October Thread #2: Decision 2004

[Trevor Ash]

I'm still not clear why the Bin Ladens were chauffeured out of the Country so quickly after 911, why the emphasis coming from the administration was instantly shifted to Saddam, and why Bin Laden has become (pretty much) free and forgotten.

Any thoughts here on this detoured confusion?

Best Regards,
Gene Bowhay
Woodland Hills, CA

If the answer isn't "42" then it must be "Money". You've been watching Fahrenheit 911 haven't you?

[Sebastian]

If the answer isn't "42"...

Trevor,

I love you.

Adams,

Rest in peace. Hope you brought a towel.

[Trevor Ash]

Did anyone have a change of opinions about anything after last nights debate?

The one thing that stuck in my mind was Kerry's health plan........[cough]hogwash[cough]

The big thing that stuck in my mind about Bush was his response to the question asking what he'd tell someone who lost their job to offshoring. The answer that Bush gave seemed like it was geared at how to fix the problem in the long term. His answer was to make our education system equally competitive with other countries. In the short term, his answer was giving money so someone like myself could go to a community college and obtain the skills required to do the job.

What a bunch of crap. I already have the skills. It's not all about skills Bush. It's about money. It's just plain cheaper to get the job done overseas.

Kerry wants to remove the tax benefits companies get when they work overseas. I don't know enough of anything to know if it'll make a difference or not. But I fully expect business to adapt to any changes and make their money anyway. In other words, I think the businesses will find a way around any of Kerry's proposed changes. And that's assuming Kerry can actually pull off getting these changes.....we all know business runs america, not the administration.

I think both Bush and Kerry are full of bologne when it comes to helping with offfshoring jobs. I REALLY don't think that this is something the government can fix. And I don't think we should be looking to the government to prevent or reduce the amount of jobs being sent overseas. I think we as people need to adapt.

My opinion of Kerry after last nights debate has changed a little bit for the worse. I trust him less than I did before.

My opinion of Bush remains the same, which isn't saying much.

[schrackman]

Did anyone have a change of opinions about anything after last nights debate?

The one thing that stuck in my mind was Kerry's health plan........[cough]hogwash[cough]

Agreed.

The big thing that stuck in my mind about Bush was his response to the question asking what he'd tell someone who lost their job to offshoring. The answer that Bush gave seemed like it was geared at how to fix the problem in the long term. His answer was to make our education system equally competitive with other countries. In the short term, his answer was giving money so someone like myself could go to a community college and obtain the skills required to do the job.

What a bunch of crap. I already have the skills. It's not all about skills Bush. It's about money. It's just plain cheaper to get the job done overseas.

Agreed again. The president's answer here was totally lame, and echos what most "politicians" do when in a tight spot: promise to throw money at people (which amounts to our own money, by the way!). This is what I mean when I say the federal government has its nose in too many issues that it shouldn't be concerned with constitutionally. If it stuck to its limited powers as outlined in the constitution, these issues wouldn't even come up in a presidential debate, not to mention we'd have a whole lot more money in our pockets if we weren't funding all these things with our federal taxes.

Anybody else out there agree with me, or do you think it's the federal government's job to tax us more and more and spend our money to provide for education, welfare, social security, health care, prescription drugs and the like to the citizens of the U.S.? And if so, I'd like to hear what your basis is for believing so.

Ray

[Dzerzhinski46]

This is what I mean when I say the federal government has its nose in too many issues that it shouldn't be concerned with constitutionally. If it stuck to its limited powers as outlined in the constitution, these issues wouldn't even come up in a presidential debate, not to mention we'd have a whole lot more money in our pockets if we weren't funding all these things with our federal taxes.

Anybody else out there agree with me, or do you think it's the federal government's job to tax us more and more and spend our money to provide for education, welfare, social security, health care, prescription drugs and the like to the citizens of the U.S.? And if so, I'd like to hear what your basis is for believing so.

Ray

If the government wasn't in charge of Social Security, Medicare, and other health institutions, then there would not be this big mess that supposedly currently exists. And this did not start with Bush either. This debate has probably been going on since Social Security was created. Socializatioin of medicine is not pretty.

