[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

Here is my contributions of my USL programs..

Ramine

4/17/2016 9:13:00 PM

Hello,

Here is my contributions of my USL programs..

I have first implemented a solver for my USL program that
is polynomial regression, this solver must make
the a0 coefficient of the mathematical serie to 0, but this solver
is not so efficient as my other solver that i have implemented
that is nonlinear regression using the simplex method of
of Nelder and Mead as a function minimization, this nonlinear
solver that i have implemented works perfectly and is more
efficient than the solver that uses polynomial regression,
also my contribution is my USL programs that is called usl_graph
that provides you with a more interractive graphical chart that
permit you to optimize more the criterion of the cost, i think
that the other R package is less powerful on this option.

So i think my USL programs are great tools that can predict
scalability.

You can download my USL programs version 3.0 with the source code from:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-...


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.










3 Answers

Joe Irvin

9/17/2008 1:32:00 AM

0


"Tag Heuer" <tagheuerblog@gmail.dot.com> wrote in message
news:v640d4tjld5vsqic8h96g2sobv0mihhcvc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:42:13 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:53:10 -0700, Tag Heuer
>>><tagheuerblog@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
>
>>>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:07:10 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:06:34 -0700, Tag Heuer
>>>>><tagheuerblog@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:47:38 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:50:17 -0700, Tag Heuer
>>>>>>><tagheuerblog@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:37:33 -0400, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>><ji3486@sccoast.net>wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:26:24 -0700, Tag Heuer
>>>>>>>>><tagheuerblog@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:17:19 -0400, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>><ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Tag Heuer" <tagheuerblog@gmail.dot.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:vt0jc419rvklvi8kbipuji3bs9iriqhd95@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:00:49 -0400, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Poor Lil Johnny" <tits@alas.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:y2byk.12$W06.8@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to commemorate on 9/11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today is September 11th. There was a time that that date might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to me, but no more. I feel for the families that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost loved
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and those that lost friends on that day in 2001, but other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that-nothing. Some would say that my lack of 'feeling', my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flag-waving mania, my disinterest in the moment are all signs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being sufficiently patriotic. To those, no doubt Republicans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think or feel or say such a thing, I say: "Whatever-get over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Obviously you know nothing of the history of terrorism against
>>>>>>>>>>>>the US.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Terrorist attacks have been going on for all the Presidential
>>>>>>>>>>>>administrations since Prez Carter ... hostages taken at the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>Embassy in
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tehran, bombing of US Embassy in Beirut 1983, bombing of Marine
>>>>>>>>>>>>barracks
>>>>>>>>>>>>in Beirut, hijacking of TWA Flt 847 US serviceman murdered,
>>>>>>>>>>>>hijacking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>cruise ship Achille Lauro, 1 American murdered, bombing of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>LaBelle
>>>>>>>>>>>>Discotheque in Germany where US servicemen hung out, bombing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>Pan Am 103
>>>>>>>>>>>>over Lockerbie, Scotland, bombing of 2 US Embassies in Africa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>bombing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, bombing of USS Cole in Yemen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>World Trade
>>>>>>>>>>>>Center I, flying aircraft into the Pentagon and World Trade
>>>>>>>>>>>>Center. How
>>>>>>>>>>>>do you think the US should have responded, or should they even
>>>>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>>>>responded?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Who is killing people in Asia, Africa, and Europe ... its not
>>>>>>>>>>>>the US. Get
>>>>>>>>>>>>rid of the Islamic jihadist and the world becomes a more
>>>>>>>>>>>>peaceful place or
>>>>>>>>>>>>do you think the US is causing all the strife in the world?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I may? Obviously you missed the entire context of what the
>>>>>>>>>>> August
>>>>>>>>>>> 2001 Presidential Daily Brief represented to the Bush
>>>>>>>>>>> administration -
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What, that Bush knew that the WTC was going to be attacked by
>>>>>>>>>>flying
>>>>>>>>>>passenger air craft into the WTC? Make you point and I'll address
>>>>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bush was handed the August 2001 PDB which we now know was titled:
>>>>>>>>>"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" - He and his advisors did
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>see it as a threat but that which contained nothing more than some
>>>>>>>>>"historical" review of the actual threat. The Bush administration
>>>>>>>>>failed the nation and the security thereof, and the reason why they
>>>>>>>>>fought tooth-and-nail to keep this particular PDB from becoming
>>>>>>>>>known
>>>>>>>>>as to what info it contained.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It was a general threat ... there had been intell. gathered that
>>>>>>>>some
>>>>>>>>terrorist groups may try and fly aircraft into buildings/targets.
>>>>>>>>What was
>>>>>>>>the President suppose to do? Sometimes holes in security aren't
>>>>>>>>recognized
>>>>>>>>until they are breached. Example of hijacking by DB Cooper.
>>>>>>>>Airlines took
>>>>>>>>measures to prevent this type of hijacking and escape from
>>>>>>>>aircrafts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "President" went on an unprecedented 30-day long vacation at his
>>>>>>>ranch in Crawford, Texas after 8-months in office. Richard A. Clarke
>>>>>>>former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection,
>>>>>>>and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2001 and former Chair of the
>>>>>>>Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003 documents the lack of
>>>>>>>planning, preparation and just plain incompetence by the Bush
>>>>>>>administration prior to the attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not going to defend Bush's record, it speaks for itself. But if
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>remember Gore sued for a recount of the election this made the Bush
>>>>>>administration late in getting things in place. What do you think
>>>>>>Bush
>>>>>>could have done to prevent the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon?
>>>>>>Blaming Bush for not being prepared to defend the US, what do you
>>>>>>think
>>>>>>about the previous administration who were 'on the ball' as far as
>>>>>>protecting Americans? Like the WTC bombing of 1993, also in '93 the
>>>>>>incident in Somali, at Mogadishu where about 70 Americans were killed
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>some of the dead dragged thru the streets, in 1996 the bombing of
>>>>>>Khobar
>>>>>>Towers in Saudi Arabia, 1998 2 US embassies in Africa bombed. By all
>>>>>>means
>>>>>>thats no all that happened. Do you think that the US lack of response
>>>>>>may
>>>>>>have emboldened the terrorists? Osama seem to think the US was a
>>>>>>paper
>>>>>>tiger and would run when bloodied. Wonder what gave him that idea?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. "Bush's record" certainly "speaks for itself." From the bombings
>>>>>of the first WTC attack to that of the USS Cole, and prior to 9/11
>>>>>efforts in pursuing bin Laden were hampered by the Bush
>>>>>administration:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ...The State Department officially released its annual terrorism
>>>>>report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year,
>>>>>there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin
>>>>>Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S.
>>>>>government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and
>>>>>"personalizing terrorism." still, Secretary of State Colin Powell
>>>>>says efforts to fight global terrorism will remain consistent ...] -
>>>>>http://tinyurl...
>>>>>
>>>>>And of course this came to a boil when former-President Bill Clinton
>>>>>went on the Fox News network:
>>>>>
>>>>>Former President Bill Clinton on Fox News, September 22, 2006:
>>>>>
>>>>>[CLINTON: And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative
>>>>>Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too
>>>>>obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I
>>>>>was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for
>>>>>nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I
>>>>>didn't do enough said I did too much - same people.
>>>>>...
>>>>>WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?
>>>>>
>>>>>CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.
>>>>>
>>>>>WALLACE: Right.
>>>>>
>>>>>CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some,
>>>>>including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They
>>>>>ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not
>>>>>try. I tried.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive
>>>>>anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who
>>>>>got demoted ...] - http://tinyurl...
>>>
>>>>Bush was President during the two terrorist events you write of above.
>>>>I'm
>>>>not trying to put the responsibility on any particular President ...
>>>>terrorism against the US had been going on at least since the Carter
>>>>Admnistration so there were also Republicans that didn't respond as they
>>>>should also ... it was treated as criminal event. Trying to lay the
>>>>blame
>>>>on Bush is being dishonest IMO. But don't tell me that Clinton was a
>>>>strong
>>>>terror warrior. This is an example of how serious he took the some of
>>>>the
>>>>terrorism that took place on his watch: "After the 1993 WTC bombing,
>>>>...
>>>>President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
>>>>and
>>>>punished. Afte the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, ... President clinton
>>>>promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>>>>After
>>>>the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Africa, ... President Clinton
>>>>promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>>>>After
>>>>the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, ... President Clinton promised that
>>>>those
>>>>responsible would be hunted down and punished."
>>>>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/c...
>>>
>>>Please get your facts straight. George W. Bush was NOT the President
>>>in during the first WTC attack, nor the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, not
>>>to mention the bombings of the US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
>>>and Nairobi, Kenya, in Africa. It was Clinton who in going after Al
>>>Qaeda, and in his own admission "failed but tried." George W. Bush
>>>was the President in the 2nd WTC attack, 9/11 and failed miserably by
>>>scrapping the anti-terror initiatives and strategies that the previous
>>>Clinton administration was working on to get bin Laden.
>>>
>>>Furthermore, I believe you misread, or are spinning the Snopes article
>>>incorrectly in that he was actively pursuing OBL and Al Qaeda in that
>>>he indeed seeking them and successful to some extent in "tracking them
>>>down" and the myth that he wasn't was/is "false."
>
>>>Please follow logic.
>
>>First bombing of the WTC was, I think it was 1993 ... Clinton Prez
>>1993-2001
>>"After the 1993 WTC bombing ... President Clinton promised that those
>>responsible would be hunted down and punished" "After the 2000 bombing of
>>the USS Cole ... President Clinto promised that those responsible would be
>>hunted down and punished"
>>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/c...
>>World Trade Center 2 was during the Bush administration.
>
> Just say you stand corrected in terms of your declaration above
> referring to the USS Cole and WTC 1 attack, and we'll move on.

Obviously you didn't read the cites I gave. Both incidents happened on
Clintons watch. Again:
On February 26, 1993 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center during the
Clinton administration. The explosion caused 6 deaths, 1,042 injuries, and
nearly $600 million in property damage. Bill Clinton never visited the World
Trade Center sight after the attack, and during his weekly radio address,
advised Americans to "not over react."

And:

On November 7, 2000, In the wake of the USS Cole bombing, National Security
Adviser Sandy Berger met with Defense Secretary William Cohen to discuss a
new approach to targeting bin Laden. Berger says, "We've been hit many
times, and we'll be hit again, yet we have no option beyond cruise
missiles." He once again brings up the idea of a "boots on the ground"
option-a Delta Force special operation to get bin Laden. A plan is drawn up
but the order to execute it is never given. Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Henry Shelton oppose the plan."
http://www.therant.us/guest/k_miller/04...

Now we can move on.

>>Well obviously as you mentioned above Clinton failed ... maybe Clinton's
>>strategies were not useful ... maybe a new approach ... would you keep
>>using
>>the same strategies that had produced failure? We haven't had anymore
>>attacks on US soil so far and many have been thwarted. Would you admit
>>that? You let Clinton of by him saying that he tried and 'failed to.'
>>Bush
>>doesn't get off that easy with you ... its obvious that Bush hasn't
>>captured
>>Osama, but he has tried to and 'failed to' so far.
>
> "New approach?" What would that be? Bush's utter disregard for
> Clarke's warning to the new administration in January of 2001?
> Perhaps going on vacation for 30-days and not even acting upon a PDB
> he received in August of 2001 titled: "bin Laden determined to strike
> in US?"

You were the one who said Bush didn't follow Clintons anti-terrorist plan,
not I. Obviously whatever that plan was it was better than the Clinton
plan, we haven't had a terrorist of any size in the US since Bush was in
office. I never made any claim that there was a 'new approach.' I
surmised it was a new approach since it didn't suffer the failures like the
Clinton approach.

>>How am I 'misreading' ? Clinton didn't capture Osama, and that seems to be
>>an obsession with you, that Bush hadn't. What ever Clintons strategy was,
>>when he did have Osama spotted, no one was able to pull the trigger. I've
>>documented where he did have the chance to get Osama.
>
> "He tried and failed," and you completely missed the the de-bunking of
> the 'rumor' that he "failed to track down" the perpetrators, when in
> fact Ramzi Yussef was captured and convicted.

I was referring to the hunt for Osama ... don't try and move the goal post.

>>I try to. Recognize the double standard you have set between Bush and
>>Clinton. I wasn't at first trying to blame a particular administration.
>>I
>>noted the terrorist activity had been going on since at least the Carter
>>administration, which time period included Republican adminstrations.
>
> What double-standard? I was being objective where you OTOH are
> singularly being subjective. The fact remains and for history to
> judge is that Bush dropped the anti-terrorist effort and "ball," and
> America paid dearly for it on 9/11

I wait and let history make that judgement.

>>So, you are blaming the 2nd WTC bombing (flying a/c into the bldgs) on
>>Bush.
>>That's fine. Tell me how you as Prez would have prevented this? It had
>>never been done before. There was evidence of something like this may be
>>tried. As far as I know no hard intelligence that it was going to happen.
>>Tell me how you would know it was going to be the WTC, Pentagon, and maybe
>>the Capitol? How would you know this? You are blaming Bush explain how
>>he
>>screwed up by not knowing the exact targets?
>
> He could have taken the Clinton administration anti-terrorist
> intelligence, information and programme and act upon it.

It was the same intell ... the same CIA director. You still haven't told me
how Bush would have known passenger A/C would have been use to fly into the
WTC/Pentagon/Capitol.

Perhaps make
> it more streamlined and more effective. But he didn't he shelved it;
> demoted Clarke and even when handed the August 2001 PDB, he
> practically ignored it.

