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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (31499)	6/18/2004 10:36:27 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

The "partisan press"? How about The Financial Times? 'The purported link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, by contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region.' LEADER: Bush has misled Americans on Iraq Financial Times; Jun 18, 2004 search.ft.com The congressional commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US has concluded that there is no evidence to support the Bush administration's thesis that Saddam Hussein helped Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation carry them out. This conclusion, emerging from a strong tradition of congressional oversight, could be taken further. The evidence the administration produced to demonstrate the link was, at best, spurious, at worst, fabricated. This is not a small matter, especially in the context of the Bush team's case for its war of choice against Iraq. The first public justification for the war was that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction with which he could dominate his neighbours and threaten the west. This was always an exaggeration. There was some reason to believe he had residual chemical and biological weapons, but none whatsoever to suggest he had reconstituted a nuclear arms programme. As we now know, no WMD of any description have been found; not one US assertion to the United Nations Security Council by Colin Powell, secretary of state, in February last year, has been substantiated. The second public justification - which was wheeled on stage to distract the audience from the embarrassing absence of WMD - was that the war was about freeing Iraqis and, indeed, the Middle East from tyranny. After Falluja and Abu Ghraib, however, 92 per cent of Iraqis regard US troops as occupiers, while 2 per cent see them as liberators, according to a Coalition Provisional Authority poll. Yet there was nothing intrinsically absurd about the WMD fears, or ignoble about opposition to Saddam's tyranny - however late Washington developed this. The purported link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, by contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region. It was and is nonsense, the sort of "intelligence" true believers in the Bush camp lapped up from clever charlatans they sponsored such as the now disgraced Ahmad Chalabi. Yet, even this week, vice-president Dick Cheney continues to assert Saddam had "long-established ties with al-Qaeda". No wonder that, until recently, polls regularly showed more than half of Americans believed Iraq was behind the attack on New York's twin towers. Whether the Osama and Saddam thesis was more the result of self-delusion or cynical manipulation, it - along with Washington's mismanagement of the whole Iraqi adventure - has been enormously damaging. The Bush administration has misled the American people. It has isolated the US, as American diplomats and commanders pointed out this week. And its bungling in Iraq has given new and terrifying life to the cult of death sponsored by Osama bin Laden. Above all, it inspires little confidence it is capable of defeating the spreading al-Qaeda franchise, which always was the clear and present danger.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (31499)	6/18/2004 10:41:26 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Or The Economist on another scandal ... 'The memo comes close to claiming that the president is above the law when acting as wartime commander-in-chief' Shameful revelations will haunt Bush economist.com 'The trouble is that this one lawyer worked in the office that provides legal opinion for the whole administration. His views were solicited by someone up the chain of command (it is not known who). They subsequently informed a Pentagon report on interrogations. They were not a one-off. Even if policy did not change, the memo undermines the administration's “rotten apples” defence in Abu Ghraib. Lastly, Mr Bush’s reaction was not reassuring. Asked about the memo, he said: “the instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.” Now the instructions can be read, it is hard to be comforted. The unease they cause is likely to dog Mr Bush for some time.'

To: Brumar89 who wrote (31499)	6/18/2004 10:53:14 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Cheney just makes things up ... nytimes.com The confusion was illustrated in a telephone exchange between Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that began at 10:30 a.m., almost an hour after the Pentagon was struck and, although they did not know it, 27 minutes after Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. Mr. Cheney said he had given authorization for hijacked airliners to be shot down. "Has that directive been transmitted to the aircraft?" Mr. Rumsfeld asked. "Yes, it has," Mr. Cheney replied, unaware that the fighter pilots from Langley had not been so instructed. A moment later, Mr. Cheney said, "it's my understanding they've already taken a couple aircraft out." "We can't confirm that," Mr. Rumsfeld replied.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (31499)	6/18/2004 11:25:53 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush and Cheney didn't lie? LOL ROTFL They have told so many whoppers and gotten caught so many times now they're just loying more to cover up old lies. They lied to begin when they first started running by pretending to be moderates wanting unity, compassion, a humble foreign policy, a clean environment and better education and health care. The Iraq lies are so numerous they wouldn't fit in a single post. bushlies.com exists, I think. I have already posted more than 50 Bush-cheney whoppers about some of the most importasnt issues of our lives. Why do you defend proven liars? it makes you a liar.