I feel that for the most part, medical care should be up to private citizens. This would ensure choice, and perhaps better care. No government to worry about that way. Another point is that socialized medicine has a poor standard. Quantity of care, not quality.

As far as education is concerned, I think that it is better administered at the local level and at most the state level. More accountability this way (to borrow a much overused phrase of politicians). And besides, countys know better what the school situation is locally, as opposed to a senator or congressman in Washington.

A small aside, I have heard a lot about how Kerry has a "plan" for everything. I'm still trying to figure out what that plan is, because I have not heard any specifics anywhere. Just my editorial.

Dzerzhinski

[Clicker]

However, he put all his energy towards a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-Queda.

From Information I've been reading, I was under the impression that Saddam **DID** have ties to Osama, and was just really good at hiding it, Made me wonder why he would hide it.. If not because he was going to help him, but wanted it to be unknown. I read about His son printing a list of 600 names... see below

"The paper's November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this passage:
"Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan."

That name, Hayes wrote, matches that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad. " It was "theorized that the "impulsive and somewhat unbalanced" Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to "make them more loyal and supportive of the regime" as war loomed." It angered Saddam and he stopped the paper for Ten Days.

This info is pulled from

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

and it goes on to say many things, such as
"If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators."

and is not the only place I have read it.

[Clicker]

But he's from Texas. And given his previous grammatical errors, it just sounded like one more.

Adina, I"M from Texas

and we think Ya'll talk funny. ( lol )

on a serious note:
On the news they talk about how George Bush can work a room better, make better contact with People...etc etc.
I like to think that it is *because* he is from Texas. We are just friendlier ;-)
But I do hate to see him made fun of, actually not just him, anyone from any area, because we all talk differently, and He is human after all, to me, he is Real. From the Sparkle in his eye to his stammering... He's Real, and Not just some "Stepford Candidate" Politicians have always been made fun of for mispelling words, or speaking as though Murphy Brown was a real person, but not everyone can pronounce every word correctly... I know i had trouble saying "Adirondack" the other day, and probably have misspelled it as well.

[adina]

Adina, I"M from Texas

and we think Ya'll talk funny. ( lol )

on a serious note:
On the news they talk about how George Bush can work a room better, make better contact with People...etc etc.
I like to think that it is *because* he is from Texas. We are just friendlier ;-)
But I do hate to see him made fun of, actually not just him, anyone from any area, because we all talk differently, and He is human after all, to me, he is Real. From the Sparkle in his eye to his stammering... He's Real, and Not just some "Stepford Candidate" Politicians have always been made fun of for mispelling words, or speaking as though Murphy Brown was a real person, but not everyone can pronounce every word correctly... I know i had trouble saying "Adirondack" the other day, and probably have misspelled it as well.

I wasn't saying it was because he was from Texas that he's grammatically challenged. I was responding to the fact that people from Missouri pronounce it Missura.

And I'm not referring to an accent or words that are specifically "texan". What I'm referring to is statements that come out of his mouth that make no sense at all. The so-called "bushisms".

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

[Todd Patten]

From Information I've been reading, I was under the impression that Saddam **DID** have ties to Osama, and was just really good at hiding it, Made me wonder why he would hide it.. If not because he was going to help him, but wanted it to be unknown. I read about His son printing a list of 600 names... see below

"The paper's November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this passage:
"Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan."

That name, Hayes wrote, matches that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad. " It was "theorized that the "impulsive and somewhat unbalanced" Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to "make them more loyal and supportive of the regime" as war loomed." It angered Saddam and he stopped the paper for Ten Days.

This info is pulled from

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

and it goes on to say many things, such as
"If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators."

and is not the only place I have read it.

It may not be the only place you have read it, but it's all a re-hash of this same source

Clicker -- Are you serious?!? C'mon, the least you can do is get this info from a legetimate source. The Free Republic is one of the most biased, right wing periodicals out there. You prefer to refer to this source, as opposed to our own republican dominated Congressional committees, our own intelligence, as well as intelligence throughout the world? You prefer an admittedly biased periodical over unbiased sources with access to exponentially more information? I read Steven Haye's book (Connection) and found one thing in particular disturbing: No cited sources. This man threw out TONS of accussations with no sources to back them up. In this case, why is it that NO ONE can provide an original copy of this paper?

