You can't handle the truth!!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bungrider, Jun 16, 2003.

  1. No matter what the reasons were to go to war, both US and British intelligence, as well as both governments have their credibility on the line. And in the minds of people in the Middle East, we didn't have any to begin with. This serves to solidify their belief and for us to question our trust in our governments.

    They have essentially run out of time. They had the intelligence before the war, and they conceiveably still have it. It's time to let the world know what's going on, because without the truth WITH evidence, the truth is currently that they lied and deceived us all.

    And killed thousands of innocent people in the process. I have to add that point just to be fair.
     
    #51     Jun 19, 2003
  2. Panel Probing Sept. 11 Requests Documents

    Thursday June 19, 2003 1:19 AM


    By JOHN SOLOMON

    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks has made sweeping requests for documents from the Bush administration and White House that go beyond the information provided during Congress' review, officials disclosed Wednesday.

    A spokesman for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States said the commission expects from its early discussions with the administration that the requests it made over the last two weeks will be met without any presidential claims of executive privilege.

    ``We have made a substantial request for documents. We didn't issue subpoenas. We made an ordinary request. And we don't anticipate any resistance,'' spokesman Al Felzenberg said.

    The requests included documents from the White House, which did not provide all the information that was requested last year by a joint congressional panel that investigated intelligence lapses before the attacks.

    Eleanor Hill, the staff directory for the earlier congressional inquiry, said Wednesday she was reluctant to quantify how much information Congress received from the White House, but noted the National Security Council considered some of the materials requested by her committee were ``within the scope of inquiry and some were not.''

    The Bush administration has made clear in prior investigations unrelated to terrorism that it intends to protect executive privilege, the doctrine that a president is entitled to confidential advice from his aides that he can keep from congressional or judicial bodies.

    One of the new terror commission members, former Indiana congressman Tim Roemer, recently raised concerns about his inability to see some transcripts of closed hearings from the congressional inquiry.

    But Felzenberg said that issue was resolved and ``we have no reason to believe'' executive privilege is going to be invoked to deny the current document requests.

    Administration officials stopped short of committing to providing everything the commission seeks.

    ``The president strongly supports the commission and wants it to be successful,'' White House spokeswoman Ashley Snee said. ``We will continue to work closely with the commission in response to their requests.''

    She declined to say whether the administration would turn over every document the commission asked for.

    Officials at the CIA, one of the focal points of the earlier congressional hearings, are cooperating with the requests. ``We have been fully cooperating with the commission and will continue to do so,'' agency spokesman Tom Crispell said.

    Felzenberg said it was impossible to quantify the number of documents the commission expected to receive in the coming days from the White House and other federal agencies except to say it was ``very substantial and throughout the government.''

    The commission already has access to the information gathered by Congress and the new information sought from the administration is significantly broader, reflecting the commission's mission to go beyond Congress and examine issues like aviation safety, terrorist financing and crisis response.

    ``We have a much more encompassing mandate,'' Felzenberg said. ``The search has gone throughout the government because it is a lot broader.''

    The 10-member bipartisan commission, led former New Jersey Republican Gov. Thomas Kean, was named last year by Congress and the White House to pick up where Congress left off in examining the government's pre-Sept. 11 failures and ensuring they are not repeated in the future.

    It is expected to issue its findings by next May, and has already held one hearing on aviation security.
     
    #52     Jun 19, 2003
  3. Bush Takes Strong Stand Against Iran Nuclear Plans

    By Scott Lindlaw
    Associated Press Writer
    Wednesday, June 18, 2003; 2:55 PM


    President Bush said Wednesday that he and other world leaders will not tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran and he urged Tehran to treat protesters seeking the ouster of the Islamic government with "the utmost of respect."

    Iran is thought to be developing nuclear weapons, though the government denies it.

    "The international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon," Bush told reporters at the end of a meeting in the White House Cabinet Room. "Iran would be dangerous if it had a nuclear weapon," he said.

    Bush said he had brought the matter of nuclear weapons up with other leaders at the G-8 meeting of industrial powers, plus Russia, earlier this month.

    "There was near-universal agreement that we all must work together to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," he said.

    Iran also has an advanced missile program and maintains ties to terrorist groups, possibly including al-Qaida, the administration has asserted, and is run by conservative mullas who are deeply hostile toward the United States.

    Bush labeled Iraq a threat to U.S. national security before invoking his revised U.S. defense posture which called for pre-emptive attack in such a case.

    Bush did not say what he would do if international inspectors found Iran in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The Bush administration is banking on diplomatic pressure to encourage Iran to rethink its nuclear program. It is confident that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, meeting this week, will find Iran to be in violation.

    Such a step that could put the issue before the U.N. Security Council.

    Tehran and other cities saw violent clashes last week as pro-government forces put down student-led protests demanding an end to clerical rule. Those protests have largely died down in the past few days.

    Bush paid tribute to "those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran."

    "They need to know America stands squarely by their side, and I would urge the Iran government to treat them with the utmost of respect," he said.

