fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
Now I'm faced with a real dilemna. We all know how the white conservative Americans lie about everything, but it's they who claim that Mohammed Atta wasn't ever in Prague to meet the Iraqis.
Seems it's the Czechs who have been claiming he was there.
Is Washington covering up again? Was he really there on CIA business and Washington now has to cover it all up?
is in there for the oil?
i am, unfortunately, a middle of the road libertarian married to a hard core republican.
unfortunately, i am stupid enough that i have nothing to back this up, i just feel it, which is the unfortunate inheritance of sensitive people.
It's all just more lies from the radical white right wingers. Look at how many barrels of oil are being shipped to the US today in their quest for more and more of the world's resources.
fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
What's all the hubbub? We all know it is just another of the millions of lies by Bush and Blair in their quest to steal the wealth of the innocent Iraqis. Just one more lie to be added on top of the rest. It's been proven here, time and time again, that only liberal anti-war socialists are worthy of breathing the earth's air anyways.
Take the right wing scum out and shoot them down like dogs and let the rest live peacefully. Get rid of them and there will be no more problems anywhere in the world. Oh sure, you can try to reeducate them first, but believe me, they will end up having to be liquidated, just as Stalin and Mao did.
You just can't trust a right winged lying SOB bent on world domination as America has been ever since it stole the colony from England in 1776. Hell, right wingers would even have us believe they actually stepped in to help others during WW1 and WW2 when we all know it was their quest for total domination of Europe and Asia.
Total abandonment of the American military forces and total submission to the UN is the only real answer. Then, take all the accumulated wealth in the US and redistribute it where it will really do some good.
how could the us possibly lose?
well, obviously not in any outright confrontation.
iraq has no chance of waging any effective war without wmd.
Your going to tell me that Fox News is less to the right than CBS is to the left? Wait a second, Fox is "Fair and ballanced" right? Riiighhht.
Sorry to pop your little bubble, but Fox News is a cable channel, one that not everyone gets. ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels and everyone with a TV gets them.
A major problem many face in their assumption that Fox is so right wing is that they are used to the big 3 and their left leaning reporting, depending on your age, possibly your entire life. When we have become accustomed to primarily left leaning reporting, anything towards the center becomes right wing to us.
Sort the facts out of the commentary and when the facts don't match up with what you want to here, except other possibilities that are evident.
Guess you think I listen only to Fox? You are far from correct.
"Feelgood" stories are all over Iraq but go unreported. They don't sell. You get to hear what mainstream media feels is the highest selling story. Blood and gore are high-selling, feelgood isn't. A recent visit to Iraq by Democratic members of the Congress reported the unfair and unbalanced reporting, often with reporters not even leaving their hotels. Are they right wingers now too? Did you happen to catch that report on the big 3? I didn't.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/092303/press.aspx
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5894
I'm all for just having all the terrorists just promise not to do it again and bringing everyone home anyways. Then, disband the military and place ourselves totally under the United Nations. Take all our leaders out and shoot them down like the dogs they are and have representatives of France make the US a better place to be. Then, pass out bags of pot to everyone and we all just mellow. Even Rush Limbaugh would sound better.
Maybe the world would be better off if we just collected all the caucasians in the US and send them back to what countries they originated from in the first place. We all know there was total peace in the world before the US was formed. All the current problems of the world are totally laid at the feet of white America and their penchant for war and robbing everyone else of the precious natural resources so whitey can misuse them.
note that i'm talking about a state visit, not your run-of-the-mill political scenario.. state visits from visiting presidents, kings and queens involve open-top parades through pall mall next to queen lizzie in an open landau, several nights in the best suite at buckingham palace, soldiers and guardsmen in full regalia and banquets galore until the excellent food pops out your ears.
that's a state visit.
i don't think that we've had a full state visit from a us president since jfk.. now, our good friend george dubya is expected for a state visit next week.
I see no reason for Bush not to make the visit. He and Blair seem to have become good friends, not always an easy task when one is conservative and the other liberal. I am convinced the British, in their usual manner, will be gracious hosts and welcome him, even if a few malcontents act up.