If you are going to give credence to this work and these theories, which have no referrable sources to back them up, then you have to accept the bogus stories that 9/11 was planned and acted upon by our own government in order to control oil. They have the same level of credibility -- just on the opposite sides of the spectrum.

Once again, I prefer to go with facts, not bogus articles from outwardly biased sources.

Fact: Our own congressional commitees, after volumes of research and witnesses found no connection.

Fact: Our own people in Iraq, Kay and others, found no connection and no weapons to make the connection.

Fact: Our own leaders, Rumsfeld, Powell and others have said that there was no connection.

I get angry with people throwing around bogus inuendos, unproven conspiracies and outright lies. It clutters the truth. This is a situation where you are going to believe what you want to believe and will find sources, no matter the bias, to back it up. I think that maybe the unbiased RESEARCH and CONCLUSIONS of those who were tasked to research the matter have much more clout.

[Clicker]

Clicker -- Are you serious?!? C'mon, the least you can do is get this info from a legetimate source. The Free Republic is one of the most biased, right wing periodicals out there. You prefer to refer to this source, as opposed to our own republican dominated Congressional committees, our own intelligence, as well as intelligence throughout the world? You prefer an admittedly biased periodical over unbiased sources with access to exponentially more information? I read Steven Haye's book (Connection) and found one thing in particular disturbing: No cited sources. This man threw out TONS of accussations with no sources to back them up. In this case, why is it that NO ONE can provide an original copy of this paper?

If you are going to give credence to this work and these theories, which have no referrable sources to back them up, then you have to accept the bogus stories that 9/11 was planned and acted upon by our own government in order to control oil. They have the same level of credibility -- just on the opposite sides of the spectrum.

Once again, I prefer to go with facts, not bogus articles from outwardly biased sources.

Fact: Our own congressional commitees, after volumes of research and witnesses found no connection.

Fact: Our own people in Iraq, Kay and others, found no connection and no weapons to make the connection.

Fact: Our own leaders, Rumsfeld, Powell and others have said that there was no connection.

I get angry with people throwing around bogus inuendos, unproven conspiracies and outright lies. It clutters the truth. This is a situation where you are going to believe what you want to believe and will find sources, no matter the bias, to back it up. I think that maybe the unbiased RESEARCH and CONCLUSIONS of those who were tasked to research the matter have much more clout.

I said " I was **under the Impression** ! Meaning i was unsure... So I was not giving "credence to this work and these theories" I was asking.
The first time i read it ~ it was from an MSNBC site . In that story it told why there were not any copies Because Saddam had them all confiscated except for one and I have no idea where that one is now, yet the reporter said that is the copy he saw. When I went back to look for it, I just googled "saddam List of 600" and it pulled up the site I quoted, I had never been to that site before, but the info found there was the same as what I read in MSN. (are they outwardly Biased as well?) I don't "prefer" that site, I just *found* it..

You say "Fact: Our own leaders, Rumsfeld, Powell and others have said that there was no connection." and the article touched on that subject, as far as *why* Bush did not make it known that that paper was published.

I'm Not Saying that it is the truth, Or that I believe it, I think all Politicians lie. It's what they do.

[Todd Patten]

Clicker, this is where the confusion starts -- and becomes dangerous. You said the "reporter" stated that there were 600 copies and he saw "the only one left". While, it may have been on MSNBC (it would be tough to track that one down), it was not a reporter that stated it, rather a quote from the author.

Let's take this thing on it's face and analyze it. The story goes that the paper made it out with the OBL reference. Roughly 600 copies sell that morning. Just like any city in the U.S., it sells to busy people going to work, heading home, hoping on a train, riding in their cars.

Now, Saddam starts reading the paper while enjoying his morning coffee. He get's to the list and the OBL reference and violently spits the coffee out, yells for his guards, and orders that every copy of the paper is rounded up and burned. The Iraqi Republican Guard is sent to the streets.

Now, somehow, these men are able to find every paper, in every house, in every car, in every office, in every airplane, in every trash can, throughout Baghdad and/or Iraq?!? Does that not seem incredulous to you? Does that story have credibility to you? You believe that they were able to track down, in a country of millions, every single one of the 600 papers? Well, 599. The crack "reporter" was able to retain one copy.