No you do not shelve intell, you keep adding to and correcting and amending
it. Did you get that tidbit from Bush's press secretary?
>
>>>>So shall we take a look at how hard Mr Clinton tried to get Osama:
>
>>>>" In May 29, 1998, after a series of deadly bombings stretching back six
>>>>years, and with bin Laden urging attacks on the U.S., Clinton's CIA
>>>>created
>>>>a plan to raid and capture bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in
>>>>Afghanistan.
>>>>After months of planning and full rehearsals that went well, the raid
>>>>was
>>>>called off by CIA Director George Tenet and others who were worried
>>>>about
>>>>possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recriminations if bin
>>>>Laden didn't survive.
>>>>
>>>>. On Aug. 7, 1998, al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and
>>>>Dar
>>>>es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 200 and injuring 5,000. Clinton's team
>>>>decided
>>>>to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camp and a Sudan
>>>>aspirin
>>>>factory.
>>>>
>>>>But they gave a 48-hour heads-up to Pakistan's army chief of staff so
>>>>that
>>>>India wouldn't think missiles were aimed at them. Forewarned, bin Laden
>>>>and
>>>>other leaders left, no terrorists were killed, and U.S. incompetence and
>>>>ineffectiveness were on full display.
>>>>
>>>>. On Dec. 20, 1998, intelligence learned that bin Laden would be at the
>>>>Haii
>>>>house in Kandahar, Afghanistan. But the U.S. passed on this opportunity,
>>>>too, again fearing collateral damage and risk of failure. Clinton
>>>>approved a
>>>>plan by his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to
>>>>capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.
>>>>
>>>>. Next, the Pentagon created a plan to use a more precise HC130 gunship
>>>>against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt.
>>>>General William Boykin later told the 9/11 Commission that
>>>>"opportunities
>>>>were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks, and a lack of vision
>>>>and
>>>>understanding."
>>>>
>>>>. On Feb. 10, 1999, CIA found out that bin Laden would be at a desert
>>>>hunting camp the next morning. The military failed to act, however,
>>>>because
>>>>a United Arab Emirates aircraft was there and it was feared an Emirate
>>>>prince or official might be killed.
>>>>
>>>>. In May 1999, the CIA learned from several sources that bin Laden would
>>>>be
>>>>in Kandahar for five days. All agreed this would be the best chance to
>>>>get
>>>>him, but word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were
>>>>still concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief
>>>>angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=30602...
>>>>
>>>>Now during the Bush administration it was very important to catch Osama.
>>>>Obviously Clinton wasn't truthful with Wallace. Its seems he alway
>>>>found
>>>>excuses to hold off from going after Osama.
>>>
>>>Again, you missed my entire point in my citation of context of
>>>Clinton's interview with Wallace. Clinton admitted that he "failed"
>>>and "tried." Will George W. Bush ever admit that given what he had in
>>>the way of the previous administration's anti-terror progress and work
>>>that he failed as well in protecting the U.S. from the most deadliest
>>>terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the way of 9/11? Perhaps not. In
>>>fact, he cannot accept the truth that by going on an unprecedented one
>>>month vacation in Crawford, and given imment threat presented in
>>>January of 2000 and again in August 2000 in the way of the PDB that
>>>was titled: "Bin Laden determine to strike in U.S." he was asleep and
>>>napping, and chasing armadillos down a hole, and not doing his job in
>>>catching the real vermin who posed a threat to this nation's national
>>>security.
>
>>See above ... How would he have know where the terrorists would strike?
>>You've got answer that question before you can blame Bush for the
>>WTC,Pentagon. Keeping in mind the CIA was headed by Tenet a Clinton
>>holdover with other Clinton holdovers at the CIA. The Bush on vacation is
>>a
>>canard to try and make Bush look irresponsible. I'll believe that when
>>you
>>show how, not only Bush, but the CIA or anyone else could have known this
>>WTC2 was going to happen
>
> There was a lot of "noise" in the international intelligence
> community. Had Bush taken Clarke and the August 2001 PDB seriously
> and in putting forth a comprehensive and better anti-terror programme
> and strategy it is certain that 9/11 may never had occurred.

Still don't tell me how Bush would have known that terrorists were going to
fly 2 passenger a/c into the WTC/Pentagon/Capitol. I need an answer on how
Bush should have known that otherwise you have not argument, just the
implication that Bush didn't act when he could have. There is no way he
could have known.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason that "9/11" fails to trip my patriotic trigger is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tragedy has been co-opted, has been corrupted, has been made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Republican Party, the Bush administration and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> synergistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stygian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neocon insanity that binds them together. The Republican Party
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush crowd have used 9/11 as the means to their many and very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dark and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diabolical ends-the complete destruction of every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inalienable" right
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacred in the nation's Constitution; as the means to the ends
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest and vile invasion of Iraq; as the means to achieve
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their ends
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for making the torture of human beings acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush was authorized to use force in Iraq by Congress nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>illegal about
>>>>>>>>>>>>it. The world waited only 12 years to try and get Saddam to
>>>>>>>>>>>>live up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>terms of the cease fire agreement of Gulf War 1. Republican and
>>>>>>>>>>>>Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>>>voted for the use of force. You might want to review public law
>>>>>>>>>>>>107-243
>>>>>>>>>>>>since you don't seem to understand what Congress did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ2...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The hysteria that the Bush administration orchestrated was
>>>>>>>>>>> phenomenal
>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of U.S. history, for at no other time has a sh-err
>>>>>>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>>>>>> President sent a country into war, under false pretenses, fixed
>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence and a whole lot of propaganda.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Factually untrue. The President had to have power to use force
>>>>>>>>>>... he got
>>>>>>>>>>that power from the Congress of the US. What were the 'false
>>>>>>>>>>pretenses and
>>>>>>>>>>fixed intelligence'? From the Senate Intelligence Committee
>>>>>>>>>>Report: "The
>>>>>>>>>>Committee did not find any evidence tht intelligence analysists
>>>>>>>>>>changed
>>>>>>>>>>their judgement as a result of political pressure, altered or
>>>>>>>>>>produced
>>>>>>>>>>intelligence products to conform with Administation policy, or
>>>>>>>>>>that anyone
>>>>>>>>>>even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>When
>>>>>>>>>>asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their
>>>>>>>>>>assesments
>>>>>>>>>>or make their judgements conform with Administratin policies on
>>>>>>>>>>Iraq's WMD
>>>>>>>>>>programs, not a single analyst answered 'yes' (page 273)" and the
>>>>>>>>>>bipartisan Silberman Robb Report later in 2005. "These
>>>>>>>>>>(intelligence)
>>>>>>>>>>errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The
>>>>>>>>>>Commission found
>>>>>>>>>>no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence
>>>>>>>>>>Community's
>>>>>>>>>>pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in
>>>>>>>>>>detail in
>>>>>>>>>>the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no
>>>>>>>>>>instance
>>>>>>>>>>did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their
>>>>>>>>>>analytical
>>>>>>>>>>judgements. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence
>>>>>>>>>>and poor
>>>>>>>>>>analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that
>>>>>>>>>>produced the
>>>>>>>>>>inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Find those WMDs yet? Yellow cake uranium from Niger, anyone? And
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>terms of the Silberman-Robb it is reads nothing more like what
>>>>>>>>>Warren
>>>>>>>>>Commission found in the way of the assassination of JFK:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>" ... Indeed, as recently as November 22, National Journal
>>>>>>>>>contributor
>>>>>>>>>Murray Waas reported that a newly discovered PDB from September 21,
>>>>>>>>>2001, advised the president of "no evidence linking the Iraqi
>>>>>>>>>regime
>>>>>>>>>of Saddam Hussein to the [9-11] attacks and that there was scant
>>>>>>>>>credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties
>>>>>>>>>with Al Qaeda." Waas reported that "according to highly placed
>>>>>>>>>government officials, little evidence has come to light [since the
>>>>>>>>>PDB
>>>>>>>>>given the president shortly after the attacks] to contradict the
>>>>>>>>>CIA's
>>>>>>>>>original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed
>>>>>>>>>between
>>>>>>>>>Iraq and Al Qaeda." Waas cited congressional sources as saying that
>>>>>>>>>the existence of the PDB was not disclosed to the Senate
>>>>>>>>>Intelligence
>>>>>>>>>Committee until the summer of 2004 ....] -
>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I believe the term "cherry picked" is the most appropriate term
>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>applies in terms of the intel.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Read Public Law 107-243 and see why the President wanted to have the
>>>>>>>>power
>>>>>>>>to use force. And no, WMD's were not found.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course the President had the "power" but the invasion of Iraq
>>>>>>>based
>>>>>>>on what intel was to be had IMO was fabricated.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If it is you opinion you should provide some proof. At least two
>>>>>>Congressional investigations didn't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>>[British Memo - Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003:
>>>>>A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] at the White
>>>>>House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion -
>>>>>reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether
>>>>>or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors
>>>>>found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme ...]
>>>>>http://tinyurl...
>>>>>
>>>>>[British Memo - Bush Had Made Up His In July 2002:
>>>>>It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military
>>>>>action, even if the timing was not yet decided. [Downing Street
>>>>>Minutes, 7/23/02]] - http://tinyurl...
>>>>>
>>>>>[Bush Suggested War Against Iraq Nine Days After 9/11:
>>>>>President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of
>>>>>Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days
>>>>>after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001. [The Observer,
>>>>>4/4/04]] - http://tinyurl....
>>>>>
>>>>>[Richard Clarke Said Bush Pushed Him To Make Case for Iraq War:
>>>>>Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism director: Rumsfeld
>>>>>was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq. And we all said . no, no.
>>>>>Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. The president dragged me into a room with
>>>>>a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find
>>>>>whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the
>>>>>entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush
>>>>>wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. [CBS 60
>>>>>Minutes, 3/21/04]] - http://tinyurl...
>>>>>
>>>>>[Rumsfeld Suggested War Against Iraq on 9/11:
>>>>>[....With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld
>>>>>ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40
>>>>>p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast.
>>>>>Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at
>>>>>same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin
>>>>>Laden....] - Rumsfeld's instruction to General Myers on 9/11: Find the
>>>>>"best info fast judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam
>>>>>Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" [Rumsfeld's
>>>>>notes, 9/11/01]] - http://tinyurl...
>>>>>
>>>>>[Former Bush Treasury Secretary Said Bush Wanted To Go To War:
>>>>>" .... "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and
>>>>>looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new
>>>>>country," he tells Suskind. "And, if we did that, it would solve
>>>>>everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of
>>>>>it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.' ..."]]
>>>>>- http://tinyurl...
>>>>>
>>>>>[Case for war pre-determined - http://tinyurl....]
>>>
>>>>>AKA: "The Bush Doctrine"
>>>
>>>>Lets put the above in context of what had transpired and what was going
>>>>on.
>>>>The previous administration had passed the Iraq Liberation Act which
>>>>called
>>>>for regime change. Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The UN oil for food
>>>>program
>>>>had been completely corrupted and Saddam was getting all the money he
>>>>need
>>>>to restart some of his WMD programs (bioweapons which could have been
>>>>restarted in 2 to 3 weeks in pharmacutical factories). Saddam had been
>>>>playing a cat and mouse game with the UN weapons inspectors. He was in
>>>>violation of Gulf War 1 treaty obligations. He was firing on
>>>>US/coalition
>>>>planes in the no fly zone. It had been about 12 years since the end of
>>>>Gulf
>>>>War 1 and Saddam hadn't complied with his treaty obligations. And if
>>>>you
>>>>remember during the Clinton administration when Saddam rejected th
>>>>Nuclear
>>>>Non-Proliferation Treaty, (Mid Dec 1998) Clinton responded with 70 hours
>>>>of
>>>>bombing and cruise missle attacks on Iraq. So it wasn't as if Bush
>>>>wanted
>>>>war. If the UN/US/coalition were going to have any credibility at all,
>>>>Iraq
>>>>had to be invaded. 12 years had gone by, there was a chance he could
>>>>put
>>>>bioweapns in the hands of terrorists. What does he tell the American
>>>>people
>>>>if one of the weapons are set of in a big US city ... we had sanctions
>>>>on
>>>>Iraq, I dont know what happened... What would you have done knowing all
>>>>this
>>>>... talk?
>
>>>Find those WMDs yet? There is no question that Saddam Hussein was an
>>>evil dictator and murderer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein
>>>thumbed his nose at the UN and the world in pretension that he was a
>>>threat. He had to. After all there was Iran to worry about and any
>>>sign of weakness, after getting his ass kicked by a true coalition of
>>>international forces in '91 when he invaded Kuwait meant having to
>>>expend what military forces he did have, given the sanctions that were
>>>in place to deal with them, and whom were poised to dispose of him.
>
>>No, no WMD's were found.
>
> Because there weren't any. There were some when under the Reagan
> administration provided Saddam Hussein with WMDs which he used against
> the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war, but to point they not exist.

We know that now, but not then. So all Saddam had to do was account for his
WMD's and there is no war. It wasn't as you said, Bush wanted a war with
Iraq.
>
>>>In hindsight, it was clear that the UN Security Council was faced with
>>>a big problem. One, George W. Bush and his erection to get Hussein;
>>>two, the Iranians who wanted his head on a stick as well, and in
>>>taking all things considered the thread of a destabilized Middle East
>>>loomed. Of course we know what happened next - The pre-emptive attack
>>>by the Bush administration and at the cost of thousand of US troop
>>>lives and a countless number of dead Iraqi civilians and families.
>
>>>Now, what you point is is in agreement with George W. Bush's
>>>"doctrine," which was not only proven bloody, but that which bears no
>>>semblence to humanity, nor diplomacy.
>
>>And we have seen so many times how the UN handles any kind of problem ...
>
> It "tries" for the benefit of diplomacy. A term that pretty much
> doesn't exist in George W. Bush's vocabulary or dictionary.

