Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (438383)	8/5/2003 2:44:15 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Respond to of 769667

"would rather that France and Russia were controlling the oil in Iraq" How about letting the people of Iraq control their own oil? Thr principle of Self-Determination for all nations and peoples is a corner stone of the Atlantic Charter (and our American culture)--the document that committed America to WWII on the side of Britain. Britain was forced to disavow its colonial past in order to get Roosevelt to sign the document. Why should we then turn around and help Britain reestablish colonial rule in Iraq?

To: Neeka who wrote (438383)	8/5/2003 3:19:12 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

We know that you and your ilk would rather .... Once again you demonstrate how little you do know. <font color=brown>U.S. Stealing Oil From Iraq? :. With the help of Kuwait!? On May 25, while scanning the Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program images pipelined into his desktop from 450 miles in orbit, Hank Brandli skidded at a nighttime photo of Iraq. It looked familiar. But not exactly. Brandli retrieved another DMSP image he'd archived from May 3. He compared the two. The most recent photo showed a blazing corridor of light running the length of Kuwait, south to north, all the way to the Iraqi border. The image wasn't there on May 3. "It's going right up to Iraq's oil fields," says the retired Air Force colonel from his home in Palm Bay. "Maybe I'm full of s---. Maybe all they're doing is building a highway to put in McDonald's and sell hamburgers. But why go that way? I think we're in bed with Kuwait. I think we're pumping oil out of Iraq to pay for this war." </font> <font color=blue>O</font>peration <font color=blue>I</font>raqi <font color=blue>L</font>iberation has been about oil since Cheney first selected Bush as his running mate. floridatoday.com!NEWSROOM/peoplestoryA1172A.htm TP

To: Neeka who wrote (438383)	8/5/2003 3:30:17 PM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

Arrogance, or something darker? By John David Rose Carolina Morning News If you want to know why 9/11 was allowed to happen you may not have to look any further than the Oval Office. A little more than a month before the attack, in his Aug. 6 daily intelligence briefing, Bush was "told that morning of the al-Qaida terror network's interest in conducting a strike within the U.S., and that it might involve highjacked airplanes," reports the Wall Street Journal (7/24/03.) Why didn't he order airlines to be alerted, inform the Federal Aviation Administration of the threat, put the military air commands on a high level of readiness and tell the FBI, CIA and INS to be super vigilant? He brushed the warning aside. "Nine months before 9/11 the Clinton administration had a bold plan to attack al-Qaida," wrote Time magazine (8/12/02) before it could attack us. Weakened by the impeachment battle, Clinton put the plan on hold as a courtesy to the incoming Bush. In January 2001, the Clinton security team attempted to brief incoming Bush officials of the al-Qaida threat and the plan. Again they were given the brushoff. "By last summer (of 2001)," Time related, "many of those in the know - the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law enforcement professionals in a dozen countries - were almost frantic with worry that a major attack against American interests was imminent." Then came that fateful August intelligence briefing noted above, the full report of which was excised from the recently issued Congressional report on the 9/11 tragedy for "national security" reasons. National security my foot. That information was blacked out to protect the arrogant bunch in the White House that ignored warnings that might have prevented the attacks. But perhaps the Bushies had a reason for ignoring the warnings. Something brushed over in the Congressional 9/11 report suggests the possibility of one of the worst conspiracies of American history. PNAC, Project for the New American Century, was organized in 1997 by Zionist neo-cons Robert Kagen and William Kristol. It is funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and the weapons and defense industries. Members of PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, a director of the organization. All signed a statement of principles, one of which was to promote "American global leadership" with special emphasis on Arab countries. Another was to "transform" the U.S. military with huge increases in defense spending. Here's the chilling kicker: To convince the American people to spend extra billions for defense instead of on Social Security, Medicare, etc., PNAC suggested it would take a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC's exact words.) One bit of confirmation: Former Gen. Wesley Clark told Tim Russert (Meet the Press) that "There was a concerted effort to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. I was on CNN (on 9/11) and got a call at my home (from people around the White House) saying 'you got to say this is connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." Perhaps it wasn't arrogance that made the PNAC-influenced administration dismiss multiple warnings of a terrorist attack using highjacked airliners. The truth may be far darker. John David Rose is a long-time Hilton Head Islander and political observer. lowcountrynow.com