The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database fighting fire with fire doesn't work
We have been hitting each other over the head with clubs since Early Man. The American military has killed innocents, too. I do not think Americans are more deserving of anything than anyone else who inhabits this planet. We are all human beings with families and feelings and lives. Perhaps its time to drop the weapons and communicate for a change.
fight fire with fire
We need to **take it there** more often and louder. We have been too quiet, too politically correct and where has it gotten us? The republicans have been smearing democrats and each election has had nothing but dirty tricks from the republicans. This past election, Kerry tried to be on the up and up, not personally attacking..What did the republicans do? Secretly paid for a group to smear Kerry and his Vietnam War record. When Bush was asked, he said he had nothing to do with the group. Baloney! It was backed by the republican party. That is the way Rove and Bush are, they smear their opponents. Time to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
I try NOT to --- they tend to leak!
{
That actually does look like an Obama camp leak....(sm)
but for good reason. Obama wants transparency. It would work to his favor for it to be known that he urged Bush for quick action. He's putting pressure on Bush. I think the point of the exercise is that when these things don't get done in a timely fashion or legislation cannot get passed, it puts the spotlight on the ones who would obstruct it.
If I'm not mistaken, they actually do record oval office meetings. I think it was originally started to prevent misquotes. They just don't let them out until years later.
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
Newt.
First of all, the clip was only a short segment of Alan questioning Newt. It stopped just as Sean started questioning. What was said during that interview? To be fair, it should have been included. Second, Newt did not seem to have a problem with the wire tapping so much as the explanation that was given to the American people. He felt Americans were confused...they are, but he also forcefully reiterated twice that he was in favor of VERY AGGRESSIVE anti-terrorist measures. The fact remains, though, that we are not privy to the entire conversation and so context is totally lacking.
Fred
I hopef for Fred and/or Mitt, but the drive-bys were too scared of Mitt so took him out. He's got the whole thing going for him. But the Mormon thing was over-played by the DB media. Funny how it matters not one iota where Henry Reid is concerned, that corrupt, little twit. Just say Rush's briefcase and that's plenty! Talk about making the entire Dem. Senate look like the fools they already are with the lowest approval rating in history. But they just put Bush's approval numbers out there to fool the American public into (a) hiding their own shameful numbers and (b) showing how ignorant they are for essentially running against a lame duck.
When my party does stupid crap I don't let 'em slide. Why the Dems have no rules in their party is beyond me.
O'Reilly, Hannity, Krauthammer, etc. Remember Mort Downey? He had a show where he would just scream vile things at people who lived other than the "traditional nuclear Christian family" model. People watched at first for the novelty but then his popularity faded away. I think this is the same fate that these old dudes like those above will share. Their time is over. The tactics of diverting the public's attention by creating scapegoats to hate whilst the corporations plundered the wealth has brought the country to its knees. Now is the time for young, fresh, idealistic individuals to assume control of their political parties and undo the damage.
Newt
I remember Newt wanting to put all the babies in new orphanages. Orphanages are things of the past. He wants no abortion, instead build and orphanage. I think he is small minded.
Yaooo Fred
Fred is giving a WOONDERFUL AND TRUTHFUL speech!!!!!!
I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protestors of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again." However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.
The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.
Welcome to the 21st century, big bro. I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign. I can see why you're sounding the alarm against the activists who use all the latest tech tools to build these rallies from the ground up in cities across the country.
This unstoppable progress has at its core a group we at HRC call Generation Equality. They are the most supportive of full LGBT equality than any American generation ever -- and when it comes to the politics of division, well, they don't roll that way. 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And the numbers of young progressive voters will only continue to grow. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning, about 23 million 18-29 year olds voted on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the most young voters ever to cast a ballot in a presidential election. That's an increase of 3 million more voters compared to 2004.
These are the same people who helped elect Barack Obama and sent a decisive message to your party. These young people are the future and their energy will continue to drive our country forward. Even older Americans are turning their backs on the politics of fear and demagoguery that you and your cronies have perfected over the years.
This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.
Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.
Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we're used to hearing.
What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so ྖs, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.
