U.S. soldier to plead case as objector

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The early word is that the 9/11 commissions report will find that the attacks could have been prevented.

Just last week, however, they were strong-armed by the White House to edit their finding that the supposed call to Bush on 9/11 by Cheney seeking permission to shoot down the planes never happened. That's democracy for ya.

Interesting conclusion. I do not see it from the evidence we saw. I think, however, it could have been with a little luck and with the various depts. playing fair. But, the exact event was never described and the exact date or exact method (which airline, which airport, etc.) was never described.

If the Commission concludes W could could have prevented 9/11 - I wonder if that will implicate Clinton. I mean the evidence indicates they were planning this while Clinton was in office and April 200 was supposed to be the original date It will be interesting no matter what they conclude.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It was more like the straw that broke the camel's back. In the end, I agree we should have waited to go into Iraq. But, that does not negate the justification for the need to do it - at least to me and the Democratic party.

Foul. The democratic party alone does not hold the majority in the House nad Senate.

Well, the Saudi's do have a ton of oil, but SH has been a thorn in their side for a long time in that he was against them from day one. Yet, it is widely rumored and can be somewhat supported that the Saudis would not let Bush I remove SH. So, that makes no sense other than that was 10 years ago and things changed In the end, the Saudis talk a great games, but they IMO do not do enough in their own country to help us. Having said all of that, I have no clue what the solution to all of this is

Again, I don't think the Saudi's have the most to gain from this.

[gldstwmn]

=strandinthewind
If the Commission concludes W could could have prevented 9/11 - I wonder if that will implicate Clinton. I mean the evidence indicates they were planning this while Clinton was in office and April 200 was supposed to be the original date It will be interesting no matter what they conclude.

Clinton was actively pursuing terrorists.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Clinton was actively pursuing terrorists.

he was pursuing the ones overseas while here in "the Heartland" someone missed the markings of a large terror attack that was "rumored" to take place at a Federal Building on the date of April 19th (Anniversary of the Waco fiasco)...And history showed that someone definitely dropped that ball (I don't blame Willie or his administration).

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Clinton was actively pursuing terrorists.

Well, SH was a terrorist by any definition.

I am not saying Clinton was not, but clearly he did not know of the 9/11 stuff which was initially scheduled to take place in April 2001. Moreover, some of the training and plotting occurred under Clinton's watch. In the end, I do not think Clinton or W should be blamed for not stopping it. I do not think that the puzzle could be put together by anyone without a very lucky break. Clearly, the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were working on this during W's watch. The documents generated support that. They just did not put it all together and neither did Clinton - although there was more to put together for W. So, I think they are both to blame if blame is to be assigned, unless of course, you think the planning did not start until W took office, which the evidence does not support.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am not saying Clinton was not, but clearly he did not know of the 9/11 stuff which was initially scheduled to take place in April 2001. Moreover, some of the training and plotting occurred under Clinton's watch. In the end, I do not think Clinton or W should be blamed for not stopping it. I do not think that the puzzle could be put together by anyone without a very lucky break. Clearly, the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were working on this during W's watch. The documents generated support that. They just did not put it all together and neither did Clinton - although there was more to put together for W. So, I think they are both to blame if blame is to be assigned, unless of course, you think the planning did not start until W took office, which the evidence does not support.

my problem with the Clinton administration is how they were not informed of "possible terrorist" plots, When yet the ATF, FBI & federal court judges (Including a judge whose office was across the street from the Alfred E.Murrah building, He was scheduled to testify in Terry Nichols case vs. the State of Oklahoma, But he was alas never called.) were notified via a memo "to not be in your office on April 19th due to a possible and legitmate threat from unknown terror sources".

(Note: The local OKC FBI offices were not based in the Murrah building but ATF did have offices in the building and the ATF suffered no casualities that morning. Witnesses who survived the blast noticed the ATF office was oddly closed that morning.)

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

he was pursuing the ones overseas while here in "the Heartland" someone missed the markings of a large terror attack that was "rumored" to take place at a Federal Building on the date of April 19th (Anniversary of the Waco fiasco)...And history showed that someone definitely dropped that ball (I don't blame Willie or his administration).

Another story we'll never completely know.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, SH was a terrorist by any definition.

So is Sharon. You want to invade Israel?

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Another story we'll never completely know.

a possibly larger conspiracy than anyone could guess that will never receive the attention that 9/11 receives.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

So is Sharon. You want to invade Israel?

Don't get me started on Isreal

But, Sharon was not in direct violation and material brieach on like 20 UN respoutions and he has not gassed his own people and invaded another country - at least not technically

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Don't get me started on Isreal

But, Sharon was not in direct violation and material brieach on like 20 UN respoutions and he has not gassed his own people and invaded another country - at least not technically

Okay, Libya?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Okay, Libya?

Well, ya gotta admit one good thing about blowing Iraq from here to hell is it got Libya in line. Unfortunately, it did not scare anyone of merit like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. I am terrified of Iran right now. They, like North Korea have no fear of us. At least with NK we have China who is not above annexing NK if they piss them off. Who is going to do that with Iran. Although now at least in theaor with Agganstan, pakistan, and Iraq, "we" have Iran sandwhiched

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, ya gotta admit one good thing about blowing Iraq from here to hell is it got Libya in line.

This week.