.html

She looks awful to me. Used to be a stunner, but now she went overboard.

She did go overboard. Also, she doesn't know how to make up her new, exaggerated features. I really think with a bit less makeup she would look much more natural. Ditch the red lipstick!

SuzeQuze

08-30-2005, 07:43 AM

Guess I don't then...but still think she looks great for 60...

I think all three Presley women are classic beauties...but to each his own.

http://www.simplymisty.com/simplycilla/images/mag%2000s/Vogue/images/vogue-aug_2004_pg_8.jpg

This is a beautiful photo. Ironically Pricilla is looking like Cher in it! Remember all photos are retouched, plus the subjects have at least 2 hours of hair and makeup. I do agree she looks beautiful in this photo, and I didn't even realize how grown up Lisa's daughter is now! Wow, she's a beauty too.

estranged4life

08-30-2005, 09:24 AM

finally considering opening the US Oil Reserves....Hmmm, He is such a thoughtless idiot.

I wonder what the oil expert here in Oklahoma thinks now, He said dont be surprised when gasoline reaches $5 a gallon (People laughed at this expert when he said gas would be around $2.50 this summer in late 2004 ).

ThePenguin

08-30-2005, 09:30 AM

This is a beautiful photo. Ironically Pricilla is looking like Cher in it! Remember all photos are retouched, plus the subjects have at least 2 hours of hair and makeup. I do agree she looks beautiful in this photo, and I didn't even realize how grown up Lisa's daughter is now! Wow, she's a beauty too.

yikes yeah Priscilla is looking a little overdone. Still pretty though. Lisa Marie is so Elvis, it's not even funny, she is smokin'.

-Lis

gldstwmn

08-30-2005, 11:10 AM

yikes yeah Priscilla is looking a little overdone. Still pretty though. Lisa Marie is so Elvis, it's not even funny, she is smokin'.

-Lis

Her eyes are beautiful, just like her father's.

wondergirl9847

08-30-2005, 11:33 AM

Okee, I met Priscilla a few years ago (when her perfume, Indian Summer came out...still have the signed bottle and wear it occasionally) and she was very sweet. She is a beautiful lady, but I agree, people, sesly, STOP THE MADNESS!! No more plastic surgery!! Rupert's chin is lopsided for frig sake! :( I don't understand the whole deal. If you have a tumor or a giant mole...understandable, but come on folks.

On topic? Um, THUMB! :lol:

Brwn_eyes0511

08-30-2005, 12:36 PM