And as we saw for 12 years that UN diplomacy was a farce ... its food for
oil ... sanctions, a farce. But you wanted to keeep up the diplomacy. When
it was obvious to everyone it was a stalling tactic used by Saddam.
>
>>So Bush's 'erection' to get Hussein huh? Did you forget the previous
>>administrations policy ... The Iraq liberation act ... the policy of
>>removal
>>of the present regime which was Hussein. Seems others had 'erections' to
>>get Hussein also. Bush came into office with a previous administration
>>wanting regime change ... It wasn't just Bush as you try to make it out
>>...
>>it was US policy, not Bush policy only. Is that correct?
>
> They did not unilaterally attack, invade and occupy the country now
> did they. They didn't wreak the death and destruction that we've seen
> in the past 5-years, compared to the previous 12, right?

So that is unusually about war? ... death and destruction. Nothing was
accomplished in the previous 12 years ... what a sterling record for the UN
.... just like in Africa.
>
>>You making your assumptions on hindsight. You don't think Saddam getting
>>a
>>nuclear weapon would destabilize the Middle East.?
>
> Israel would've never allowed it, nor the Iranians and to some extent
> the Saudis. The fact of the matter is that he was a pin-headed
> dictator who pretended to have them and for reasons I cited above.

We know that now ... good monday morning quaterbacking ... predicting the
past again ... you are perfect in predicting the past.

>>Yes, people get killed in wars. Its a decision that had to be made by the
>>Prez. ... nip the problem in the bud or kick the can down the road like
>>previous administrations had done since Carter. If Great Britian/France
>>had
>>acted when Germany went into the Sudetenland, we wouldn't have had the
>>blood
>>shed of WWII, maybe. May I ask what you would have done ... Saddam had
>>ignored the many UN Resolutions, he ignored the cease fire agreement, he
>>was
>>shooting at US/coalition planes in the no fly zone. We/UN had been
>>dealing
>>with Saddam 12 years, the sanctions were a failure, Iraq was gettting all
>>the money it needed. What next Mr Heuer?
>
> Go after bin Laden who was in Tora Bora and Afghanistan. Iraq was a
> major "head fake" by the Bush administration upon the American people.
> It was a deceptive and distracting ploy to draw attention to the
> perpetrators of 9/11.

And you know for sure that Osama was in Tora Bora. Thats funny the military
didn't know for sure. There is a reason why the US didn't go after him
there. I'll tell you if you insist. Using credible people rather than
assumptions. Clinton knew for sure where he was a few times as I've pointed
out ... you don't blame him at all for not going after Osama.

>>Sure it does. Did you forget the Cold War ... the missiles in Cuba. Prez
>>JFK wasn't going to let missles this close to the US stand and promised to
>>take them out if they were not removed ... they were removed. If was
>>understood, especially by the Russian, that the US would have removed
>>them.
>>Brush up on the Cold War. Technology makes it foolish to let a threat
>>that
>>could be so deadly remain without taking action. Public Law 107-40 "The
>>President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and
>>prvent acts of international terrorism gainst the US."
>>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:p...
>
> Yes, but you forget one thing. Iraq under Hussein and who was under
> embargo and UN sanctions is not by any stretch of the imagination what
> was posed during the Cuban missle crisis and where the threat was from
> a nation that had real nukes and a large standing army and navy.
> Please don't compare apples to asparagus - It weakens your point, if
> not dilutes it.

Its not apples and oranges ... it was a country, the US willing to go into
another country which had done nothing to the US to remove the missiles. ...

>>>>>>>>So that may be your standard but the Congress set the standard for
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>investigation. If its unsatisfactory to you and the people that
>>>>>>>>believe like you
>>>>>>>>call for another investigation. Sour grapes because the
>>>>>>>>investigations didn't
>>>>>>>>come out like you wanted? In other words investigate until you find
>>>>>>>>something.
>>>>>>>>Believe anything you want ... There were Congressional
>>>>>>>>investigations that
>>>>>>>>disagree. Thank you for your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I "wanted" was what every other American wanted: The truth. And
>>>>>>>this 9/11 Commission headed by Kean was marred from the get-go with
>>>>>>>the conflicting accounts in testimony and mis-statements from the
>>>>>>>Pentagon to the FAA and even the Whitehouse.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Who's to say you didn't get the 'truth'. There were at least two
>>>>>>Congressional investigations of what went wrong. I don't recall any
>>>>>>of them
>>>>>>saying that maybe if the Prez had not have had a 30 day vacation, this
>>>>>>(9-11) would not have happened. It seemed there was a lot of faulty
>>>>>>intell
>>>>>>and intell analysis by our intell agencies.
>>>
>>>>>Please refer to "The Bush Doctrine" above.
>
>>>>What about the "Bush Doctrine" ... and which Bush Doctrine ...
>>>>1.'withdrawing from the ABM treaty, rejecting the Kyoto protocal' 2.
>>>>Days
>>>>after 9-11 "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists' 3.
>>>>Pre-emptive war 4. Spreading democracy around the world?
>
>>>To wit: "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various
>>>related foreign policy principles of United States president George W.
>>>Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks." - Wiki
>
>>>And to call this a success, or even a "Mission Accomplished" is
>>>nothing short of delusion.
>
>>Call it delusion if you wish, but it was an incorrect statement. Do you
>>think he made it in good faith or that he knew that it was a 'lie'? Are
>>Presidents allowed to make mistakes or do their mistakes automaticlly
>>become lies?
>
> Please stick to the "doctrine" itself. It appears that your point is
> that it is a successful foreign policy.

I've never once said it was a successful foreign policy ... I believe it is
a correct one. I don't beleive apparently as you do that we should sit back
and wait for a attack that we are relatively sure that may come ... Saddam
giving WMD's to terrorists.

> " I hope - I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm
> confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot
> here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming
> up with one ...." --- George W. Bush, Whitehouse Press Conference,
> April 13, 2005
>
>>>>>>>>>>> And of course the
>>>>>>>>>>> contagion spanned across the aisle of government - The Rove-ian
>>>>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>>> of political conquer-and-divide came quite succinctly in Bush's
>>>>>>>>>>> "you
>>>>>>>>>>> are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The 'Rove-ian method of political conquer-and-divide'??? According
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>factcheck" Congress was given the same National Intelligence
>>>>>>>>>>Estimate that
>>>>>>>>>>the Prez looked at and" Congress was entitled to view the 92-page
>>>>>>>>>>National
>>>>>>>>>>Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote.
>>>>>>>>>>But no more
>>>>>>>>>>thatn six senators and a handful of Housse members read beyond the
>>>>>>>>>>five-page
>>>>>>>>>>executive summary." That doesn't seem like a very severe
>>>>>>>>>>contagion ...
>>>>>>>>>>These are the people that were giving the Prez the power to use
>>>>>>>>>>force. Were
>>>>>>>>>>they responsible?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To deny that he did divide the country with that quote and in terms
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>bringing into question each American's sense of "patriotism" and in
>>>>>>>>>building a case to go to war and invade Iraq which is now a part of
>>>>>>>>>history is delusional. And as far as the 2002 NIE it is filled
>>>>>>>>>with a
>>>>>>>>>bunch of "mights" "coulds" "probablys" etc. - It is a laundry list
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>cherry picked intel and speculation which when presented to
>>>>>>>>>Congress
>>>>>>>>>was all the spin that was needed to establish the "Bush Doctrine"
>>>>>>>>>when
>>>>>>>>>it came to making a case for war against another country.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Find those WMDs yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Congress voted to give the President the power to use force.
>>>>>>>>Congress
>>>>>>>>knew what a vote to use power means ... Congress represents the
>>>>>>>>'people.'
>>>>>>>>Its your opinion that Congress was delusional to give the Prez the
>>>>>>>>power to
>>>>>>>>got to war. It wasn't just the Bush Administration that believed
>>>>>>>>that there
>>>>>>>>needed to be regime change in Iraq. It was also the policy of the
>>>>>>>>previous
>>>>>>>>administration: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law
>>>>>>>>105-338) [1]
>>>>>>>>(codified in a note to 22 USCS ? 2151) is a United States
>>>>>>>>Congressional
>>>>>>>>statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq; it was signed
>>>>>>>>into
>>>>>>>>law by President Bill Clinton."
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your opinion noted. Congress had the opportunity to see the NIE.
>>>>>>>>They
>>>>>>>>voted to give the President the power to use force. "Might, coulds
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>probablys" are probably in most intelligence reports ...
>>>>>>>>Intelligence
>>>>>>>>gathering is not exact like math.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>However, 'precision' in terms of justifying the attack and invasion
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>a sovereign country should be the criteria. What we saw in the build
>>>>>>>up to the war was anything but precise. It was for the most part
>>>>>>>sabre-rattling and a whole lot of mis-information and propaganda
>>>>>>>built
>>>>>>>around the 9/11 attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>>That is your opion. It would be nice if you recognized that. I've
>>>>>>debunked
>>>>>>so far the information you've writen here from the 'yellow cake' to al
>>>>>>Qaeda
>>>>>>had no contact to Iraq. The war with Iraq didn't start didn't start
>>>>>>until
>>>>>>2003. Congress was informed. From 9-11-01 until 2003 is no rush, but
>>>>>>time
>>>>>>to plan and think about the kind of response to 9-11. How would you
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>responded and how long would you have waited to respond? If Saddam
>>>>>>had
>>>>>>accounted for his WMD's as he was suppose to their would have been no
>>>>>>war.
>>>>>>Does Saddam have any blame attached to him or is it just Bush who is
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>blame?
>>>>>
>>>>>Please refer to "The Bush Doctrine" above.
>>>
>>>>Spell out which Bush Doctrine and I will.
>
>>>Again, to unilaterally declare war on a sovereign nation and shedding
>>>foreign policy and relations by defying the UN Security Council which
>>>the U.S. has a seat in was not only ignorant but a complete failure in
>>>diplomacy, as we now see with the trillions of dollars spent on a "war
>>>in error" that was built on false pretenses and propaganda.
>
>>In other words we didn't do what the UN wanted us to do, that seems to be
>>your premise? Is the President responsible to the UN when it come to
>>protecting the American people? Was the UN corrupt ... food or oil
>>failure
>>... sanctions failure. Saddam ignored at least 16 UN Resolutions. Put
>>the
>>US population at risk for this???? Answer please. If the US did suffer a
>>terrorist attact (bioweapon) and 1000's died what do you tell the American
>>people? I want you to answer that? If your family/relatives/friends were
>>kill in that attack would it satisfy you if the Prez said 'well the UN had
>>sanctions, and an oil for food program going on? Or would you have
>>expected
>>the Prez to take a more aggressive stance against terror? Please answer
>>all
>>these questions.
>
> In most debates it is virtually impractical to establish a
> counter-point with questions.

I'll take that as you cannot answer the questions ... the same ones you
complain about how Bush responded ... you are just a complainer. You just
know he was wrong though.

For the fact of the matter is that
> George W. Bush squandered an opportunity to have an entire planet
> going after "terror" and "terrorism" on a global and unified and
> sanctioned scale. Instead, and by unilaterally attacking and
> occupying Iraq, which now it is clear had 1) nothing to do with 9/11 -
> 2) no WMDs and 3) is a nation literally destroyed as a result of the
> "Bush Doctrine" this region of the world is more unstable as it ever
> was.

Blah Blah Blah ... You are repeating yourself. No one every said Iraq had
anything to do with 9-11. You have all the complaints and no answers of
what Bush should have done.