    The Iranian government has accused Washington of interfering in its internal affairs - and some opponents of the regime also say that public criticism by American leaders does not help their cause.

    Reformist lawmaker Fatemeh Haqiqatjou said she and 200 other reformists signed a statement Tuesday against the U.S. comments. "Iranians want change and that change has to be brought by Iranians themselves, not foreigners," she said. "America's involvement only undermines the slow pace of reforms in Iran."
     
    #53     Jun 19, 2003
  4. Here's where hostility and cynicism about one's own political leaders gets disgusting: Apparently, Optional has zero sympathy for Iranians who are struggling to free themselves from oppression, and whose success, aside from being great news in its own right, could have incalculable benefits not just for them, not just in the region, not just for the US and its friends, but throughout the world. He also apparently has no problem with the idea of Iran's current rulers - probably the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism - getting control of nuclear weapons.

    And HE accuses ME of being blinded by biases and pre-conceived notions.
     
    #54     Jun 19, 2003
  5. You have to admire the tenacity of the Left and the Bush bashers. Before the war started, they wailed endlessly that we would suffer horrible casualties from WMD, even though the administration had carefully hedged its assessment of Iraq's capabilities. Now, they want to blame Bush because their own fevered fantasies didn't occur. This WMD strawman has become the total focus of the media, at least since they were able to free their reporters from the crucial Augusta National Golf Club beat.

    Now their theory goes as follows, we haven't found WMD in Iraq and we haven't found terrorists, so therefore how dare you accuse Iran of having either. I actually heard Ted Koppel make this argument last night. Of course, the premise is dead wrong. We have found terrorist camps in Iraq and are still dealing with them. We found some chem/bio capabilities. But there is no doubt that Iran sponsors numerous terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others too numerous to mention. They have attacked and murdered Iranian dissidents all over the world, including in the US. They have mounted attacks that killed scores of Americans. And now thanks to the assistance of our allies, they are close to combining nuclear weapons with an advanced missile capability.

    I desperately hope the Iranian opposition is able to topple the monsters who oppress their country. But if they fail, we will have no choice but to do the job ourselves, whether or not current political figures in Iran agree. The alternative is too ghastly to comprehend.
     
    #55     Jun 19, 2003
  6. msfe

    msfe

    I desperately hope the American/Israeli/French/British/Russian/Chinese/Indian/Pakistani opposition is able to topple the monsters who oppress their countries and get rid of all nuclear arms - and all other weapons of mass destruction - in the process.
     
    #56     Jun 19, 2003
  7. XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JUNEL 19, 2003 13:02:58 ET XXXXX

    Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities

    In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

    But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!

    MORE

    From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities:

    "It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

    Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:

    '[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

    Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD

    "In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

    U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:

    "Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

    U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:

    "[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

    END

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Filed By Matt Drudge
    Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
    http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
    (c)DRUDGE REPORT 2003
    Not for reproduction without permission of the author
     
    #57     Jun 19, 2003
  8. So in your view, the Iranian clerics and the President of the US and the Prime Minister of Great Britain are morally equivalent? This has a distinctly 1970's feel to it. "Disarm now" or whatever the Soviet-sponsored rent-a-mobs were shouting across europe. What a great idea that would have been.

    Let me make it simple: nuclear weapons, radical Islamist government, active sponsorship of terrorism. One of those three makes you a potential target. Two justifies preemptive action. Iran has all three.
     
    #58     Jun 19, 2003
  9. msfe

    msfe

    World’s Greatest
    TERRORIST ORGANIZATION


    The greatest acts of terrorism are not committed by furtive gangs of masked desperados in foreign lands. The most horrific acts of terrorism in world history have always been committed by governments and their militaries.

    The totally satanic military/government of the United States of America has committed massive acts of international terrorism and brutal genocide — from 1899 to the present day.

    http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html
     
    #59     Jun 19, 2003

  10. It seems to rile some people up when I suggest that the Left basically seems to stand these days for conspiracy theories and phony budgeting - or really, for anything that they believe harms Bush politically, and against anything that might help him - and yet, in Iran, we have a situation where thousands if not millions of people - the same kind of people who might have been in peace marches if they lived in W. Europe or the US (and were ignorant about fascist regimes) - are demonstrating for freedom and democracy, and facing violent oppression. Of course, if the mullahs fall, many will justly credit Bush's foreign policy, for having given the democratic movements hope: So it would appear that the Left is terrified that Bush will gain further credit, or that the war on terror will actually be seen to be going well. Plus, the Right's in favor of the protestors, and has gotten on this issue first, so there must be something wrong with them. And, of course, if Iran goes out of the terrorism business then "freedom fighters" like the Hamas and Hizbullah will lose yet another sponsor after Saddam, weakening the ability of the Palestinians to keep blowing up Israelis. So, better not even to bring up Iran.... better to pretend that the country doesn't even exist.

    Or maybe bungrider will explain how HAL persuaded the Iranian students to set up their next round of service contracts.
     
    #60     Jun 19, 2003