Yet another reason why I am voting for Fred Thompson in the primaries...
he opposes a nationwide ban on abortion. He says it should be up to the individual states, put to a vote of the people, not decided by Congress (who would not touch it anyway or they would have already) or activist judges (who overturned a state law with Roe vs. Wade, which is unconstitutional and should be overturned...the only entity the constitution allows to make low is Congress either at state or federal level...NOT judges). The point being, THAT is the democratic, American way to do it. Let the people speak and let it stand. I am sure some states would allow abortion, others would not. But at least it is put to the vote of the people. Let us as individuals have choice also. There would still be places to obtain abortion if that is someone's choice, but if the majority of a state does not want abortion legal, they should not have to have it legal. That is what democracy is all about. Right? Why would any of you have a problem with letting the people speak?
As to back alley abortions...the numbers of those were very small in proportion to the number of abortions performed when abortion was illegal. Doctors did them illegally as well, under sterile conditions, and no one died. I agree, no one should have died, but women did have a choice. The babies are not given the same consideration.
And again...why is it so abhorent to some that women died from "botched" abortions, but not that unborn children are chopped up or have their skulls collapsed? A woman has a choice whether or not to subject herself to a "back alley" abortion. That child has no choice, no place to go, just to be chopped up or have their skull collapsed. Imagine that being done to an infant 3 minutes old, 1 hour old...being chopped up or having skull collapsed. Then would we call abortionists serial killers?
I just don't get it, how one is so horrifying and people are accepting of other based totally on "choice."
No offense, but if your father attended an abortion or two, especially a partial birth abortion...he might flip back to the other side. I doubt he would be able to forget those images either. I have seen the pictures. I know I will never forget those images.
Is Newt your president? Lets stick with the present
There is about to be an explosion of spending and for those that really do work and think they won't be paying taxes, think again! You could only use half your brain or whatever is lucid and understand the ONLY way to pay for that kind of spending is by EVERYONE who works to pay taxes.
You really need to get off your one-party tunnel vision way of thinking, and I would say think like an individual, but I can see you are a follower of Obama, and as we all know, most of them have never thought for themselves.
I'm an independent......sure as heck didn't want a totalitarian government in power and if I had to choose between Newt and that backside kisser we have in office now, I'd choose Newt....
Too bad we're stuck with Obama and his crooked cronies!!
I feel it safe to say you have never had an independent thought in your life.....
No, it's Newt...No, it's Sarah...No, it's Anne Coulter...No, it's Steele...
X
I have heard Fred Thompson talk about health care...
but I take that sort of thing with a grain of salt anyway. The President can only put forth a plan...it is up to Congress to say yay or nay on it. You need to listen to what your senatorial and representative candidates when it comes their turns. And hold them accountable if they run on one platform and when it comes to a vote they choke. It is in Congress where things like health care will be changed. I believe we the people should, like I have said before, look into the recall procedure (meaning call a representative back to the state he/she came from and sending someone else) if they don't do the job they promised to do. They don't represent us anymore, they represent themselves and the party line and that occurs on both sides. And it needs to change on both sides. I could not vote for any of the Democrat candidates because we have too many core differences, before we ever get to issues. My parents were both Democrats, but had they lived they would not recognize the party as it exists today. It has changed that much.
All I was countering with the Clinton stuff was to illustrate a point...both men are flawed. And George Bush is not an unintelligent man by any stretch. He is just not a slick politician. I know a lot of down-home guys who talk a lot like him, and they are not dummies by any means. You don't get an MBA if you are unintelligent(and please don't go down that he got into harvard and got an MBA because he has money road, it would not be becoming). But I think we can quit rehashing all that and agree to disagree.
I am concerned about healthcare, but it is not my primary concern in the next election cycle.
God bless.
Bush vetoed regulation of FRED and WALL st several times
and stop watching fox distorted faux news
fire with fire
Tired of dirty fighting? It is the republican party who was the dirty fighters, not the democrats. and they continue to be dirty fighters and will win again and again if we dont stand up to them. Fight fire with fire. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the political spectrum that is America, you dont get anywhere for being the up and up person, the good guy, you win with dirty tricks. If you dont realize that, you need to step back when it comes to politics..I bemoan the situation, for sure, but I will fight fire with fire and the democrats will win once again..and, clue to you, check on Bushs right hand man, Rove, look at his extremely dirty politics and then ask yourself can we ever win against something like that by being nice? I dont think so and the country depends on the liberals getting the country back on track. I will do everything it takes, of course, everything that is legal. I dont break the law like Rove and libby are now being shown that they did.