>>>>>>>>No, no WMD's were found ... that is not the only reason we went to
>>>>>>>>war with
>>>>>>>>Iraq. Briefly this was the thinking at the time. "Powell and
>>>>>>>>Armitage had
>>>>>>>>been arguing that the US response to 9/11 should focus tightly on
>>>>>>>>Afghanistan and al Qaida. Sate officials assessed, probably
>>>>>>>>correctly, that
>>>>>>>>our allies and friends abroad would be more comfortable with
>>>>>>>>retributive US
>>>>>>>>strikes against the perpetrators of 9/11 than with a global war
>>>>>>>>against
>>>>>>>>Islamic terrorists and their state supporters. A narrowly scoped
>>>>>>>>campaign
>>>>>>>>of punishment would keep US policy more in line with the traditional
>>>>>>>>law
>>>>>>>>enforcement approach of fighting terrorism. Here we came back to
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>distinction between punishment and prevention. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
>>>>>>>>and I
>>>>>>>>all thought that US military action should aim chiefly to disrupt
>>>>>>>>those who
>>>>>>>>might be plotting the next big attack against us. Of greatest
>>>>>>>>concern was a
>>>>>>>>terrorist attack using biological or nuclear weapons. We needed
>>>>>>>>actions
>>>>>>>>that would affect the terrorist network as extensively as possible."
>>>>>>>>War &
>>>>>>>>Decision, Doug Feith. There it is laid out briefly ... the Prez had
>>>>>>>>to make
>>>>>>>>the decision, a tit for tat response or disrupt the whole terrorist
>>>>>>>>network?
>>>>>>>>Keep in mind the Prez resposibility is to keep the people safe.
>>>>>>>>Knowing
>>>>>>>>what he knew at the time, he chose to go into Iraq. Like the
>>>>>>>>decision or
>>>>>>>>not that's the decision the President had to make. Sure people
>>>>>>>>could
>>>>>>>>disagree with it, but someone has to make the decision and so far we
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>not been attacked in the US ... the more successful his policy of
>>>>>>>>not having
>>>>>>>>anymore attacks the more he is hated.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you read "Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>Deception" by former Whitehouse spokesman Scott McClellan? Evidently
>>>>>>>not. The conflation of the info and exaggeration and perhaps
>>>>>>>criminal
>>>>>>>activity that went on to promote this "threat" from Iraq is well
>>>>>>>documented.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Does it document that Saddam had been playing a cat and mouse game
>>>>>>with the
>>>>>>UN weapons inspectors, Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers,
>>>>>>Iraq
>>>>>>shooting at US/coalition air craft in the no fly zone. That this was
>>>>>>allowed to go
>>>>>>on for about 12 years? This wasn't just the Bush administration that
>>>>>>saw Iraq
>>>>>>as a threat. This is a press secretary who is not privy to the policy
>>>>>>making and
>>>>>>strategy meetings. I, having not read the book, as I said cannot
>>>>>>comment, but
>>>>>>I would be leary of putting to much faith in what he said because of
>>>>>>his lack of
>>>>>>inside information. Thats just my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hussein was a mad-man and an murderous tyrant, and that we can all
>>>>>agree, and the game he played with the US and the UN was a dangerous
>>>>>one, but again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and what Bush did in
>>>>>commiting our armed forces in this manner was not only inexcusable but
>>>>>completely irrational as Hussein himself.
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I have not read the book so I feel uncomfortable about commenting
>>>>>>on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, here is a primer:
>>>>>
>>>>>[.... McClellan criticized the Bush administration in his 2008 memoir,
>>>>>What Happened.[3] In the book, he accused Bush of "self-deception"[4]
>>>>>and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather
>>>>>than making the best choices.[5] McClellan stopped short of saying
>>>>>that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing
>>>>>that the administration was not "employing out-and-out deception" to
>>>>>make the case for war in 2002,[6] though he did assert the
>>>>>administration relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign"
>>>>>over well-established facts to sell the Iraq war.[7] His book was also
>>>>>critical of the press corps for being too accepting of the
>>>>>administration's perspective on the war[5] and of Condoleezza Rice for
>>>>>being "too accommodating" and overly careful about protecting her own
>>>>>reputation.[4]
>>>>>
>>>>>In a Washington Post article on June 1, 2008 McClellan said of Bush:
>>>>>"I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a
>>>>>fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White
>>>>>House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American
>>>>>people."[8]
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking frequently on the TV circuit, McClellan told Keith Olbermann
>>>>>in an interview on June 9, 2008 regarding the Iraq War planning: "I
>>>>>don`t think there was a conspiracy theory there, some conspiracy to
>>>>>deliberately mislead. I don`t want to imply a sinister intent. There
>>>>>might have been some individuals that knew more than others and tried
>>>>>to push things forward in a certain way, and that`s something I can`t
>>>>>speak to. I don`t think that you had a bunch of people sitting around
>>>>>a room, planning and plotting in a sinister way. That`s the point I
>>>>>make in the book. At the same time, whether or not it was sinister or
>>>>>not, it was very troubling that we went to war on this basis."[9]] -
>>>>>Wiki
>>>
>>>>>As the adage goes: "If it quacks like a duck ...."
>>>
>>>>You don't seem to understand the problem ... This is 12 years after Gulf
>>>>War
>>>>1 ... the sanctions had failed ... Saddam was getting all the money he
>>>>needed to restart his WMD programs ... he had kicked the inspectors out
>>>>...
>>>>he was paying the families of suicide bombers ... he was shooting at
>>>>US/coalition air craft. What happens if an a/c is shot down and a flier
>>>>is
>>>>captured ... the dynamics of an invasion changes if he aquires nuclear
>>>>weapons. He had violated the treaty so restarting the war could have
>>>>been
>>>>automatic. Can you see past tomorrow? If he gets nuclear weapons the
>>>>rest
>>>>of the countries have to respect Saddam power ... the US loses any
>>>>leverage
>>>>in the middle east. It was go to war now or maybe risk a wider war
>>>>later
>>>>on. What do you suggest the Prez do?
>>>
>>>What did George H. W. Bush do? He continued for what was left of his
>>>term to apply the pressure to Hussein, and carried out by the
>>>subseqent Adminstration. What "junior" did was to not to out-last or
>>>out-play Hussein, but to destablize a volatile region in the ME in the
>>>way of sectarian violence and possibly a civil war, as well as
>>>creating a training and proving-ground for every terrorist wacko in
>>>the ME. Rather what "junior" did was to destroy a country that may
>>>have been spared the death and destruction through diplomacy and
>>>possibly attrition with the assistance of US/international
>>>intelligence, in the way of the Iraqis disposing of this dictator. It
>>>was done before, but what George W. Bush did was not only out of
>>>complete ignorance and incompetence but that which defied even the
>>>conventional wisdom of his OWN father who was once the director of the
>>>CIA. And to this point we are where we are with an unstable ME, and
>>>unstable economy and a foreign policy/relations that is in ruin.
>
>>This is getting laughable. Answer the questions I've asked above about
>>putting the fate of the American people in the hand of the UN. A
>>President's duty is to protect the Ameican people first and foremost.
>>You
>>cannot seem to understand that. You've not said one thing about Saddam 16
>>UN resolutions he ignored, UNRes 1441 being the last ... Just what Bush
>>did
>>wrong when his duty is to protect the American people
>
> You are laughing because the points and opinions raised are a
> challenge for you to refute. And BTW attacking a sovereign country of
> Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and trying oh-so-hard to
> convince the American people that it did, and then to later declare
> that it didn't and at the cost of tens of thousands of our troops
> injured and maimed; thousands kill, with multiples of Iraqi citizens,
> namely women and children and the elderly; if not depleting our armed
> forces is despicable.

Been over all that. I refuted every valid point you raised.
>
>>>>That is untrue ... Rumsfeld spelled out almost every thing that could go
>>>>wrong in Iraq and gave it to Bush ... Bush still chose to go to war and
>>>>almost everything that Rumsfeld said that could go wrong went wrong.
>>>>Bush
>>>>was about defending the American people.
>>>
>>>Rumsfeld cherry picked the intelligence and was canned when his
>>>pipe-dreams over a "Mission Accomplished" did not develop. You do
>>>remember as to the reason why he was disposed. Do you?
>>>
>>>"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the
>>>speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And
>>>what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of
>>>defense." --- George W. Bush, Whitehouse, Washington, DC, April 18,
>>>2006
>
>>You keep using the term 'cherry picked intelligence.' Don't be so
>>disingenuous. I've cited at least twice in this thread that two
>>Congressional investigations proved otherwise. It was bad tradecraft in
>>the
>>intell community, and faulty intell. Please acknowledge this ok? Now is
>>that a true statement? You use presumptive language to make you arguments
>>that I have already debunked. I've recognized the fact that the term
>>Mission Accomplish was incorrect, but not a lie. Neither of us can know
>>if
>>it was a lie because we cannot know Bush's heart. Yes, I remember why
>>Rumsfeld was dumped. Your implication is that he was dumped because of
>>'cherry picking' intell. Please quote a reputable cite where Rumsfeld was
>>dumped for 'cherry picking intell."
>
> You are now making me "laugh"."

But what I say is true ... you cannot back up your implication that Rumfeld
was dumped for cherry picking intell.
>
> [ .... APPARENTLY Donald Rumsfeld is a much more effective defence
> secretary once you get to know him. This according to Douglas Feith, a
> former Pentagon official, who writes in the Washington Post that much
> of what the public knows about Mr Rumsfeld is wrong. If only much of
> what we know about Mr Feith was also wrong, the Pentagon might not
> bear so much of the blame for Iraq's troubles. Reality, alas, has its
> consequences.

Depending on someone who was in on the most of the high level meetings and
was part of the policy making is a lot better source than the press
secretary. His book is well footnoted and has many unclassified documents.
You have the press secretary's musings.
>
> While trying to defend his former boss, Mr Feith unwittingly makes the
> case that he himself is responsible for much of the bungling in Iraq.
> For example, Mr Feith claims that Mr Rumsfeld-in what Mr Feith calls
> the "parade of horribles" memo-warned George Bush of the risks
> involved in invading and occupying Iraq. The question then follows:
> Why was Mr Feith, who headed the office responsible for post-war
> planning, unable to anticipate any of the horrible outcomes of the
> occupation? Mr Feith sets himself up again by arguing that Mr Rumsfeld
> insisted on briefings that were "full of facts" and "rigorously
> sourced".

And the parade of horribles were well know by the Prez before he made the
decision to invade. The Prez was well served.

Was Mr Feith then disobeying his boss when he set up a
> Pentagon operation to cherry-pick intelligence on the insubstantial
> connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda?

Cite that please. The DOD gets there intell from the CIA/NSA/ and some from
the DIA. What was the name of the Pentagon operation to 'cherry pick
intell.' The truth is that there never was ... that's an figment of the
press. Give the cite.
>
> In other areas, Mr Feith has a selective memory. For example, Mr
> Rumsfeld may have "never told Gen. John Abizaid or Gen. Tommy Franks
> that U.S. Central Command could not have the number of troops that the
> commanders deemed necessary". But he did publicly shoot down General
> Eric Shinseki's suggestion that "several hundred thousand soldiers"
> might be needed in Iraq.

There was a problem of getting that many troops in right away ... logistics.
It was a mistake that there wasn't enough troops .... but you know the
perfect war I'm sure.
>
> Perhaps Mr Feith is alluding to Don Quixote when he compares Mr
> Rumsfeld to "a fascinating character in a work of epic literature". He
> adds, "Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance
> and reality." Mr Feith, unfortunately, seems set on ignoring the
> latter.] - Source: Economist.com

Make your point.
>
>>>>How would he even have any idea of the choices Bush had in going to war.
>>>>He
>>>>did not sit in on any of the high level meetings ... he was a press
>>>>secretary.
>
>>>He was the spokesman for the Bush administration, fer Christsakes.
>>>Granted he was not privy to the more nefarious goings-on in the
>>>Whitehouse, but his conscience of course kicked in and now we have on
>>>record what we have in the way of an administration that was bent on
>>>going to war without prevarication nor sound justification.
>
>>>>Did he give any 'well-established facts to sell the Iraq war'? Where
>>>>are
>>>>these facts ... he has none because he wasn't privy to the meetings that
>>>>decided war policy.
>
>>>No. Of course not. He was about to be 'thrown under the bus' .... Or
>>>there was a perception of it, and decided that he had enough of this
>>>nonsense.
>
>>>>Could it be that Congress had the National Intelligence Estimate and
>>>>believed in giving the Prez the power to use force. As I've said before
>>>>it
>>>>was faulty intell ... not that the Prez lied ... Two Congressional
>>>>investigations made that clear.
>
>>>Two congressional inquiries still do not atone for the unilateral and
>>>unsanctioned invasion, attack and occupation of a sovereign nation,
>>>and regardless of who the leader is. In fact, one misses the point
>>>established that there was more to this than just George W. Bush and
>>>Saddam Hussein's ego - There were the people of Iraq.
>
>>Spokesman is the operative word. He sat in on no high level war policy
>>meetings. Everything he knew was second hand. Don't pretend he was
>>inside
>>the policy making area.
>
> He certainly was instrumental in the Bush administration's effort to
> present to the American people certain falsehoods and misinformation.


What falsehoods ...?

>>Assumptive lanugage again ... 'nefarious' how do you know anything was
>>nefairous. You answered you own question ... he was 'not privy to ...'
>>You
>>don't like the policy and you say it was nefarious.
>
> You don't call subverting the US Constitution nefarious?

Yes, I would call that nefarious ... where did Bush subvert the
Constitution.

> [....President Bush argues that the surveillance program passes
> constitutional inquiry based upon his constitutionally delegated war
> and foreign policy powers, as well as from the congressional joint
> resolution passed following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
> These arguments fail to supersede the explicit and exhaustive
> statutory framework provided by Congress and amended repeatedly since
> 2001 for judicial approval and authorization of electronic
> surveillance. The specific regulation by Congress based upon war
> powers shared concurrently with the President provides a
> constitutional requirement that cannot be bypassed or ignored by the
> President. The President's choice to do so violates the Constitution
> and risks the definite sacrifice of individual rights for the
> speculative gain from warrantless action...] - Wiki - FISA and
> Warrantless Wiretaps of American Citizens

I don't know enough about this to comment on it ... it will be decided in
the courts, I'm sure.

>>So, I see you are going on 'perception' ... great thing to build an
>>argument
>>on ... one persons perception. Someone who had nothing to do with policy
>>or
>>even sat in on a highlevel policy making meeting.
>
> McClellan saw from all accounts much that the American free press and
> citizens alike did not.

So what ... nothing illegal. Anything that you think was missed, see the
presss about it. I like the press trying to keep the politicians in line.
>
>>But one thing it does do is shot to hell your continuous repeating that
>>the
>>Bush administration 'cherry picked intelligence.' You continue to say
>>that
>>when you know it isn't true.
>
> Please do your own research.

I did my own research or I would have accepted you 'cherry picking intell'
argument. At least two Congressional investigations that I cited proved my
point ... there was no cherrypicking of intell or shading intell.

Justify how vital it was for the U.S. to
> invade and occupy Iraq; justify the death and destruction wreaked upon
> a country and people that had nothing to do with 9/11 and to a greater
> extent Osama bin Laden; justify the measure took from the Downing
> Street Memo to the outing of a CIA asset in the way of Valerie Plame
> did this Bush administration take to "justify" a war that was/is for
> the most part the greatest mistake since the election of George W.
> Bush, and his handling of the anti-terror efforts left by the previous
> administration. No. The justifications are little to nil, and there
> was certainly a whole lot of "cherry picking" of the intel, if not
> fabrication thereof, and coupled with a sophisticated means by which
> to "catapult" the propaganda, we have in essence a picture of an
> Administration run amok.

