i hate George Bush!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I mean why not go after The Vatican. Surely the Roman Catholic Church is far guiltier than America is at trying to dominate the Middle East (at least Isreal).

Oh, Catholic guilt.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, that is why someone has to be there to make sure that does not happen. Honestly, you are so dismal in your view of the world. I am not.

That's the problem, you have too rosy a view of world affairs. You always think that everything is on the up and up. It's not. A little poking around will reveal to you the kinds of things they're doing in Iraq. Appointing that bank robber known as Chalabi as the head of it is at the top of their list.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's the problem, you have too rosy a view of world affairs. You always think that everything is on the up and up. It's not. A little poking around will reveal to you the kinds of things they're doing in Iraq. Appointing that bank robber known as Chalabi as the head of it is at the top of their list.

Perhaps, but by the same token, you come up with these crazy theories that are irrelevant or not supported by the facts - basically, we are both loons

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I missed it burning off Gen Tsao's chicken at the gym What did he say this time?

Lemme get you the transcript. He wants to boycott Canada and he had the gall to lie and say that Canada wants to legalize heroin. He's delusional.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Lemme get you the transcript. He wants to boycott Canada and he had the gall to lie and say that Canada wants to legalize heroin. He's delusional.

Well, he wants to boycott everyone - bless his heart!!!!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Perhaps, but by the same token, you come up with these crazy theories that are irrelevant or not supported by the facts - basically, we are both loons

Name some of my crazy liberal theories that are irrelevant. Chalabi being a bank robber ain't one of them, he was tried in absentia and was found guilty. If he steps one foot in Jordan, they'll kill him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Name some of my crazy liberal theories that are irrelevant. Chalabi being a bank robber ain't one of them, he was tried in absentia and was found guilty. If he steps one foot in Jordan, they'll kill him.

Are we going here again

The fact that W did not leave that school on 9/11. No one here to my knowledge has any information regarding why that happened. The crazy liberals just assume it was because W had his head on the clouds even though all of Wash. was being evacuated. That it could have been part of the plan, he was after all in a secure location, is just beyond them because they nitpick at every little thing without any knowledge of what waws going on. That would be a good one for starters!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It is not that cut and dry and you know it Please demonstrate to me how and why we gave them probably over $100 billion as of now with no hope of getting it back. Please explain to me why we are turning the control of the govt. over on June 30 and giving up any remaining control little by little thereafter.

Those are the exact questions you should be asking Bush. Although if you want the real answer, ask Cheney. He tellls Bush what to say anyway. I doubt Georgie could answer any of the questions unless they were given to him in advance.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Are we going here again

The fact that W did not leave that school on 9/11. No one here to my knowledge has any information regarding why that happened. The crazy liberals just assume it was because W had his head on the clouds even though all of Wash. was being evacuated. That it could have been part of the plan, he was after all in a secure location, is just beyond them because they nitpick at every little thing without any knowledge of what waws going on. That would be a good one for starters!

He didn't have his head in the clouds, it was very much on the ground. He chose to stay there. He was a coward. By the time he was outta there, the Pentagon was already under attack. His own words contradict himself. He said he saw the first plane, then he said he saw the second plane. Then he said he heard the second plane, but no, it was first plane. He said that the first thing he thought when he was TOLD about it was "Boy, what a terrible pilot." Yeah, nice thing to think of when the WTC has just been hit by a commercial aircraft. His story is so full of holes that it could mistaken for Swiss cheese.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Those are the exact questions you should be asking Bush. Although if you want the real answer, ask Cheney. He tellls Bush what to say anyway. I doubt Georgie could answer any of the questions unless they were given to him in advance.

In today's papers and on topic:

.N. Envoy Seeks New Iraq Council by Close of May

April 28, 2004
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 - The special United Nations envoy
for Iraq, offering a speeded-up timetable for the selection
of a caretaker government in Baghdad, said Tuesday that the
new government should be chosen a full month before
sovereignty is transferred on June 30 to give it time to
define its authority.

Addressing the Security Council, the envoy, Lakhdar
Brahimi, said the month would be necessary for the
transitional leaders to reach "crystal-clear
understandings" of their relationship to the occupation authority they would replace and to the American military commanders who are to remain in charge of Iraqi security forces.

In his first extensive public comments since outlining his plans for an interim government earlier this month, Mr. Brahimi also said the occupants of the government's top posts should insulate themselves from partisan activity by agreeing not to be candidates in national elections next year.

Although he did not say so specifically, that seemed to
rule out a role in the caretaker government for prominent Iraqis now in the American-picked Iraqi Governing Council, including the heads of political parties who are expected to contest the June 2005 elections.

Last week, in an interview with ABC News, Mr. Brahimi
suggested that among those he would expect not to serve are Ahmed Chalabi, a former exile leader favored by some in the Pentagon to lead Iraq.

Some Bush administration officials say that they do not
reject the possibility of some political leaders, including
Mr. Chalabi, serving in a caretaker government, but that
they agree that it would be better for the new government
to consist of non-political technocrats.

On Tuesday, Mr. Brahimi emphasized the need to curb the
power of the transitional authority, saying, "It should refrain, to the maximum extent possible, from entering into long-term commitments that can and should await decision by an elected government."

Mr. Brahimi, who recently completed a mission to Iraq to
help shape an interim administration, acknowledged that the continuing mayhem in Iraq would complicate the effort to establish political stability. But he said the task was "doable" and would itself contribute to a lessening of the violence.

