Turns out even after 9/11 Shrub let Zarqawi escape, the second time because it would interfere with the planning of Iraq.  So much for Bush waging a strong war on terrorism??  Atleast the extreme RepubliCON right cant't harp about how Willie let Osama go.  Even after 9/11 Shrub let Zarqawi go.  
   Next time you hear that BS line from Shrubs mouth about how "we will not waver, we will not tire, blah blah blah blah etc....."  don't forget he had Zarqawi twice.  
   Since the extreme right is so righteous about Shrub I would love to hear their defense for this one.  I really do want to hear how all of you will defend Shrub allowing Zarqawi escape twice, and keep in mind this is after 9/11.  


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

that we should not have waited for the coalition of the willing and/or the unwilling, we should have vaporized that fucker right then and there. BUT, if they had launched attacks in Iraq, which I think they should have, there probably would have been condemnation from the UN, Fucking France, Germany and who nows who else.  "Bush the Cowboy" "American Agression" and a whole lot more.  All this while trying to convince those above to step up, step in and quit stalling the process.  I'd love to know what would have been the result had the whole free world come on board at the beginning.  Although it may cost this administration and President their jobs, 5-10 years from now, I think Iraq will be a much better place.  Maybe it will be the Region formally known as Iraq, who knows.

Ding Chavez COULD HAVE done better than this crap.  If Clinton let Bin Laden go twice before 9/11/2001, then his actions are shamless, he should have used any angle to wipe Bin Laden off the face of the earth.  And if president Bush let a known murderer go twice after 9/11/2001 then his actions are worst than shamless and they are totally unworthy of any logical defense.
    Anytime that a president, regardless of who that person is, gets a single chance at a killer that has committed acts of murder against our citizens and is planning on committing more on a massive scale, he or she should immediatley press the button, without debate, and wipe the scumass killer off the face of the earth.

  Even today the 9/11 commission put out a report stating there is absolutely no evidence supporting a link between saddam and al-qaida.  Of course Cheney and Shrub will not let that get in the way of propoganda politics.  Its amazing how many people are still willing to believe a word that comes out of this admin's mouth.

Yep. No good deed goes unpunished. I remember when this first came up prior to the launch of the war, while EvilBush(tm) was seeking to prompt the UN Security Council into upholding their responsibilities. EvilBush(tm) should have gone after him then, but they probably (correctly) believed that the anti-warriors and oil-for-food beneficiaries would howl and moan if they did. It was a strategic error. This was widely reported prior to the start of the war.

RLTW

you're unaware of the facts, again. You state that " today the 9/11 commission put out a report stating there is absolutely no evidence supporting a link between saddam and al-qaida" yet, a  a staff member of the 9/11 commission stated the following in regards to the Saddam / al Qaida issue.

"I'd recommend that you look directly at Staff Statement No. 15 when discussing the Iraq-al Qaeda issue, specifically regarding the Commissions' hearing today. Note that the paragraph in question is on page 5 of the attached statement. I'd point out that it is but one paragraph in a 12-page statement. The AP and others have picked up on one sentence, which was carefully worded: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The rest of the paragraph concisely summarizes the cases where we can identify cooperation and other connections where they exist.

The other relevant information is included on page 8 of Staff Statement No. 16. In the statement, which exhaustively discusses the 9-11 plot, we address the movements of the hijackers in the years leading up to the attacks. This paragraph addresses reports that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agency in Prague on April 9, 2001.

While some have criticized the questioning during public hearings, I have seen few quibbles with our staff statements. I urge you to look over all of the statements."

Once again, the truth is your friend, EV.

RLTW



-- Modified on 6/16/2004 10:00:12 PM

... and better than the American people did.  In fact, I'll guess that he has a more correct assessment of the man than most Americans do even now.

Rich Saudis and Texas oilmen tend to be well acquainted, the Bush's and the Bin Laden's were.  No doubt, Osama Bin Laden knew that in the wake of his attack, W could be counted on to do all the wrong things by the interest of his country.

/Zin

So back when Bin Laden hatched this plan, he looked into his crystal ball and saw that GW would be elected President? Or did Allah tell him in a dream?

RLTW

for a plan already hatched and awaiting the time, and a lot of fore-knowledge well before that, and not from Allah.  

To remind you of common knowledge: You do remember that W's presidency didn't start with 9/11?  You do remember that his candidacy had been active long before that?

Bin Laden knew he could count on W to do the incompetent, he could have only gambled on that with Gore.

/Zin

    Our CIA has time and again has said there is no sold intelligence to prove that meeting ever took place.  That piece of intelligence was one of the many other pieces of intelligence that has turned out to be an outright lie.  Get over it, we were lied to.  Even a battered woman finally has to realize when she is in an abusive relationship and leave knowing its not her fault and she cannot change the other person.  I know its hard but you must wake up and walk away from the RepubliCON abuse being inflicted on all of you and realize there is nothing you or any other person can do to make them stop lying.  Its not your fault, they are just corrupt liars!!
    Why do you keep hanging on when even Powell admitted on live TV that the intelligence this admin had was "either from really shady and unrealiable sources or downright misleading."  Clinton did have a sexual relationships with that woman and the neoCONS/Shrub admin did lie about Iraq.

"Bin Laden knew he could count on W to do the incompetent, he could have only gambled on that with Gore."