Please fire them all. sm
People are losing their jobs, homes, and on the streets - and a mouse gets 35 million.
Cease fire.
No canned text for me. The tone of our posts are set by these my-way-of-the-highway / scorched earth approaches to opposite views. I have very exhilarating exchanges when the 2 parties are respectful, informed, flexible, open-minded, focused and on task, more interested in finding common ground than sowing the seeds of division, looking for solutions as opposed to validation and understanding that no political problems will ever be solved without bipartisan participation, mediation and compromise.
Plagiarizing and paraphrasing an opponent’s text and ideas and trying to throw them back at them does not an effective argument make. Furthermore, it is childish…like those playground disputes between children…“you did, no you did, no you did”…etc. It is not your ideas that I find so distasteful, it is your presentation. Not to be cliché, but you attract more bees with sugar than vinegar. I am not intolerant of Hannity…watch him frequently. Cannot have an effective debate without becoming familiar with the “cons” side of the argument.
On the bigot thing. Remember me? I’m the one who is hawking inclusion, supportive of minority interests, and has the audacity to suggest that Americans are not the only ones who just might deserve some equality, dignity, respect and basic human rights…even if they are illegal. I suppose it is a positive sign that you at least take offense. There’s hope for you yet.
On racial purity. You are really big on maintaining American cultural integrity and identity. But when it comes to extending the same consideration to our immigrants you go ballistic…clear off the map, at times. They can walk and chew gum at the same time…it is possible to preserve ones’ native culture AND be a good American. These are not two mutually exclusive concepts. If our democratic principles are all they are cracked up to be, it would not be so painful to see them behaving like Americans.
Going to go out on a limb here and to use and example. Mexican-Americans gathered together (right to assemble) waving their flag in protest (freedom of speech) of harsh immigration laws or working conditions in the maquilidoras are trying to bring these issues to the doorstep of the government who created those conditions (right to redress grievances). What could be more American than that? You cannot look at that crowd and distinguish between which among them are legal and which are not…after all, those are issues of ALL Mexican natives. Should we deny all of them these rights, implying that such rights are reserved for the REAL Americans? Being American is not simply a matter of a piece of paper, some arbitrary degree of language proficiency, some certain level of income or education. They should not be required to melt into the pot and disappear, renounce their birthrights and turn their backs on their own people just to qualify. Can’t have it both ways. If you want them to be Americans, then you have to LET them be Americans.
Ask yourself this question. If you saw 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants doing the same thing in NYC, would your reaction be the same? The bottom line is this: Our new wave of immigrants does not look like the ones from the past. You seemed to enjoy the DAR bridge party swapping stories of how they all came from different countries and cross bred with one another …even had a occasional Indian in the wood pile…and produced this great nation of mutts. But the breed was selectively white. If it was okay then, it should be okay now. The problem you are grappling with is that the results would produce all these mongrel shades of God-knows what. If this make you uncomfortable in the least little bit…if you are now feeling driven to slap me up side the head…that’s the voice of bigotry.
On elitism. Your posts are full of strict, literal reads and “tudes” as you call them. Sue me if I took a page from your book. At least you sort of tried to address the “academics,” still not calling it by name. If you could stop slaying the messenger long enough to hear the message, you would understand that there is nothing condescending about wanting to engage in informed debate that orients itself around reaching mutual respect and understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with being angry or feeling superior. Think what you like, but I am neither of those. I simply enjoy using my language and have an affinity for broad vocabulary. It’s just who I am. Blame it on the docs. They certainly sent me to the dictionary too many times to count and I lingered there for a while, that’s all there is to it. This personal trait should not in any way exempt me from debate, nor should I be subjected to ridicule, name calling or unfounded accusations because of it.
There is something you and I have in common. We are 2 American gals coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, locked into the extreme divisions that plague our fellow citizens from shore to shore. If we cannot find our way past this kind of bickering in which we both find ourselves ensconced, we all are in big trouble.
Believe it or not, Sam, I actually enjoy our posts. Okay, go ahead if you like. Send me to the therapist again. Call me masochist, bipolar, schizo, whatever. I just think we could do better than this.