"A viable political process is no panacea," he said, "but
it is a powerful contributing factor to security."

Mr. Brahimi told members of the 15-nation panel that the
plan he was recommending was largely the one he had
outlined at a Baghdad news conference on April 14 at the
end of 11 days of consultations with Iraqis.

Under that arrangement, the caretaker government would be
led by a president, two vice presidents and a prime
minister and would be advised by a consultative body to be chosen in a national conference this summer that Mr. Brahimi estimated Tuesday could number up to 1,500 people.

He did not specify how the caretaker government would be chosen, other than to emphasize that it should be Iraqis themselves who make the choice. In the past, he has said that the selections would be made by members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraqi judges and himself.

"Though it will certainly not be easy, we do believe that
it shall be possible to identify by the end of May a group
of people respected and acceptable to Iraqis across the country, to form this caretaker government," he said.

The interim administration he described would have limited authority, much as Bush administration officials have been suggesting in Congressional testimony in recent days. Its main purpose would be to provide a civil administration and to prepare the nation for the 2005 elections, which will mark the moment, Mr. Brahimi said, when Iraq will first have a fully representative and empowered government.

The plan Mr. Brahimi has developed replaces an early Bush administration proposal by which a new Iraqi assembly would have been chosen through caucuses around the country. In Washington Tuesday, a State Department spokesman said the Bush administration had no problems with Mr. Brahimi's proposal.

"We're in synch with Brahimi," said the spokesman, who
asked not to be identified. "We're eager to get a
government up and running as soon as is feasible."

Mr. Brahimi appeared to go out of his way in his
presentation to cite areas of agreement with recent steps
taken by the American administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III. He noted approvingly that Mr. Bremer had agreed to permit the re-enrollment of Iraqi military officers with honorable records, to ease the "de-Baathification" program to allow some professionals who were party members to return to their jobs, and to post the names of detainees in police stations and courthouses.

In remarks that he said may have been overtaken by events
in Iraq that were being reported as he entered the Security Council chamber, Mr. Brahimi said that anything other than a peaceful resolution to standoffs in Falluja and Najaf would have grave consequences.

In issuing the warning, he acknowledged that the
American-run Coalition Provisional Authority was "well
aware" of that fact. "They know as well as - indeed, better than everyone else - that the consequences of such bloodshed could be dramatic and long-lasting," he said.

He added, however, "Reports today of attacks from and on a mosque are a source of shock and dismay."

In the closed Security Council meeting that followed Mr. Brahimi's public statement, ambassadors asked questions that a European diplomat characterized as "supportive" rather than "challenging." She said the questions focused on three areas: the post-transition responsibility for security, the preparation for elections, and whether the transfer of sovereignty would be a convincing one to Iraqis.

The Council had put off discussion of the resolution it
would be adopting for post-transition Iraq until hearing
from Mr. Brahimi, and a number of ambassadors said those negotiations should begin, the diplomat said.

Mr. Brahimi said he intended to return to Baghdad soon to continue his consultations, and he indicated that he believed the violence could not be allowed to hold Iraqis back from securing an independent future.

"So is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances?" he asked. "Will it be viable? Will it be credible?"

Supplying his own answer, he said, "There is no alternative
but to find a way of making the process viable and
credible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/in...0f131ddc298b82

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

He didn't have his head in the clouds, it was very much on the ground. He chose to stay there. He was a coward. By the time he was outta there, the Pentagon was already under attack. His own words contradict himself. He said he saw the first plane, then he said he saw the second plane. Then he said he heard the second plane, but no, it was first plane. He said that the first thing he thought when he was TOLD about it was "Boy, what a terrible pilot." Yeah, nice thing to think of when the WTC has just been hit by a commercial aircraft. His story is so full of holes that it could mistaken for Swiss cheese.

Blah Blah Blah - you know for certain the SS did not make him stay there. You know for certain there was not a threat if they removed him from the building. You know for certain he could get safely to AF1. If you do, please enlighten me as to how you know these things for certain. I am all ears. Until then all you have is suppostion. AND - even if his story is incorrect what does that prove?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, why didn't SH just comply; he certainly was given the chance .

I'm glad you asked that. Given what we know now about how we were lied to and how this administration was going to war with Iraq anyway, how do we know that he didn't?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I'm glad you asked that. Given what we know now about how we were lied to and how this administration was going to war with Iraq anyway, how do we know that he didn't?

Well, considering the Arab Press is not controlled by the US, I think we would have heard about it by now. I mean it is not like SH never appeared on television for 11 years. Don't you think he could have said, I am trying to comply, but the US won't let me. Certainly some foreign paper would have have that story newsworthy

BTW, if you use that rationale, then the Clinton administration lied as well because it relied on essentially the same evidence and it's policy was regime change. Again, after 9/11, the rules changed. Yet, people still blame W. Interestingly, Kerry would have gone to war on the same information. So, I say we just accept that and move on.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - even if his story is incorrect what does that prove?

It proves he lied and if he's being dishonest about such a simple thing as staying in a classroom as his citizens perished, what else is he dishonest about?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

It proves he lied and if he's being dishonest about such a simple thing as staying in a classroom as his citizens perished, what else is he dishonest about?

But my point is you have no facts to support that. How do you know that it was not part of the plan for him to stay there? Plus, HELLO - he is a politician, which = a liar. Name me one that has not lied.