On another note, with the mention of job losses and lower paying jobs in the US, look at how US corporations have been shipping jobs overseas, many under NAFTA. Bush isn't toally to blame for all of it, much of it started under the previous administration. Just maybe, we Americans have become spoiled expecting too much.
found object: bush's early discharge .
they also serve who attend b-school.
by timothy noah.
I'm eagerly anticipating the newly elected Democrat President's bashing that will surely ensue next Fall
hehe, don't hold your breath
As far as parties go, I'd prefer to see them done away with, myself. Get back to what person is best. But, if we are stuck with parties, the others should also be allowed fair representation as well.
found object: bush's early discharge .
they also serve who attend b-school.
by timothy noah.
Aztec, I have no problem with an "honest" critique of any public official, they all should be held to standards. Let's just make sure it is the same standards.
I'll have to disagree over Clinton's being a good president, though. But, since he is old news, no need to debate him any longer. At least we agreed on something
I like seeing the same standard for all, across the board. If I had my way, I wouldn't mind seeing Harry Truman cloned either. He may have been the last decent Democrat President we had. Kennedy may have been too, but he really wasn't in office long enough to be able to make an effective comparison. Johnson, though, was a joke.
If the Democrats ever move back towards the conservatism they were once known for, I might start voting Democrat occassionally, depending on the candidate. In the same light, the Republicans need to ignore the radical Christian right as well.
found object: bush's early discharge .
they also serve who attend b-school.
by timothy noah.
PS, Bush wasn't given orders to Vietnam. Still, he did train to fly fighter jets and if his unit had been activated and he didn't go, I would join you in condemning him.
However, for 8 years, we had a President that so many felt was the best ever and where was he? Dodging the draft and not inhaling. But, for those 8 years, all the left could say was that character didn't matter. Now, since a Republican is in office, character matters again?
What about the opposition candidate to Bush? Yes, he was in Vietnam, for less that 5 months. A normal tour was a year. He too received an early out to attend Divinty school and guess what? He didn't finish it either. But, since Bush has been in office, we hear about how much better a person he is. What job did he have? Writing articles for news and magazines. Yet, he had no problem circulating pictures of himself with an M-16, back pack and bush hat, looking like infantry, when he wasn't.
Sure seems like very much a double standard to me.
confounding president bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.
the sudden rise in spending subject to congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year.
not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip.
SF, I have always managed to support myself, even in tight and unemployed times. Yes, I've drawn unemployment for a short time, but always made it as short as possible. In fact, I haven't drawn it in well over 20 years now. At the time, my area was the 3rd largest unemployment in the nation.
I don't have my job by pure luck, I have it because I sought it and do it to the best of my ability. People cry about unemployment, but can still justify illegal aliens doing the menial work? Have we become so over-impressed with ourselves that we can't get our hands dirty? Or, is welfare just easier for some?
Do I believe Washington needs to decrease spending? Yes. Even with the war on, there is much bloat in government that could be eleminated. We could start with pork barrel spending by many democrats and republicans too. Want to bet, though, that if they ever did, some advocacy group will be crying they are being starved?
Democrats seem to want it both ways. Blast Bush if he decreases spending and blast him if he increases it.
confounding president bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.
the sudden rise in spending subject to congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year.
not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip.
Maybe this is the reason the current administration is ignoring the growing threat of North Korea. Under Kim Jong Il's regime, you eat if you serve. If you remain in the private sector, you starve.
And if he steps up and acts, he is just a power grabbing warmonger. No matter what he does, the left will complain.
As for the spending, just because a slanted article doesn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't being done. I don't see long lines of soup kitchens. Everytime I go grocery shopping, food stamps are brought out by someone, so they're getting them from somewhere. I can't get them, though, I work for a living.
But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Seems to me, he hasn't simply forgotten about social programs either. Maybe if you read an entire article you post, you would see that. Yes, spending needs to come down, no argument there. But, as soon as any spending is cut, who jumps up and cries about them cutting someone off?
Remember the latest Bush tax cuts everyone cried about? I didn't get one because I have no children at home. Families with children received one. Seems to me, they were the ones who needed it most and received it. Seems also, the economy is doing a lot better since then too, so, Democrats needed something else to assail the man over.
No matter what, he gets condemned constantly. So, who is really the power hungry?
