SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Fair and Balanced-'Duties Of a Democracy' -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ksuave who wrote (400)9/6/2006 1:32:14 PM
From: American Spirit  Respond to of 1262
 
Bush's latest speeches are really insane. He either thinks we're all stupid or he's really off his rocker, or both. In any case, his version of Iraq is not anywhere near reality. And Osama Bin LAden whom he demonized is still free five years after 89-11. Bush is clearly protecting him because he could have been taken out by this time if it was a priority. So the question is why? DId the Soudis and/or Pakistanis demand it?



To: ksuave who wrote (400)9/6/2006 3:07:54 PM
From: Ev  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1262
 
This is a good piece of reading for the five year
anniversary of 9/11.

Remember what these Democrats had to say come
election time.

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction.....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny
Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish
the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that
the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our
allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security
Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress,
and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons
inspection process.:" Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA),
Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces
for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secetary of State,
Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports
indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and
stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume
that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein
is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA) Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a
deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein
is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons
and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in the development of weapons of mass
destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution
that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton(D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,
and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now
he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT
BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE
ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR
FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???



To: ksuave who wrote (400)9/6/2006 3:49:50 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1262
 
Truth scares Democrats:9/11 miniseries under fire

By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism.

"The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television.

The movie is billed as a dramatization based on the report of the U.S. commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11 and circumstances leading up to it. According to a disclaimer shown at the beginning of each episode, it "has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."

But a portion of the film showing an aborted effort to capture al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has aroused the ire of some of the officials portrayed.

A statement from Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."

And Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to show disclaimers throughout each episode, not just at the beginning. "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks," she said.

In one scene, CIA operatives working with Ahmed Shah Masud, the charismatic Afghan mujahedin leader who fought al-Qaida and their Taliban sponsors, are assembled on a hillside above bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms. "It's perfect for us," says "Kirk," a composite character representing several of the CIA operatives and analysts involved in the hunt for the terrorist leader.

But the team is forced to abort the mission when Berger hangs up on them in the middle of a conference call, after telling them he cannot give the go ahead for the action.

"I don't have that authority," he says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Masud asks Kirk afterwards in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

"The incidents depicted did not happen," said Berger in the statement. "They are not contained in the Sept. 11 Commission report, which is the most authoritative review of the events before and after the attack."

Indeed, the commission's report -- although it reveals the Clinton White House was concerned about the possible repercussions of a failed capture effort -- says that it was CIA Director George Tenet who nixed the capture plan, which would never have involved U.S. personnel in the assault, and which was canceled before being put into operation.

Officials from both the White House and the CIA have characterized the back-and-forth about the plan as a breakdown of communications. The White House believed that they were authorizing the killing of bin Laden, but those at the CIA charged with carrying out the operation itself saw their authority limited to a capture operation that might result in his death.

"There were shouting matches" between senior officials about the plan, said one senior member of the Sept. 11 commission staff who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is now working in a sensitive government position. However, the staffer said, the scene at Tarnak Farms "didn't happen, and frankly it's silly."

But former GOP Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government.

"If you portray that accurately," he added, "people from both (the Clinton and Bush) administrations will complain."

"I would say it's balanced," Kean said.