You may think the administration has run amok, but that is opinion. The
administration did make mistakes in Iraq, but then again it was war and
mistakes are made in war. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter was
handled better, IMO.
>
>>>>Ms Rice tried to mesh the different views opinions of the war between
>>>>State
>>>>and DOD.
>>>
>>>Secretary of State Rice tried to conceal the title of the August 2001
>>>PDB.
>>>
>>>>How does he square the above statement with what you just quoted: "[5]
>>>>McClellan stopped short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his
>>>>reasons
>>>>for invading Iraq,? He sounds confused to me. If he believed all of
>>>>the
>>>>above, which he couldn't have because he wasn't privy to the meetings,
>>>>he
>>>>should have resigned, IMO. That would have been the honorable thing to
>>>>do.
>>>
>>>He did resign; he wrote what he wrote and from his conscience, and of
>>>course will earn some income from this.
>>>
>>>>All sides of the argument were aired and Bush listened to them ... he
>>>>was
>>>>the one who ultimately had to make the decision. He was served well,
>>>>IMO.
>>>
>>>He is not the king of the world as it was up to diplomacy and a UN
>>>Security Council vote which he sidestep and defied.
>>>
>>>>On what basis? Many decisions were made on faulty intell.
>>>
>>>It makes it worst when you have a president who cannot rationalize nor
>>>comprehend the intel which is presented to him; especially with regard
>>>to the anti-terror efforts presented to him from the previous
>>>administration back in January 2000 when he took office.
>
>>You've recognized the fact that Clinton couldn't catch Osama or stop
>>terrorist attacks against the US. Why should he keeep the previous
>>administrations anti-terror effort? ... obviously it wasn't working,
>>Clinton
>>admitted that as you quoted him above.
>
> Again, you are missing the point that Bush dropped-the-ball by
> ignoring the threat in January 2000 and in a report from Clarke and in
> the August 2000 PDB.

Ok thats you opinion. Until you can tell me what he should have done
differently about expecting passenger a/c flying into buildings, that
statement means nothing. Do you think Clintons policy would have prevented
the attacks? He couldn't get Osama ... the terrorist events that happened
on his watch. This is not a knock on Clinton though.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all truth, the Republican Party and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush crowd have used 9/11 as the excuse to rape this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> country and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people of every conceivable dignity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, yeah, for me, September 11 is more than just another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> day-but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a day to be commemorated. Sorry, but I won't pay homage to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> day that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked the beginning of the death of EVERY truth that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nation had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>>>>>> held to be self-evident.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no idea what 'truth' is as it relates to the war
>>>>>>>>>>>>against Islamic
>>>>>>>>>>>>terrorists and the invasion of Iraq. You could start by reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>War and
>>>>>>>>>>>>Deision, by Douglas Feith, and follow the time line of
>>>>>>>>>>>>resolutions issued
>>>>>>>>>>>>against Iraq by the UN since the end of Gulf War 1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Douglas Feith?" You've gotta be kidding me. He along with Wm.
>>>>>>>>>>> Kristol and Robert Kagan of the infamous think tank Project for
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> New American Century (PNAC), and enablers in the George W. Bush
>>>>>>>>>>> administration was one of the architects in the unilateral
>>>>>>>>>>> invasion
>>>>>>>>>>> and conquer of Iraq - A country which had, as later intelligence
>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>> was divulged, no ties to Osama bin Laden.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Want to tell me how any of the three named above individuals could
>>>>>>>>>>take the
>>>>>>>>>>country to war without going thru Congress? I looked at the PNAC
>>>>>>>>>>a non
>>>>>>>>>>profit educational organization ... they are taking us to war?
>>>>>>>>>>Osama bin
>>>>>>>>>>Laden is a strawman, but you may want to look at the letter from
>>>>>>>>>>CIA
>>>>>>>>>>director George Tenet to Bob Graham Sen Select Committee on
>>>>>>>>>>Intelligence:
>>>>>>>>>>Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida,
>>>>>>>>>>Senators
>>>>>>>>>>could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a.. "Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-
>>>>>>>>>> Qa'ida is
>>>>>>>>>>evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>information we have received comes from detainees, including some
>>>>>>>>>>of high
>>>>>>>>>>rank.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> b.. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between
>>>>>>>>>> Iraq and
>>>>>>>>>>al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> c.. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have
>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> d.. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have
>>>>>>>>>>been in
>>>>>>>>>>Baghdad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> e.. We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought
>>>>>>>>>> contacts in
>>>>>>>>>>Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting
>>>>>>>>>>also stated
>>>>>>>>>>that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas
>>>>>>>>>>of poisons
>>>>>>>>>>and gases and making conventional bombs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> f.. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest
>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US
>>>>>>>>>>military
>>>>>>>>>>action."
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci1...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"What did Iraq have to do with what? . . . [Question: The attack on
>>>>>>>>>the World Trade Center] . . . Nothing." --- George W. Bush, in
>>>>>>>>>finally getting it right, Washington, DC, August 21, 2006
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Read the web page. Its self explanitory. I wasn't trying to make a
>>>>>>>>case
>>>>>>>>that Osama was involved in the attack on the WTC ... it was a note
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>passing. You made the statement: "A country which had, as later
>>>>>>>>intelligence
>>>>>>>>data was divulged, no ties to Osama bin Laden." That makes your
>>>>>>>>statement
>>>>>>>>invalid, no matter how weak the ties were. It was an aside anyway
>>>>>>>>... remember
>>>>>>>>I called it a strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I beg to differ. In fact, Saddamn Hussein saw things differently
>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>the ideological and political perspective of Osama bin Laden, and why
>>>>>>>the latter was better off in the mountains between Afghanistan and
>>>>>>>Pakistan. Does Tora Bora ring a bell?
>>>>>
>>>>>>You may beg to differ and you have every right to differ, but that is
>>>>>>not my
>>>>>>summation, that is the CIA's summation. Sure it does.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's not meander from the point I am making, and again please refer
>>>>>to "The Bush Doctrine" stipulated above.
>>>
>>>>I will when you explain what you want me to explain about it. I've
>>>>explaned
>>>>the three Bush doctrines that I know of.
>>>
>>>Again, and to wit: "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe
>>>various related foreign policy principles of United States president
>>>George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001
>>>attacks." - Wiki
>>>
>>>And to call this a success, or even a "Mission Accomplished" is
>>>nothing short of delusion.
>
>>Answered above ... see Cold War/Cuba.
>
> Red herring argument. Please move on.
>
>>>>>>>>Correct. Iraq had no connection to the attack on the WTC. See
>>>>>>>>above for
>>>>>>>>why the Prez decided to go into Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've read what it said. It is the "Bush Doctrine" in all it's glory.
>>>>>>>Pre-emptive attacks justify the ends as far as George W. Bush was
>>>>>>>concerned. Yes, Hussein was a threat; yes he was a tyrant and a
>>>>>>>dictator that had to be removed. But when 9/11 happened, this gave
>>>>>>>Bush the excuse he needed to take him out and to throw this region of
>>>>>>>the world into chaos, death and destruction. How many Iraqis have
>>>>>>>died? How many more US soldiers must die in order to end this war
>>>>>>>which was built on false pretenses, fixed intelligence and
>>>>>>>propaganda?
>>>>>>>You can cite all you want about the powers of the executive; you can
>>>>>>>cite all you want about how this was approved by a Republican
>>>>>>>congress
>>>>>>>and shared by Democrats in the passing of the degree, but in this
>>>>>>>case
>>>>>>>that 'power' was abused and people countless numbers of Iraqis died
>>>>>>>for this.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bush's duty is to protect Americans ... today's military technology
>>>>>>may
>>>>>>sometimes mean pre-emptive attacks. Had you rather wait and see a
>>>>>>mushroom
>>>>>>cloud over some US city before acting. Since we were worried that
>>>>>>Saddam
>>>>>>may give terrorist WMD's (bioweapons) that just maybe Iraq may be a
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>place to start.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please spare me the fear mongering: "We found the weapons of mass
>>>>>destruction. We found biological laboratories -- And we'll find more
>>>>>weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the
>>>>>banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we
>>>>>found them." --- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003
>>>
>>>>So you don't believe that another bioweapon could be smuggled and used
>>>>in
>>>>the US. Terrorists attacks have been thwarted in the US. A few of the
>>>>know
>>>>attacks that were thwarted: ". September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American
>>>>citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda after
>>>>attending
>>>>jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y. .
>>>>August
>>>>2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at
>>>>New
>>>>York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3355...
>>>>
>>>>You deny reality bro. The more successful the Administration has been
>>>>in
>>>>stopping terrorist attacts in the US the more you slam him. You can
>>>>crow if
>>>>you want but I'm talking about reality.
>>>
>>>You are not addressing with any certainty the point's I am raising,
>>>"bro." The terror, or threat thereof still exists, and this notion
>>>that by having George W. Bush, or presently in this election campaign
>>>season, a Republican in the Whitehouse to insure "security" is not
>>>only realistic, but that which is based on fear-mongering and
>>>propaganda. Furthermore, the citation of a Fox News Network story
>>>does add a partisan touch, but does not readily address the point that
>>>George W. Bush's proclamation in a "Mission Accomplished" was for all
>>>intents and purposes nothing more than dog-and-pony show to conceal
>>>the true Pandora's Box that he has unleashed upon the U.S. and the
>>>world.
>
>>Nothing can stop the terrorists ... it can be controlled and minimized
>>though.
>
> Which Bush failed to do by disregarding the threat in January and
> August of 2001.

So far its been minimized ... no major attacks in the US for the time being.
There could possibly be one tomorrow though. The terrorism networks has
been set back.
>
>>How can it be fear mongering? I just cited where some terrorists
>>opertions
>>have been thwarted. Its reality. I'm I lying with the cite? ... were
>>there
>>terrorist attacks thwarted? Get real. Your assumption is conservatives
>>are
>>all liars. That says a lot about you.
>
> Take Palin and McCain of late ..... Please.

No, lies I know of but I haven't been following the campaigning, so I don't
really know.
>
>>So you implication is that none of these terrorist events happened? Is
>>that
>>what you are saying?
>
> You can't establish a coherent point with a question.

I'll take that as you accept terrorist events have been stopped in the US.
If you answered the question my point would have been made. That is why you
avoided answering it.
>
>>Citing a conservative network is automatic suspect. Conservative views
>>shouldn't be aired? This is fact bro. Don't imply it didn't happen, it
>>did.
>
> "Fair and Balanced?" They don't call if "Fixed News" for nothing.

Who is they?
>
>>You have your time line backwards and couldn't not make that statement
>>until
>>after Iraq blew up which I've acknowledged. You are Monday morning
>>quarterbacking ... fortelling the past ;)
>
> You are one to talk. You thought ".... Bush was President during the
> two terrorist events you write of above ..." (ie. WTC 1 and the USS
> Cole). Right.

Which he was. Read my cites.
>
>>>>They WMD's were not found to the extent that I would call finding WMD's.
>>>>Remember if Saddam had complied with the cease fire treaty there would
>>>>have
>>>>been no war. You try to put the onus of war on Bush when it has been
>>>>the
>>>>policy of at least two administrations. You find no fault for the war
>>>>against Saddam who constantly violated the ceasefire treaty for 12 years
>>>>...
>>>>I know it was Bush's fault.
>>>
>>>I put the entire responsibility of this irresponsible "war" on George
>>>W. Bush because it was he who led this great nation down this "War In
>>>Error." Additionally, don't you find it strange that the onus in this
>>>campaign is in this "surge" which the McCain-Palin campaign are now
>>>touting as some sort of victory, or suggested insurance against
>>>another 9/11 or something worst? Didn't you get the point that
>>>Petraeus expressed in his departure recently? No. Please find a clue
>>>in the fact that the "threat" will continue until some semblence of
>>>rationality, leadership, foreign relations and above all diplomacy
>>>return to the mission of ridding this country, if not the world of
>>>these "extremist" which are not exclusive to only the Muslim faith,
>>>but those who find this war as some sort of mission, or order, "from
>>>God."
>
>>So Congress giving him the power wasn't irresponsible? ... Saddam ignoring
>>the cease fire agreement for 12 years had nothing to do with the war?
>>Time
>>for the 'cherry picking intell/propaganda' reply.
>
> Congress giving him the power was responsible. What he did with that
> "power" was reprehensible in the context of diplomacy and foreign
> relations.

What was reprehensible was 12 years of diplomacy accomplishing nothing.
Left to you we would still be talking and Saddam may have nuclear weapons.

Again, defiance of the impending UN Security Council vote
> and going ahead and attacking Iraq unilaterally, and given the FIXED
> intel in justification presented to the American people and for which
> he received his power was in the sense of humanity hideous.
>
>>The surge has been a success so far. Its not the end though. Whether
>>successful or not, it doesn't insure against another terrorist attack.
>>Nothing can do that.
>
> Again, you need to read what Gen. Petraeus has stated, because
> Republicans are beginning to sound like this:

Again your opinion. No one should celebrate until our troops are not in
combat.
>
> "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq,
> the United States and our allies have prevailed." - George W. Bush,
> speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS
> Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

Please leave this out ... I've responded it many time that it was a mistake
.... can we leave it there?
>
> Almost but not quite like the 'little boy who cried wolf.'
>
>>Sure, he's not about to declare victory. Its would be crazy to do that.
>>No
>>one knows if it is or not.
>
> You'd be surprised of how the Palin-McCain campaign are framing this;
> as well as Fox News.

Quote where either have said the war against terrorist or the war in Iraq
has been won?

>>I don't think anyone thinks this is a mission from God. We do know that
>>the
>>Islamic Jihadist want to impose Islam on the rest of the world by
>>attacking
>>the West. Your believing that in some way diplomacy will work with these
>>people is a pipe dream at best. They want to do away with the West. This
>>war against Islam will go on for a long time and in different forms, IMO.
>
> You just painted an entire religion with a big GOP/Republican Fox News
> Network, AM conservative talk radio brush. You realize that don't
> you?