[Clicker]

You said the "reporter" stated that there were 600 copies and he saw "the only one left". While, it may have been on MSNBC (it would be tough to track that one down), it was not a reporter that stated it, rather a quote from the author.

Sorry Todd, But you are mistaken, My post states that the *list* was a list of 600, I never stated (nor did the paper) what the amount circulated was..

I figured out exactly where I found that info as well. I was reading news on the CNN site and hit a link and there it was.. here is the link to CNN that i pulled up just now (after searching) to find it again:

http://websearch.cnn.com/search/sear...am+List+of+600

The crack "reporter" was able to retain one copy.

OOPS! I was wrong, he wasn't a "reporter" He was a "Tennessee judge who believes he is in possession of documents linking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The judge is Gilbert S. Merritt, a federal appeals court judge invited to help Iraqis construct a legal system in postwar Iraq. He is, according to Reynolds, "a lifelong Democrat and a man of unimpeachable integrity."" My mistake, I just assumed it was a Reporter, as the initial article did not list his credentials.

This link tells you about a gag order and how the Author (Gilbert S. Merritt /Democratic federal appeals court Judge) said " this includes any article I may write, or verbal utterance I may speak, to any members of the press, including my hometown newspaper."
http://www.tennessean.com/nation-wor...35079430.shtml

and on this site:
http://www.freespeech.com/archives/000554.html
They reference the gag order and state an opinion: " I would say that it might have something to do with "national security". If it does prove to be a list of the top "henchmen", then the US government might not want them to know that we have a list or exactly whose names are on it. There are probably people on the list that don't know (or remember) they were on it, since the papers were actually picked up once Saddam found out about it (and fairly quickly), and there are certainly people in other countries who would like to know and don't right now (and maybe shouldn't)."

Just curious to see how many other people have viewed information like this and what their thoughts are....

[Todd Patten]

The stories I have read indicate that the papers were in circulation. Do you REALLY believe that those papers were all rounded up? Moreover, do you really believe, if this was legit, that Karl Rove would let it just slip by?!?

It's a bogus story with no merit. Having it get repeated as fact waters down the real facts that come out.

[Clicker]

Okay - lets start from scratch..

a large majority of Americans STILL believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11th attacks, and had intimate contact with Al Queda. Why? Because George Bush and his crew managed to convince the public of this without a single shred of true evidence. put all his energy towards a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-Queda.

Okay, forget about the paper that never existed, that was "bogus story with no merit", and "circulated from one source" What about these sources?
WeeklyStandard.com States : reports about a budding Hussein-bin Laden partnership were not limited to the foreign press. Newsweek magazine, in its January 11, 1999, issue, ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden." The subhead declared, "America's two enemies are courting." In fact, Time magazine, in an issue also out January 11, 1999, one-upped its competitor by quoting bin Laden himself on the Iraq issue. "There is no doubt that the treacherous attack has confirmed that Britain and America are acting on behalf of Israel and the Jews, paving the way for the Jews to divide the Muslim world once again, enslave it and loot the rest of its wealth. A great part of the force that carried out the attack came from certain Gulf countries that have lost their sovereignty. U.S. intelligence officials who have expressed skepticism about a Hussein-bin Laden relationship often point to religious differences as the reason for their doubts. Hussein was secular, they say, bin Laden a fundamentalist. True enough. But, as bin Laden's comments suggest, there were bigger concerns--that America and "the Jews" might "divide the Muslim world once again"--that would trump these differences and unite the two men against a common enemy. Eleven months before bin Laden spoke to Time, then-President Bill Clinton traveled to the Pentagon, where he gave a speech preparing the nation for war with Iraq. Clinton told the world that Saddam Hussein would work with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." His warning was stern:

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.