Surely that is the reason why Usama is still roaming freely throughout his numerous training camps in Afghanistan, with un-impeded communications to his followers, while only having to avoid the occassional cruise missile attack.

Sure thing.

RLTW

As for the Ding Chavez thing, GET OVER YOURSELF!  Let's just "move on," to quote the defenders of Clinton and the name of the website which apparently serves as the source for most of your far Left fantasies.

You assert that "Anytime that a president, regardless of who that person is, gets a single chance at a killer that has committed acts of murder against our citizens and is planning on committing more on a massive scale, he or she should immediatley press the button, without debate, and wipe the scumass killer off the face of the earth."

I guess you forgot about OBL's masterminding of the plots against our embassies in Africa, where hundreds died.  So the "principle" your purport to espouse is simply one more device used as an excuse to bash Bush, one of convenience only.

But even recognizing that, your "principle" is nonsensical.  So presidents should drop everything, and diminish the chances for success in broader strategic planning simply to satisfy your bloodlust for immediate, swift justice?  Oh, were it that you lefties were so bloodthirsty to impose the death penalty here at home to "immediately" "wipe ... scumass killer[s] off the face of the earth."

and you might even be able to fit this into your "Nick Berg Conspiracy", or maybe the "War for Oooiill" conspiracy. Wait, scratch that last one. We all know that even though Iraq claims full governance of their oil industry, it's really being controlled by VileCheneyRumsfeld(tm) and his minions at SuperDuperEvilHalliburton(tm). Right?

But seriously. As a rebuttal to my previous post, are you now saying that the 9-11 Commission, of whom you claimed had stated that there was absolutely no connection whatever between al-Qaida and Saddam, have now been "republiCONNED" by  EvilBush(tm), since the truth about what they have reported contradicts your first post? That's lame.

RLTW

It's not "allegedly", it's fact. CIA did visit OBL in hospital, and probably asked him some very tough questions, like, "where can we ship you that portable dialysis unit in Afghanistan?"

The truth, finally, inexorably, is coming out, and even our country, which seems like it consists of 95% hoosiers, is finally getting it through their thick, redneck, hoosier skulls.

Anyone out here ever notice where there's oil, there's Islamic fundamentalism? Even in some pretty foreign places, like Venezuela. Can't have a war without an enemy, you know. al-Qaeda is the protection racket of the neocons, and if you can't see that by now, well, back to Hoosierville you go.

One has to admire the consistency which you apply your principles, James.  Particularly the principle that you ALWAYS apply a different set of rules for Bush and the right wingers, than for anything Clinton did.  What wonderful hypocrisy.

I haven't caught it, but is there a lot of Islamic fundamentalism in Alaska? Canada? I know the Williston Basis in N. Dakota and Eastern Montana is thick with them, but now Alaska too?  Aw Shit, that ruined my day!

Bin Laden has lived in a war zone for about 20 years.  He chose to live in a war zone.  So now he has to live in a war zone. Sounds like he hasn't lost a thing.

It's true Bush's foibles haven't improved his quality of life, but   Osama wasn't looking to move into a luxury mansion anyway.  

Point is that Bush did what Bin Laden wanted him to do: he has discredited the United States, and squandered an amazing amount of world sympathy.  I don't believe Gore would have performed that badly.  

/Zin

since he is screaming about Bush's strategic decision, while holding Clinton blameless.  That is the true double-standard.  Ironic in the extreme is his comment about hypocrisy, since he knows from whence he speaks.

And whatever happened to his promised absence?  Perhaps the Kerry campaign recognized that putting a rabid dog directly on the payroll was a bad idea.  'Guess he'll just have to promote his slanders independently, like Algore.

but if you're referring to President Bush, what it says is that he's willing to make strategic decisions to not go after a smaller target while a larger one looms.  My guess is, not being privy to all that the NSC knew, that the determination was made that Saddam's links to al Quaeda and the potential that he would provide them with WMDs made him the greater threat.

It's a question of allocation of resources.

Clinton is yesterdays news, and all one can do about him is either to buy or not buy his book - and I choose not to buy.  If he were running for re-election, I'd probably vote against him, unless a worse candidate such as the Shrub were his opposition.  It's time stop living in the past, and judge the current Administration and hold THEM accountable for the past 40 some months of inept leadership.

As for my leaving the board, I find that it's hard to ignore some of the egregious crap that you and others of your misguided ilk keep putting on it.  I am still devoting much of my time to defeating Bush, although I never was, and never SAID I WAS, directly on the Kerry payroll.  I am, as I said previously, now in a full time role which is committed to Bush's defeat.  But it is NOT on the Kerry payroll, and never was.

But I DO manage to sneek away every now and again, and when I find some of your hypocrisy too hard to ignore, I devote a few moments to highlighting it.

OTOH, I have, significantly cut down my time on this playground, so it is only when the most egregious and hypocritical BS surfaces that I will choose to participate.  Alas James86, that pretty much guarantees that many of your posts will be the targets.

A better argument would have been Norway. But my thought was that al-Qaeda has sprung up out of literally nowhere in parts of Africa where recent oil field discoveries have been made, in countries I can't even pronounce.

but the report discussed fails to mention that rather salient issue, and you fail to address it entirely.  'Fact is, more lives have probably been saved by ridding Iraq of Saddam's reign of terror than Zarqawi has taken.

Of course, I forgot that it's only American lives that are worth anything, and that Iraqi lives don't count.

What a humanitarian  you are.