Please reread ... I painted Islamic jihadist ... that isn't all of Islam or
a religion or didn't you know that. Don't put words in my mouth.
>
>>>>>>So, as you see it, the US is the reason for all the 'chaos, death and
>>>>>>destruction. I suggest you widen your view of the world. Look whats
>>>>>>happening in Europe, Africa, and Asia for example. Is it Americans or
>>>>>>Islamic jihadists that all causing all the 'chaos, death, and
>>>>>>destruction?
>>>>>>Look at the riots in Europe becase of a cartoon, Darfur, Sudan as a
>>>>>>couple
>>>>>>of examples. Who challenges these Islamic jihadists if its not the
>>>>>>US?
>>>
>>>>>We are not the world's police force as you are trying to suggest here.
>>>
>>>>I never said the US was the worlds police force. The point I was trying
>>>>to
>>>>make is you put the fault of the war on Bush, saying he lied, when
>>>>Congressional investigations say just the opposite. That for some reason
>>>>Bush want to get us into a war with Iraq, when all over the world its
>>>>the
>>>>Islamic jihadists that are causing trouble. WWII started because the
>>>>world
>>>>sat by while Germany started invading countries. Bush was doing his
>>>>Constitutional duty to protect the American people as he saw it.
>>>
>>>>See above.
>>>
>>>I did, and in your point you cited "'chaos, death, and destruction,"
>>>and in questioning who will challenge this. Your answer is as clear,
>>>and in defense of George W. Bush's "doctrine."
>
>>Those three words are yours, not mine.
>
> Let me put it this way: Yes they are "mine," and yes in the context of
> these three words address presented a counter-point which has you now
> reduced to simply citing it.
>
>>It wasn't from the above works, but I do defend the Bush Doctrine, of
>>pre-emptive attacks. Its been a part of our foreign policy, pre Bush.
>>See
>>Cold War/Cuba. It grows out of the right of self defense ... nations have
>>that.
>
> Again, Iraq was not a threat and was contained by the UN and coalition
> forces via embargos and no-fly zones.

That is flat out wrong. Saddam shot at planes in the no fly zone. UN
sanctions were useless.

The "cold war" mentality is
> that which Bush pounded into the American psyche via propaganda and
> fixed intelligence, and with the aid of PNAC.

I'm tired of refuting that ... it does no good, you keep parroting the same
things that have been debunked and refuted.
>
>>>>>>You take you opinion as fact. I've just explained that Congress has
>>>>>>had at
>>>>>>least two investigations and found no problems with the Administration
>>>>>>use
>>>>>>of FAULTY, intelligence that took us to war. But you say the above
>>>>>>like it was
>>>>>>fact ... it is your opinion, understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, you are meandering and again I implore you to refer to the
>>>>>"Bush Doctrine" above.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Did Congress abuse their power? I know you think Bush abused his
>>>>>>power but
>>>>>>so far you haven't made a case. If Congress abused their power why
>>>>>>have you
>>>>>>let them off? They are the ones that gave the power to Bush to use
>>>>>>force?
>>>>>>No power, no war.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they were subverted when Bush went ahead and attacked and inspite
>>>>>of the UN Security Council vote to commit troops and attack. The
>>>>>congressional vote was in deference to the world body who was deciding
>>>>>the course of action in terms of Iraq and the WMD case that Bush
>>>>>fabricated:
>>>>>
>>>>>[Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under
>>>>>international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN
>>>>>Resolution 1441 (2002).[26] The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it
>>>>>is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security
>>>>>council. If these requirements are not met international law describes
>>>>>it a war of aggression.[27]
>>>>>
>>>>>The position of the US and UK is that the invasion was authorized by a
>>>>>series of UN resolutions dating back to 1990. Resolution 1441 declared
>>>>>that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN
>>>>>Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons
>>>>>inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that
>>>>>under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to
>>>>>suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the US and UK claim that they
>>>>>used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to
>>>>>continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of UN Resolution
>>>>>678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq
>>>>>invaded Kuwait.[28] This is the same argument that was used for
>>>>>Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[29] They also contend that, while
>>>>>Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from
>>>>>the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an
>>>>>agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined
>>>>>that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain
>>>>>any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed
>>>>>by Iraq".[30]
>>>
>>>>>It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council
>>>>>can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as UN
>>>>>members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret
>>>>>and enforce UN resolutions for the entire council.[31] In addition,
>>>>>other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to
>>>>>initiate hostilities.[32] John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn
>>>>>assert that the Iraq war was a violation of the U.N. Charter and as
>>>>>such a war of aggression (a crime against peace) and therefore a war
>>>>>crime.[33] Kofi Annan too has said the war in Iraq is an "illegal act
>>>>>that contravened the UN charter."[34] Some scholars, including
>>>>>Columbia law professor Michael Dorf, have argued that treaties are
>>>>>binding on the U.S. under international law.[35] ...] - Wiki
>>>
>>>>A legality huh, The US is the country that has alway supplied the armed
>>>>force to the UN. The UN was content to talk as the had been doing for
>>>>12
>>>>years ignoring about 16 UN resolutions. A cardinal rule in foreign
>>>>policy
>>>>is that you don't let someone else make your foreign policy. One of
>>>>Bush's
>>>>duties is to protect the American people and to sit around an debate in
>>>>the
>>>>UN. UN Resolution 1441 could easily been interpreted to go to war.
>>>>Saddam's violation of the cease fire treaty renews a war that was
>>>>already in
>>>>progress. Still trying to lay the war on Bush? If you think we were
>>>>subverted write you Congressman ... get them to start impeachment.
>>>
>>>In the context of the international community of governments and
>>>states, and specifically in his "decision" to go and invade, attack
>>>and occupy Iraq, George W. Bush saw that he was 'imperial' if not
>>>above diplomacy in this regard.
>
>>Was JFK 'imperial' when he threatened Cuba to get the missiles out of
>>Cuba?
>>Should JFK had waited until Cuba fired a missile at the US? Technology
>>makes that a fools choice.
>
> Again, you are using the wrong comparison. Iraq did not equal the
> threat that the USSR posed.

It was missiles in Cuba that was the threat ... I made that clear. What
every you want to compare it with is up to you, but it was going after a
sovereign nation that had done nothing to the US. Just like Iraq.
>
>>>>Why was the Iraq Liberation Act passed in a previous administration?
>>>>Regime change???
>
>>>Ask George W. Bush's father, whom he surprised by invading, attacking
>>>and occupying Iraq.
>
>>Bush was following a policy that was already in effect by a previous
>>administration. Bush I recognized the fact that Iraq was a threat same as
>>his son. Terror events against the US were continuing as I've pointed
>>out.
>>Do we suffer continuous terrorist attacks and try to have diplomatic
>>relations with Islamic jihadists whose goal is the death of the West.
>
> Rebuts in the form of a question is not a compelling retort. Also in
> terms of your hyperbole regarding 'relations with Islamic jihadists,'
> do you find that the current government in Iraq/Baghdad is Shia?
> Iranian Shia with militias and arms and support that we the U.S. are
> providing them? Whoa. I hope your head didn't explode with that
> point :)

Off topic.

>>>>UN Res 1441 was the 'final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
>>>>obligations'. "By violating 16 Sec Council resolutions adopted to
>>>>contain
>>>>him, Saddam was exposing a paradox: Anymeans short of war would be
>>>>worthless unless Security Council members were willing to enforce
>>>>them--through war if necessary. The stakes in teh Council's
>>>>confrontation
>>>>with Iraq had implications far beyond Iraw." War and decision, D Feith.
>>>>You know what those implications were, that the UN would become just
>>>>like
>>>>the League of Nations useless. Bush did the right thing.
>
>>>Bush, to his credit did the "right" wing and PNAC "thing."
>
>>As opposed to the 'left' wing 'thing' keep suffering terrorist attacks and
>>keep using diplomacy. By the way its a none profit educational cite. Do
>>you suggest that in order to be in govt there are conservative
>>associations
>>one cannot belong to, like the PNAC?
>
> Come now. I pretty much quashed your point that PNAC was some benign
> educational entity and of course you fail to see what happens when it
> takes over and crafts government and foreign policy and namely in the
> way of the Executive branch.

In your dreams.
>
>>>>UN Resolution 1441 was 'a final opportunity to comply with its
>>>>disarmament
>>>>obligations.' It had only been 12 years. What would you have done?
>>>>Still
>>>>talking today I guess.
>>>
>>>Where are those WMDs? Yellow cake uranium from Niger?
>
>>Why do you keep asking that question ... I've answered it. I think the
>>yellow cake is in Canada now. I'm not sure though. I've debunked the
>>yellowcake story via factcheck.
>
> Pithy that. There was no yellow-cake sold to Iraq from Niger. It was
> all part and parcel of the intel fixing which in this context VP Dick
> "Shoot 'em in the face" Cheney co-ordinated.
>
>>>>Thats the problem with the US they get noting done after 12 years and 16
>>>>UN
>>>>Res violations. How many years and UN Resolutions have to be violated
>>>>before something is done. It was obvious to most everyone that Saddam
>>>>was
>>>>playing for time. You would make a good UN representative.
>>>
>>>Actually, in my youth and many years ago I had the very special
>>>privilege of experiencing the UN in session, and far be it from most
>>>who see, hear or experience it from it strictly from some trailer
>>>park, and presented in some contorted perspective from the Fox News
>>>Network, AM conservative radio or any press that fabricates or twists
>>>it into something that it is not; or missing the entire point that
>>>this world is very, very small indeed and we are "people" with a
>>>singular hope of unity and peace, and not 'pigs with lipstick,' about
>>>to bash each others heads in with sticks over a piece of hardened
>>>composite of vulcanized rubber - But of course today it is "oil." But
>>>thanks for the recognition.
>
>>To the UN's credit one cannot have such a large budget and not do some
>>good
>>in the world. Other than that the UN is a corrupt organization, but I
>>don't
>>want to get into that. One just has to look at how it handled the food
>>for
>>oil program.
>
> Well, I certainly agree but there are those who are willing to throw
> the proverbial "bath out with the baby."
>
>>>>>>>>>Thus, by ridding the Iraq of Hussein who as a tyrant and a dictator
>>>>>>>>>held the sectarian killings and the possibility of a religious
>>>>>>>>>civil
>>>>>>>>>war, this "Bush Doctrine" opened up and created a training ground
>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>every terrorist wacko on earth to take pot shots at our military
>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>he put there. No, nation-build is not good enough when it comes to
>>>>>>>>>the decimation of our military and in the manner of a new form of
>>>>>>>>>"Manifest Destiny."
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then Bush's/Rumsfeld strategy to disrupt the terrorist network
>>>>>>>>worked; ...
>>>>>>>>it funnelled the terrorist into Iraq and distrupted the planning for
>>>>>>>>more
>>>>>>>>terrorist attacks against the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'll agree the US military shouldn't be in the business of nation
>>>>>>>>building
>>>>>>>>... as far as "Manifest Destiny" is a stretch, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Again, PNAC is it's contemporary and just another way of putting it.
>>>>>>>To this point the prospect and hypothesis of the WMDs were nothing
>>>>>>>more that a pretense, if not pretext to justify the use of military
>>>>>>>force. Granted several countries including Britain joined in on
>>>>>>>this, however and for the most part the 'proof-is-in-the-pudding.'
>>>>>>>When asked why we went to war in Iraq the reasons changed so
>>>>>>>frequently it was difficult to pin-point as to simply 'why?'
>>>>>
>>>>>>Surely you cannot be serious, and educational, non-profit organization
>>>>>>caused the US to invade Iraq?? Were they instrumental in causing
>>>>>>Congress
>>>>>>to give Bush the power to use force. Sorry, you have to make that
>>>>>>case.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please just declare what it is: A conservative think tank that played
>>>>>an instrumental and major part in the invasion and occupation of
>>>>>Iraq.
>>>
>>>>No, I will not declare something that you have no evidence of. A
>>>>membership
>>>>in an organization doesn't mean that organization runs the US govt. Are
>>>>you
>>>>aware how our govt operates? Recognize reality ... as much as you want
>>>>it
>>>>to be true it is not.
>>>
>>>Okay. Okay.
>>>
>>>[The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative
>>>think tank with strong ties to the American Enterprise Institute.
>>>PNAC's web site says it was "established in the spring of 1997" as "a
>>>non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American
>>>global leadership."
>>>
>>>PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly
>>>advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members hold
>>>highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>The PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in 1997,
>>>with roots in the 1992 Pentagon. PNAC's original 25 signatories were
>>>an eclectic mix of academics and conservative politicians, several of
>>>whom have subsequently found positions in the presidential
>>>administration of George Walker Bush. PNAC is noteworthy for its focus
>>>on Iraq, a preoccupation that began before Bush became president and
>>>predates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the
>>>group wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, Mississippi Senator
>>>Trent Lott (then Senate Majority Leader) and Newt Gingrich (then
>>>Speaker of the House of Representatives), demanding a harder line
>>>against Iraq. By then, the group had grown in numbers, adding
>>>individuals such as former Reagan-era U.N. Ambassador Jeane J.
>>>Kirkpatrick, and long-time Washington cold warrior/pro-LikudRichard N.
>>>Perle.
>>>
>>>According to William Rivers Pitt, "Two events brought PNAC into the
>>>mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W.
>>>Bush and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the
>>>Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of
>>>PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and
>>>the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long
>>>last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive
>>>policy."[1]
>>>
>>>Several original PNAC members, including Cheney, Khalilzad and the
>>>Bush family, have ties to the oil industry. Many other members have
>>>been long-time fixtures in the U.S. military establishment or Cold War
>>>"strategic studies," including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula
>>>Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W.
>>>Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R.
>>>Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. It should not be
>>>surprising, therefore, that while the group devotes inordinate
>>>attention to Iraq, its most general focus has been on a need to
>>>"re-arm America." The prospect of mining oil riches may explain part
>>>of the group's focus on Iraq, but this motivation has been buried
>>>under the rhetoric of national security and the need for strong
>>>national defense.
>>>
>>>To justify a need to "rearm" the country, however, reasons must be
>>>found. In the more peaceable world of the late 1990s, with no rival
>>>super-power in sight, Iraq and "ballistic missile defense" against
>>>"rogue states" were the main games in town. The group's links to
>>>advocacy for ballistic missile defense came through Donald Rumsfeld,
>>>who in 1998 chaired a bi-partisan commission on the "US Ballistic
>>>Missile Threat" and Vin Weber, a registered lobbyist for Lockheed
>>>Martin and other Fortune 500 companies ....] - Source: SourceWatch
>>>
>>>Get the point? Remember what Eisenhower said when he decided not to
>>>run for re-election in '60?
>
>>The word dominate: to rule over, govern, control. Would you please cite
>>where this organization does this .. a quote that this is their mission.
>
> Iraq.
>
>>Perfectly legal ... should they have to give up their membership in the
>>PNAC???
>
> Of course not but we know see what happens with a "think tank" does
> the thinking for the Executive branch of the US government.