Speaking of therapy, I have a life-long friend, an endearing street thug / bad boy from younger days, who grew up and became a therapist. He works with drug addicts, adult children of alcoholics (being one himself) and dysfunctional families. He said something to me that made a lot of sense. One of the first challenging pieces of advice he throws out to a new patient is to “try to keep things in the third person,” in an effort to “dial back” nonproductive confrontations with family members. I thought he was crazy at first, but I started trying this with my husband and to my surprise, it really did seem to help us to better understand one another, even after 18 years. That is what I will be trying to do next time you and I visit the water cooler. If you want to chill on the immigrant dialog for a while, that works for me.
Thanks for the good luck wishes on the job search. Hope I can find a decent company that is not just another maquilidora masquerading as an MTSO! Where there is smoke there is fire!!
xx
Well sh1t fire...ain't that the truth!
In America, anyone can be President. That's one of the risks we take.
Fire-and-brimstone campaign
You can go to your fire-and brimstone rallies, wallow in your misery, and try to think of more ways to smear the finest candidate this Country has seen in decades.
I will go to the joyful rallies, full of hope for the future of this great Country.
No smoke, no fire, only mirrors. LOL!
.
Who's God? Your God? My God? Earth, Wind and Fire?
x
Okay. Where is the petition to fire that CNN reporter
nm
They will think whatever they need to think to stoke the fire that feeds their hatred. nm Boy, your cease fire didn't last long....LOL
Just in case you are interested, and I doubt you are, I wrote this BEFORE you wrote your cease fire, not AFTER. Which makes your cease fire ring all the more hollow, especially in the face of this..."Okay you want to keep the gloves off..." LOL. And if this dialing it back a notch...yes, frankly, I would suggest you go back and talk to that family friend because you haven't got the third person thing down yet. Every post flies in the face of what you try to say. You ARE angry. You DO need to feel superior. You want what you want, I want what I want. I make specific examples of specific Americans I have personal knowledge of who immigrated from Mexico and that is their experience, and the experience of many others. But you could care less. If it doesn't illustrate your point, you don't care about it. You don't care that it costs your fellow citizens millions every year to support illegal immigrants...money that could be going to the needs of citizens of this country. And where do you get that illegals don't stay anyway? Got any of those 4-letter words to support that?
Yes, my feelings extend to ANY nationality illegal immigrant. Why on earth do you think I hate Mexicans? I don't hate ANYONE. I just want them to come here legally like other immigrants have, get a green card, go through the process, become citizens if that is what they choose to do, or go back home when their visas expire. Draw and quarter me for that if you like. I couldn't, at this point, care LESS.
Again you completely missed the fact that I grew up and went to school with Mexican immigrant children and knew their families and keep in touch today. I have no problem with Mexicans. It is a fact that the biggest problem we have with immigration is from Mexico...welll duhhh...we share a border with them. Much easier for them to immigrate illegally, much easier because of the porous border for folks to get in that we don't really want to get in. But of course, you would
As to it takes a long time to become a citizen, yada yada yada...well, good things come to those who wait. It has always taken a long time to become a citizen. Since there are millions here who are citizens, obviously they thought it was worth the wait. Excuses, excuses, excuses. It is the LAW. Do you pick and choose what laws you want upholded and those you don't?
You say NONE of them want to change who we are or what we are. Did I miss the part where you were named national spokesperson for illegal immigrants? You don't even realize you said the same thing I said. Yes, they come here for a better life. That's fine. If I immigrated to Canada for a better life, I would not carry the American flag down their streets in protest, out of respect if nothing else, but I suppose that is something that does not matter to you either...it certainly is not present in your rants. If I immigrated to Canada to a part where they spoke predominantly French, I would learn French. I would be embracing of their culture. Because I chose to make that my country and my home. I would not have to be asked to do so. But obviously I am the exception and not the rule.
Again with the languages. I don't care how many languages are spoken here. My sole point is that for preservation and protection of the United States of America we should be united...and you don't see that either. I belive what I believe, you believe what you believe. And never the twain shall meet, it would appear. Does not make me wrong, does not make you wrong. I will hold my hopes for the America I long for and you hold the hopes for the America you long for. The years to come will tell the tale. And if all this comes back to bite you years down the road...and we are too old to care...that little voice in the back of your head that said "I told you so..." That will be me.