The timing, once again, is critical. Clinton's speech came on February 18, 1998. The next day, according to documents uncovered earlier this week in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein reached out to bin Laden. A document dated February 19, 1998, and labeled "Top Secret and Urgent" tells of a plan for an al Qaeda operative to travel from Sudan to Iraq for talks with Iraqi intelligence. The memo focused on Saudi Arabia, another common bin Laden and Hussein foe, and declared that the Mukhabarat would pick up "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document further explained that the message "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The document also held open the possibility that the al Qaeda representative could be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wqxma.asp?pg=2

Here's the thing, and it's been tested and proven for millenia, if you create an atmosphere of fear in your citizenry you can make them do anything. Some of the most ruthless leaders in history mastered the art of making the population feel threatened and using that fear to their advantage. Very rational and logical people will react in a collective illogical manner.

So (based on your quote above) you agree that :

these men are able to find every paper, in every house, in every car, in every office, in every airplane, in every trash can, throughout Baghdad and/or Iraq?!? were able to track down, in a country of millions

I don't know for a *fact* what size area it was circulated to...but the Democratic federal Judge said "Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it."which leads me to believe it was a Baghdad paper only.


It was supposedly the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper / November 14, 2002 issue.

Supposedly: Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. And that Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.
I Know his sons were both crazy, and not the brightest. So, do I doubt that Uday would print a list of 600? No, I don't doubt it.


So,

Do you REALLY believe

that there was no ties to Al-Queda?

I'm just searching for the truth, so I can make an educated decision when I place my vote, I'm not trying to close my eyes to either side, I am taking it all in, doing my research and trying to decide, as I said before, i only posted to get some views on the matter.

[Todd Patten]

WeeklyStandard.com States : reports about a budding Hussein-bin Laden partnership were not limited to the foreign press. Newsweek magazine, in its January 11, 1999, issue...
... The document also held open the possibility that the al Qaeda representative could be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wqxma.asp?pg=2

You are quoting articles from 5 years ago? And we have since had many different organizations and committees and intelligence agencies come out and say that there are no ties between Al Queda and Iraq. Don't you think that the people who were tasked with finding these links would have found them, particularly if it was as clear as these articles make it appear? I'm simply trying to use some logic here. We have people on the ground in Iraq with completely unfettered access, we have committees with virtually unlimited access to evidence, documents, and witnesses. People within the Bush administration are conceding that there is no link to be found. What else do you need to set aside the idea that Iraq and Al Queda were partnered. Just because they had a common enemy, does not mean they had a common cause. Why can't people grasp that?

I don't know for a *fact* what size area it was circulated to...but the Democratic federal Judge said "Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it."which leads me to believe it was a Baghdad paper only.

It was supposedly the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper / November 14, 2002 issue.

Supposedly: Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. And that Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.
I Know his sons were both crazy, and not the brightest. So, do I doubt that Uday would print a list of 600? No, I don't doubt it.

Democratic judge? And Zell Miller is a democratic senator. What does his political affiliation have to do with it?

Clicker. I want to use logic here. I seriously want you to think about the story passed on and it's gaping holes. The newspaper was in circulation for a few hours. It's sitting there on the newstand on the streets of Baghdad. This is a city that is buzzing with activity, not unlike a Boston or New York. How the heck do they know WHO bought the newspapers? Do you think they took down the names and addresses of anyone who picked up a newspaper? Seriously? Does that hold water for you?

Then, this judge manages to get a hold of the ONLY remaining copy. Moreover, other than the possible interpetation from a local, how does he know what it says?

The story has absolutley no credibility. None. Why would anyone hold on to it?

So, that there was no ties to Al-Queda?

I'm just searching for the truth, so I can make an educated decision when I place my vote, I'm not trying to close my eyes to either side, I am taking it all in, doing my research and trying to decide, as I said before, i only posted to get some views on the matter.

I respect that you are trying to find the truth. I question why you choose to ignore the conclusions of experts and instead choose to give validation to sources that have their own agenda's. You continue to return to periodicals like the Weekly Standard and authors such as Stephen Hayes. If you want the truth you don't seek it with biased sources.

[opus]

A small aside, I have heard a lot about how Kerry has a "plan" for everything. I'm still trying to figure out what that plan is, because I have not heard any specifics anywhere. Just my editorial.

Dzerzhinski

Dzerzhinski, I asked the same question of someone and they led me to this site, which they said explains all the plans:

www.johnkerry.com

And, indeed, there are explanations of a lot of plans there.