What do we know ... your assertions?
>
>>Nothing illegal so far, that anyother interest group doesn't do.
>
>>And ....
>>
>>Haven't seen anything illegal so far. But you seem to imply that a person
>>should only be allowed to join govt oked organizations.
>
> Not necessarily but a whole lot of "trust" went into having them run
> the Whitehouse, didn't it? Where was George W. Bush's "trust" of the
> American people placed when they began their destruction of a country?

The American put their trust in Bush twice. They trutsted him more than
Gore/Kerry

>>9-11 wasn't a good reason to rearm. Its been the history of the US to be
>>unprepared for war. Whats wrong with recognizing that fact.
>
> You make it sound like a virtue. And Bush obliged that by ignoring
> the threat presented in January and August of 2001 in the way of the
> PDB and Clarke's briefing with Rice - How many anti-terror meetings
> did they have? Answer that and you've addressed your contention
> regarding being "unprepared."

Your are repeating yourself ... I've already responded to this.
>
>> In the more peaceable world of the late 1990s,
>
> The world was not "peaceable." With the attack on the USS Cole, the
> US embassies in Africa, and the ever growing threat of foreign terror
> was a premium by the Clinton administration placed upon the work the
> anti-terror groups who were on-line and active in dealing with it.
>
>>You completely omit the terrorists acts against the US/world against
>>terrorist ... at least since the Carter administration.
>
> I beg to differ and no I am not. I am emphasizing what the threat has
> since become - It was/is to George W. Bush's folly that the most
> deadliest attack upon the U.S. came on his watch.

One attack on his watch? High Standard how about Clintons watch and the
previous presidents watch.
>
>>Billistic milliles useless against terrorists.
>
> Of course, and it was the Cold-War mentality of PNAC that warped the
> US foreign policy, and when it tried to craft policy with the NEW
> threat they found in it a means by which to create MORE terrorists.

So the US is causing the terrorism in the world ... forget the terrorist
acts against the US since Carter.
>
>>Russia and China threats ... the world is dangerous place. Do you suggest
>>we disarm? China is starting to build a blue navy.
>
> Of course not. You are hyperboling. It's about putting forth sound
> strategic armament initiatives. Not kooky ones like what PNAC offers.

True or False ... China and Russia are potential threats against the US.
>
>>Yes, and earlier Americans didn't believe in standing armies "... to raise
>>and support armies, .." Art I, sect 8 US Constitution. Things have
>>changed
>>since Ike.
>
> Little has changed since Ike and his citation of the Military
> Industrial Complex and it's relation to government and namely the
> Pentagon, and what we saw with PNAC's influence over the past 7-8
> years and over 5 years in Iraq.

Tired lame stuff.
>
>>Did it work? At least he went to war to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Didn't
>>seem to work did it? Note the many terrorist attacks around the world and
>>the first bombing of the WTC during the Clinton administration. The
>>second
>>bombing of the WTC under Bush II. I hardly call that working do you?
>>Would
>>you want to continue the policy of the US being a door mat to the
>>terrorists
>>or push back. Or should we have run to the UN for protection.
>
> The terrorist took Clinton seriously in where he "tried and failed."
> When Bush took office they saw an opportunity in the way of a
> no-nothing and struck.

Your opinion only as you've not given a single example where Clinton could
have prevented the WTC attack.
>
>>"May have been spared the death and destruction through diplomacy?" Are
>>you
>>serious? There had been 12 years of diplomacy. Saddam was ignoring
>>everything? How long would you have tried diplomatic solutions, before
>>you
>>recognized reality ... Saddam was stalling, playing for time until he got
>>his WMD program up and running again ... he had neutralized the UN through
>>corruption and ignoring sanctions. Answer the above questions.
>
> Circular logic won't work here. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
> and of which you whole point hinges upon in suggesting that there was
> a relationship.

You are being untruthful. Quote me where I said Saddam had anything to do
with 9/11. This is one of the most untruthful statements you have made.
>
>>Pie in the sky, Saddam was as strong as every. He was ruthless in dealing
>>with his enemies ... he gassed his own people. Get real.
>
> He gassed the Kurds near the end of the 1st Gulf war in the early 90's
> however by 2003 his military was decimated and under-armed and yes the
> sanctions were working.

The Kurds in Iraq is/was Saddams own people True or False? He had an iron
grip on his country and it was getting stronger and stronger.
>
>>And the middle east would have been stable with Saddam with nuclear
>>weapons?
>>You have such trust in diplomacy. It will be tested in Iran. I'm hoping
>>it
>>will work, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Stop spinning points I did not raise, and to pose it in a non-sequitur
> question no less. The fact remains that Saddam for all the evil that
> he was kept the peace between the Shia and Sunnis; did not accept Bin
> Laden's jihadist ideals; and sold oil to the Saudis. He was there for
> all intents and purposes a factor in keeping the ME stable - When Bush
> attacked and invaded and virtually destroyed the country, it opened up
> and presented sectarian killings on a wide scale and allowed the
> Iranians and intelligence agents to gain a foothold within the Iraq
> government and who are pretty much now in control, and as I've stated
> above. And THIS is the "Bush Doctrine."

You are repeating yourself ... I've been over this and addressed it.
>
>>>>>>Yes, that is Monday morning quarterbacking ... its very easy to say
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>now, when at least two administrations thought different.
>>>>>
>>>>>The last 'two?' I see: Bush/Cheney 2000-2004 and Bush/Cheney
>>>>>2004-200?
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I agree, Bush did imply the reasons had changed. But the
>>>>>>intelligence
>>>>>>we had at the time, although, faulty was that Saddam had WMD's. As an
>>>>>>aside
>>>>>>the reasons for the US Civil War per Lincoln ... from to save the
>>>>>>Union to
>>>>>>do away with slavery. It turned out the CW was a good thing. Over
>>>>>>the long
>>>>>>haul maybe it will turn out that the war against Islamic terrorists
>>>>>>will be
>>>>>>a good thing. Bush didn't promise a short war ... remember????
>>>>>
>>>>>He was wishing for a "short war," remember?
>>>>>
>>>>>"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq,
>>>>>the United States and our allies have prevailed." - George W. Bush,
>>>>>speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS
>>>>>Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003 - http://tinyur...
>>>>>
>>>>>What he got was something entirely different.
>>>
>>>>True.
>>>
>>>Of course: A distablized Middle East; domestic-economic uncertainty, a
>>>ruined foreign policy and relation with traditional allies, distrust
>>>and dissatisfaction with government, fear of terror, more partisan
>>>propaganda from both sides of the political aisle, etc., etc.
>>>
>>>"... I'm a uniter not a divider - I don't like the politics of pitting
>>>one group of people against another, the politics of pointing fingers.
>>>" --- George W. Bush, Cleveland, OH, February 29, 2000.
>
>>All presumptive language, with some half truths. I'm not getting into an
>>argument about domestic policy.
>
>>I'm not getting into an argument about domestic policy. I will say that
>>there is no party more devisive than the Dem party ... a party that kow
>>tows
>>to the words diversity and multiculturalism. Nothing is more divisive
>>than
>>that. The end. I'm not arguing that.
>
> It goes hand-in-hand.