The Civil War...geez. It was all ABOUT preserving unity. If it had not been fought to preserve the union we would be two countries today fighting back and forth across the border like Iran and Iraq for example. Slavery was only part of the issue of the civil war. But a brilliant man (and Republican I might add) Abraham Lincoln saw the folly in splitting the union, and another fine man, Robert E. Lee, saw the same folly...but chose to be a Virginian before an American, though it broke his heart to do so (to use his own words), and we see where that led. After the civil war and the slaves were freed, we came back together as a country, stronger than before, and never since have Americans chosen to be anything but Americans first. So far. That is what I would like to preserve. That is all I am talking about. Unity. Read up on the civil war. Read up on Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Both great men with great vision. The Civil War was about unity.
As to now who's arrogant? I am about the most UN-arrogant person you would ever meet. I wouldn't know how to be verbally condescending and you have it down to a fine art. For someone who is not angry and not needing to feel superior, your posts say the opposite.
All this aside, keep safe during the bad weather coming up. I know hurricanes don't go inland very far too often, praying that it won't get to you. Hoping tornados spawned won't get to either. Keep your head down and live to verbally slice and dice me another day. :)
If she had the proper and legal authority to fire him --
then why didn't she just do it instead of them telling the other guy to do it - then there would not be a problem.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire...sm
My take: If you make a person who does not hold the Bible sacred swear to uphold his office on it, then does that swearing in really mean anything. They don't follow the teachings of the Bible, so why would it be relevant for them to swear on the Bible? (article below)
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire
Decision to Take Oath on Koran Sparks Controversy
..
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
He should not be allowed to do so, Prager wrote, not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture.
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible -- which America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about.
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of very bigoted and racist e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' Colling said
Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
They can bring in whatever they want, says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
12-01-06 11:28 EST
Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved. MTPockets posted about SP loving to fire people.
MTPockets could've just kept her post to the issue, but she had to throw in the barb about firing, so the next poster has every right to address it. Or is what she is referencing over your head?
I couldn't get in...crowd already exceeded the fire code.
So, after parking two blocks away and trudging to the party, the fire officials kept us out because the fire code only allows 300, of which there were more than that inside. Then the cops told us we couldn't congregate outside either due to traffic and not having a separate (outdoor) permit.
Just days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Cheney, on “Meet The Press,” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
When asked if any evidence connected the Iraqis to the operation, Cheney said, no.
But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq and during cabinet meetings Cheney, expressed deep concern about Saddam and wouldn't rule out going after Iraq at some point.
That point started to come 11 months later, just before the first anniversary of 9/11.
The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad. So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration's rhetoric about Saddam changed.
On September 8, 2002, not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front page exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, five administration officials also went on the Sunday television shows that day to repeat the charge.
He is, in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Cheney told Tim Russert on “Meet The Press.
But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.
The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror, said Bush on September 25, 2002.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases, said Bush a few days later on October 7. He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda.
In pushing the Saddam-Iraq-9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims. First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.
After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, Iraq apparently never responded.
The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April 2001.
Cheney stated, It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission said, We do not believe such a meeting occurred. Why? Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States.
None the less, the White House strategy worked. In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.
On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, aided the 9/11 attacks.
Yet the Bush administration continues to say it never claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11.
I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim, White House Press Secretary McClellan repeated on Sept. 17, 2003.
The brutal irony is that while implications, innuendo, or false claims if you will about a 9/11 connection helped take us into Iraq. The Iraqi war itself has created a real al-Qaeda/Iraq link that may keep us from getting out.
This really confuses me. It's my understanding that the Dems STILL haven't taken over. They need 60 in the Senate in order to prevent a fillibuster, and as I write this, the Republicans (still in control) are threatening to fillibuster the proposed auto maker bailout/loan legislation. Since the Democrats DO NOT have the majority they need, the Republicans may very well do that.
So please explain to me how the Democrats are in control because I keep seeing this and truly don't understand how that is.
Not trying to start an argument or stir anything up. I truly don't "get it."
like Bill being interviewed a lot. LOL! He is rather obvious that he is only saying Obama because he is following his political party and that he truly doesn't want Obama as president.
Oh well....for whatever reason Bill said what he did.....it is still nice to hear someone admiring both candidates, saying they are both ready to be president, and not cutting down one party or the other. It was a nice change for once.
marks the location of current message within thread