In your book, it does.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> But here is more on this Republican so-called "patriot" in this
>>>>>>>>>>> 'war
>>>>>>>>>>> on terror':
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [.... It has been alleged by Former NSC Intelligence Director
>>>>>>>>>>> Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>> Cannistraro and author Stephen Green that Douglas Feith
>>>>>>>>>>> involuntarily
>>>>>>>>>>> left the NSC in March, 1982 and lost his security clearance
>>>>>>>>>>> after he
>>>>>>>>>>> fell under suspicion of the FBI for passing classified material
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> Israeli embassy officials who were not entitled to receive
>>>>>>>>>>> it.[41][42][43] This would have required the Bush administration
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> reissue Feith his clearance before bringing him into the
>>>>>>>>>>> Pentagon.[42]
>>>>>>>>>>> This version of events is disputed by the NSC head at the time,
>>>>>>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>>> William Clark. When a Montana newspaper reported this
>>>>>>>>>>> accusation,
>>>>>>>>>>> Clark, who was Reagan's National Security Adviser at the
>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>> time, wrote a September 22, 2005 letter to the editor[44] to
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> the record
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So you are going on 'alleged' information? He received the DofD
>>>>>>>>>>highest
>>>>>>>>>>civilian award the Distinguished Public Service Medal. Your smear
>>>>>>>>>>noted.
>>>>>>>>>>How about addressing the information/issues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Are you his counsel? C'mon. Please get a grip:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[ ...."'He was very arrogant,' Karen Kwiatkowski, Feith's former
>>>>>>>>>deputy, says, describing what it was like to work with him. 'He
>>>>>>>>>doesn't utilize a wide variety of inputs. He seeks information that
>>>>>>>>>confirms what he already thinks. And he may go to jail for leaking
>>>>>>>>>classified information to The Weekly Standard.' (As she explains,
>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>article appeared in The Weekly Standard that included a leaked memo
>>>>>>>>>written by Feith alleging ties between Saddam Hussein and al
>>>>>>>>>Qaeda.)
>>>>>>>>>"It seems unlikely that Feith will face time for the leaked memo.
>>>>>>>>>But
>>>>>>>>>he may well be forced to look for a new job soon. As he knows all
>>>>>>>>>too
>>>>>>>>>well, regime change isn't pretty." ....] -
>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Vocationally, that he has.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I'm not Mr Feith's counsel, but lets wait until he is convicted
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>something. I'll agree Feith was one of the architects of the Iraqi
>>>>>>>>war.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course Feith was never charged but there were reports that link
>>>>>>>him
>>>>>>>to the fabricated "evidence" he gave to the enablers and decision
>>>>>>>makers in justification of going to war in Iraq - Please consider:
>>>>>>>Department of Defense Inspector General, "Report on Review of the
>>>>>>>Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of
>>>>>>>Defense for Policy," Report No. 07-INTEL-04, February 9, 2007:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>[... I. Did the Office of Under Secretary Feith produce its own
>>>>>>>intelligence analysis of the relationship between lraq and a1 Qaeda
>>>>>>>and present its analysis to other offices in the Executive branch
>>>>>>>(including the Secretary of Defense and the staffs of the National
>>>>>>>Security Council and the Office of the Vice President)?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. In our report we discuss that members of the OUSD(P) produced a
>>>>>>>briefing on terrorism based on intelligence reports and provided to
>>>>>>>the Executive Branch.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>2. Did the intelligence analysis produced by Under Secretary Feith's
>>>>>>>office differ from the lntelligence Community analysis on the
>>>>>>>relationship between lraq and a1Qaeda ?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. The OUSD(P) analysis included some conclusions that differed
>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>that of the Intelligence Community.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>3. Was the alternative OSD Policy intelligence analysis supported by
>>>>>>>the underlying intelligence? Partially. The alternative intelligence
>>>>>>>analysis that OUSD(P) produced was not fully supported by underlying
>>>>>>>intelligence.
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>8. Did the staff of the OUSDP undercut the lntelligence Community
>>>>>>>(IC)
>>>>>>>in its briefing to the White House staff with a slide that said there
>>>>>>>were 'fundamental problems' with the way the IC was assessing
>>>>>>>information concerning the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda,
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>inaccurately suggesting that the IC was requiring 'juridical evidence
>>>>>>>to support a finding,' while not providing the IC notice of the
>>>>>>>briefing or an opportunity to comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. We believe that the slide undercuts the Intelligence Community
>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>indicating to the recipient of the briefing that there are
>>>>>>>"fundamental problems" with the way that the Intelligence Community
>>>>>>>was assessing information ...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Source:
>>>>>>>http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%2...
>>>>>
>>>>>>So we slime Mr Feith, by listing all the allegations? Convict him
>>>>>>here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Questions regarding Feith are substantiated by accounts presented by
>>>>>the IG, and those still linger. "Slime?" On the contrary. If
>>>>>anything is slippery is Feith's part in all this.
>>>
>>>>Hes been convicted of nothing to my knowledge.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A subordinate of Feith's, Larry Franklin, was convicted, and
>>>>>>>>>>> sentenced
>>>>>>>>>>> to 12 years in Federal prison in 2005 for charges in an
>>>>>>>>>>> espionage
>>>>>>>>>>> scandal. Franklin was accused and convicted of passing
>>>>>>>>>>> classified
>>>>>>>>>>> information to an Israeli diplomat and Steven Rosen, an employee
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Israeli AIPAC lobby. A reporter for the Asia Times wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> September 2004 that the ongoing FBI counter-espionage probe into
>>>>>>>>>>> improper transmission of classified information to AIPAC from
>>>>>>>>>>> 1999 to
>>>>>>>>>>> shortly before the 2003 Iraq Invasion could involve Feith.[43]
>>>>>>>>>>> Feith
>>>>>>>>>>> has not publicly commented on the investigation.[54] Franklin
>>>>>>>>>>> was one
>>>>>>>>>>> of 1,500[74] employees at Feith's Pentagon office, and
>>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>> worked six layers of bureaucracy beneath Feith. However, while
>>>>>>>>>>> leading
>>>>>>>>>>> the Office of Special Plans (OSP), Feith used Larry Franklin
>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly for sensitive meetings involving foreign citizens,
>>>>>>>>>>> overseas
>>>>>>>>>>> ] - http://tinyurl....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Six layers of bureaucracy beneath Feith says it all. Probably a
>>>>>>>>>>real policy
>>>>>>>>>>maker huh? Address the issues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One of the architects of the Iraq war he certainly was. There is
>>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>>denying it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention how the Bush administration attempted to create
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> mass hysteria over the "Yellow Cake Uranium" from Nigeria which
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> course former US Ambassador Wilson proved was nothing but fixed
>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence and a lie which Bush fabricated and presented in
>>>>>>>>>>> his 2003
>>>>>>>>>>> SOTU, and in his justification in going to war in Iraq - In
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> words a "lie."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You may want to read what factcheck has to say about the yellow
>>>>>>>>>>cake.
>>>>>>>>>>"For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the
>>>>>>>>>>significance of
>>>>>>>>>>the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC's Meet the Press May 2, 2004:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wilson: .At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be
>>>>>>>>>> a tragedy
>>>>>>>>>>to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium
>>>>>>>>>>was not
>>>>>>>>>>discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>sophisticated to think
>>>>>>>>>>that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later
>>>>>>>>>>date.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But that's not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA's
>>>>>>>>>>view,
>>>>>>>>>>Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking
>>>>>>>>>>uranium
>>>>>>>>>>in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who
>>>>>>>>>>reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>Wilson's report upon his return from Niger:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials
>>>>>>>>>>admitted
>>>>>>>>>>that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>Nigerian
>>>>>>>>>>Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing
>>>>>>>>>>uranium,
>>>>>>>>>>because this provided some confirmation of foreign government
>>>>>>>>>>service
>>>>>>>>>>reporting."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_ur...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"What did Iraq have to do with what? . . . [Question: The attack on
>>>>>>>>>the World Trade Center] . . . Nothing." --- George W. Bush, in
>>>>>>>>>finally getting it right, Washington, DC, August 21, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That wasn't the issue ... you wrote: " ... former Ambassador Wilson
>>>>>>>>proved
>>>>>>>>was nothing but fixed intelligence and a lie which Bush fabricated
>>>>>>>>and ..."
>>>>>>>>I just proved you wrong, it was not fabricated by Bush. Bush also
>>>>>>>>had other
>>>>>>>>intell from the UK that backed up the CIA.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I beg to differ.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>[... In late February of 2002, Wilson was sent to Niger on behalf of
>>>>>>>the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a deal
>>>>>>>to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. Wilson met with the current U.S.
>>>>>>>Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick (1999-) at the embassy
>>>>>>>and was informed that she had already debunked that story; however,
>>>>>>>they agreed that Wilson would interview dozens of officials who had
>>>>>>>been in the Niger government when the deal had supposedly taken
>>>>>>>place.
>>>>>>>He ultimately concluded: "it was highly doubtful that any such
>>>>>>>transaction had ever taken place."[4][23]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>According to the United States Senate Select Committee on
>>>>>>>Intelligence
>>>>>>>Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence
>>>>>>>Assessments on Iraq (2004), on the basis of his trip to Niger,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador [Wilson]
>>>>>>>was able to provide more information about the meeting between former
>>>>>>>[Nigerien] Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. ...
>>>>>>>[Wilson] said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but
>>>>>>>never
>>>>>>>discussed what was meant by [the two countries] "expanding commercial
>>>>>>>relations" [being suggested by the Iraqis]. ... [Wilson] said that
>>>>>>>because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country
>>>>>>>under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to
>>>>>>>steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi
>>>>>>>delegation.[24][25][26]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wilson's New York Times op-ed responded to President Bush's
>>>>>>>controversial "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The
>>>>>>>British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
>>>>>>>significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[27][28]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The foundation for the Wilson assertions was undermined by the Senate
>>>>>>>Intelligence Committee report (page 17)[3], the Butler Committee
>>>>>>>report [4] and Joseph Wilson himself [5]. Some Bush critics have
>>>>>>>alleged (including Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame) that Iraq may not
>>>>>>>have been looking to acquire uranium from Niger, to which the British
>>>>>>>Inquiry said "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials
>>>>>>>visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from
>>>>>>>several different sources indicating that this visit was for the
>>>>>>>purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost
>>>>>>>three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."
>>>>>>>[6]
>>>>>>>[7]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On March 7, 2003, 11 days before the United States-led coalition
>>>>>>>invasion of Iraq, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
>>>>>>>released its report determining that documents indirectly cited by
>>>>>>>President Bush as suggesting that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of
>>>>>>>uranium from Niger were actually "obvious" forgeries.[29] ...] -
>>>>>>>Source: Wiki
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "proof" in all of this was laid to bear in the infamous
>>>>>>>"Plame-gate" and the outing of a CIA asset which linked the
>>>>>>>Whitehouse
>>>>>>>staff and Cabinet to this coordinated attacks in retribution against
>>>>>>>the Wilsons - Does I. Scooter Libby ring a bell?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And then of course was the Downing Street Memo -
>>>>>>>http://tinyurl....
>>>>>
>>>>>>You read Factcheck ... they are out there for the truth. Wilson was a
>>>>>>known
>>>>>>liar. Factcheck isn't the only place that recognizes that fact.
>>>>>>First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam
>>>>>>Hussein
>>>>>>was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that
>>>>>>proposition are
>>>>>>a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6,
>>>>>>French
>>>>>>intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA
>>>>>>report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that
>>>>>>proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now who is "sliming?" LOL
>>>
>>>>Its not sliming if it true ... Factcheck backs me up.
>>>
>>>No. You cited Fox and a conservative pro-PNAC blog.
>
>>No, I cited factcheck about Wilson being untruthful.
>
> Incorrect. It was the Bush administration:

It was factcheck and I stand by that.
>
> [....Although court affidavits of the Special Counsel Patrick
> Fitzgerald and exhibits pursuant to later U.S. Congressional
> investigations ascertain otherwise, some in the media (Jeff Gannon -
> White House reporter) questioned whether or not the CIA still
> considered Plame a covert officer - that is, the precise nature of her
> "classified" status or the type of "cover" that she had and whether or
> not it was "official" or "non-official" - at the time she was outed in
> the Novak column of July 14, 2003.[33] But official legal documents
> published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation,
> United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations fully
> establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at
> the time that Novak's column was published in July 2003.[8][34][35]

Off topic ... See factcheck. You are getting into the V Pfame affair.

> In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Fitzgerald explained in
> considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his grand jury
> investigation that began in the fall of 2003 - "when it was clear that
> Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown" - and the background and
> consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to
> Valerie E. Wilson.[19]
>
> Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further
> light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its
> lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could
> and could not reveal legally at the time.[19] Official court documents
> released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he
> was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York
> Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the
> October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
> According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him
> that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant
> portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[36] According to his
> testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to
> Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration
> critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after
> Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor
> Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into
> kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking
> at what can be made available."[37] A "sanitized version" of the NIE
> in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days
> after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House
> background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[38]
> The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but
> the Special Counsel has suggested that White House actions were part
> of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr.
> Wilson."[39] President Bush had previously indicated that he would
> fire whoever outed Plame.[37]
>
> A court filing by Libby's defense team argued that Plame was not
> foremost on the minds of administration officials as they sought to
> rebut charges made by her husband, that the White House manipulated
> intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicated that
> Libby's lawyers did not intend to say he was told to reveal Plame's
> identity.[40] The court filing also stated that "Mr. Libby plans to
> demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and
> other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her
> husband to Africa as important," indicating that Libby's lawyers
> planned to call Karl Rove to the stand. According to Rove's lawyer,
> Fitzgerald has decided against pressing charges against Rove.[7]
>
> The five-count indictment of Libby included perjury (two counts),
> obstruction of justice (one count), and making false statements to
> federal investigators (two counts) ...] - Wiki

As I said off topic, I addressed the yellow cake with factcheck ... V Plame
is off topic.

>>>>>>This isn't difficult. In 1999, a senior Iraqi "trade" delegation went
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is
>>>>>>goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to
>>>>>>Niger?
>>>>>>Maybe Saddam dispatched his Baathist big shots all the way to the
>>>>>>dusty
>>>>>>capital of Niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew
>>>>>>with a
>>>>>>side order of black-eyed peas, and Major Wanke, the then-president,
>>>>>>had
>>>>>>offered him a great three-for-one deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But that's not what Joe Wilson found. Major Wanke's prime minister,
>>>>>>among
>>>>>>others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted
>>>>>>yellowcake. And
>>>>>>Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the
>>>>>>British
>>>>>>and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from
>>>>>>Africa."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/117...
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ....Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum, activist and chat
>>>>>site for self-described conservatives and nationalists, primarily
>>>>>within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted
>>>>>pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers,"[2] using
>>>>>screen names. For each article, the forum's main page typically shows
>>>>>its headline, plus the first 100 words of the article as posted to
>>>>>Free Republic. Users can see the full article at its original source
>>>>>by clicking a hyperlink beneath the headline.]] - Wiki
>>>>>
>>>>>Heheheh. Right.
>>>
>>>>Ignoring Factcheck?
>>>
>>>Again, subjective and slanted conservative blogs do not count. Please
>>>try again, and spare us both the citations and let me know what you
>>>really 'think,' as I shall subsequently truncate in-kind for the sake
>>>of bandwidth, and point-for-point. Thanks.
>
>>FactCheck isn't a conservative cite. Anything you disagree with seems to
>>be
>>conservative. You only want one view the left. I've backed up all claims
>>with
>>cites and refuted yours with cites also. You are free to review our posts
>>to confirm.
>
> As you can see, we'll keep the format and continuity of this thread.
> And like Bush who changed the many reasons why we attacked Iraq, I
> shall do so in kind. For after some comisseration will stand as a
> testament to your side of the argument or even dare I say, suggestion
> that the "Bush Doctrine" is one that is acceptable if not sound to you
> - In "protecting Americans?" Fair enough? Thank you.

I don't know what you are talking about.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now please tell me what other "ideas" might an
>>>>>>>>>>> incoming Republican administration have that we
>>>>>>>>>>> have not seen already?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It looks like you may have a lot of bad information, not counting
>>>>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>>>>opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To be sincerely honest one "just can't make this sh&t up." The
>>>>>>>>>Bush
>>>>>>>>>administration moved the goal-posts so many times that it was never
>>>>>>>>>ever clear why we went to war in Iraq other than what I opined
>>>>>>>>>above.
>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, my opinion is nothing compared to what history will
>>>>>>>>>bear
>>>>>>>>>about this miscreant Bush administration well into the future. But
>>>>>>>>>thanks for raising issue with it though.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Correct, nothing which I've recognized several time, I think. As
>>>>>>>>I've shown
>>>>>>>>above. Well, one thing we do know is that we were attacked by
>>>>>>>>terrorists on US
>>>>>>>>soil. We had been attacked over and over around the world by
>>>>>>>>terrorists
>>>>>>>>since at least the Carter administration. Something had to be done.
>>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>>actions would you have taken? The war in Afghanistan? Osama jumps
>>>>>>>>over
>>>>>>>>into Pakistan and remember you cannot invade another sovereign
>>>>>>>>country.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lets let history decide.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>" . . ."In this job you've got a lot on your plate on a regular
>>>>>>>>>basis;
>>>>>>>>>you don't have much time to sit around and wander, lonely, in the
>>>>>>>>>Oval
>>>>>>>>>Office, kind of asking different portraits, 'How do you think my
>>>>>>>>>standing will be?'" - George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 16,
>>>>>>>>>2005
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>> "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It
>>>>>>>>>>> is our
>>>>>>>>>>> number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." ---
>>>>>>>>>>> George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., September 13, 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " ... So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> much time on him ... And, again, I don't know where he is.
>>>>>>>>>>> I --
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about
>>>>>>>>>>> him."
>>>>>>>>>>> --- George W. Bush, Washington, DC, March 13, 2003
> --
> http://tagheuerblog.bl...

I had to rush this as I always do ... didn't get a chance to reread ...
please forgive the errors. Thank you


kenobi

4/17/2016 6:21:00 PM

0

W dniu niedziela, 17 kwietnia 2016 20:15:23 UTC+2 uzytkownik Ramine napisal:
> Hello,
>
> I have included the 32 bit and 64 bit windows executables of my
> programs inside the zip file to easy the job for you.
>
> You can download my USL programs version 3.0 with the source code from:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-...
>
>
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.

you seen the door moron idiot abuser,
think about paing for years of spamming and destroin moronic idiot

Ramine

4/17/2016 9:17:00 PM

0

Hello,

I have included the 32 bit and 64 bit windows executables of my
programs inside the zip file to easy the job for you.

You can download my USL programs version 3.0 with the source code from:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-...


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.