Posts by Reborn2002

13

General Tommy R. Franks

by freedom96 in

jw
friends

i attended a seminar this weekend, in which retired 4 star general tommy r. franks was the keynote speaker.

what a fine job he did.

he loves this country; there was no doubt about it.

Reborn2002

Politicians don't lie. They are not crooked.

The Bush Administration is the epitome of wholesome values and integrity. They would NEVER lie, cheat, steal, or bribe.

Get real. Ironic that Scalia was one of the Supreme Court Justices who voted against Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election suit. That those who voted against him were appointed by Republican Presidents, and that Scalia has an obvious tie to the energy industry and Dick Cheney, is no mere coincidence. Read the following link.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_scalia_3

Questions Arise Over Scalia-Cheney Outing

1 hour, 8 minutes ago

Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By ADAM NOSSITER, Associated Press Writer

MORGAN CITY, La. - For many hunters, duck season in the swamps of Louisiana means an outing with a pickup and a six-pack. For Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ( news - web sites ) and Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites), it included a flight in a U.S. government jet, a ride in a police motorcade and lodging in a floating hunting camp owned by an oil-services tycoon who is a longtime Scalia friend.

A panoply of Secret Service and local law enforcement guarded the hunting party, and though the shooting was poor, the "strictly social" occasion, as participant Louis Prejean described it, was enjoyable.

But last month's trip has raised growing questions about the propriety of a Supreme Court justice going on a hunt with Cheney at the same time Scalia was hearing a case involving the vice president.

Congressional Democrats and newspaper editorials have called for Scalia to step down from the case, which has to do with whether Cheney must reveal who serves on his energy task force. Further complicating the question: The host of the hunting trip is a prominent member of the energy industry.

Scalia has declined to recuse himself, saying he remains impartial. He likened the hunting trip to a White House dinner.

Kevin Kellems, Cheney's press secretary, said Scalia's objectivity is "really a question that the Supreme Court officials are in better position to answer. This is really, at its core, a question about how the court operates, what their rules are and so forth."

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said it would be "an easy call" for Scalia to disqualify himself because Cheney apparently paid at least some of the justice's expenses.

"He has to set an example of what conduct is acceptable. Taking a gift from a litigant in a case before you and taking a trip with that litigant in a small group" is not acceptable, Gillers said.

Several people in the party, including host Wallace Carline and Prejean, declined to discuss the trip into the duck-filled marshland at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. But this was no ordinary hunting trip.

After landing Jan. 5, the party hurried out of a small blue-and-white jet marked "United States of America" and ducked straight into vehicles that had been flown down separately. With flashing lights that illuminated the rainy afternoon, the caravan made its way south to Carline's camp in the marshes.

There, Scalia and Cheney joined a group of about nine, the justice has said. Among them were relatives of Carline's son-in-law, Mike Swiber, who works for Carline's Diamond Services Corp., which provides barges, tugs, and dredging equipment. "I have no comments, no comments at all," Swiber said. "It's over."

Carline's place on the marsh is more a boat than a camp. A Carline competitor and friend, Doyle Berry, described it as a barge about 150 feet by 50 feet that anchors wherever the hunting is best. On top is a house-like structure.

"It's a big camp, lovely camp," said another friend, local Republican lawyer Al Lippman.

Carline, a member of the local port authority, created his fortune from scratch more than four decades ago, friends said.

"He's a very private-type individual," Lippman said. He is also, apparently, a registered Democrat: The only Wallace Carline in the parish is so listed, according to a local voting official.

Scalia, an avid hunter, is a frequent visitor to Louisiana. His hunting companion is often Prejean, a state worker for the disabled and the brother of Sister Helen Prejean, the anti-death penalty activist and author of "Dead Man Walking." In an interview, she has described confronting Scalia about his pro-death penalty views.

The vice president left after two days, while Scalia stayed two more days.

Berry, echoing others here, said locals were just "honored the vice president came down and hunted." But legal analysts elsewhere said it is not that simple.

"The fact is that the vice president is not a nominal party to this litigation. He has a strong personal and political interest in the result. That's the long and the short of it for me," Gillers said.

13

General Tommy R. Franks

by freedom96 in

jw
friends

i attended a seminar this weekend, in which retired 4 star general tommy r. franks was the keynote speaker.

what a fine job he did.

he loves this country; there was no doubt about it.

Reborn2002

I don't believe anything just one person says. But when numerous accounts are given, and they add up, then I look at all the facts, and not certain spins.

Ok, I will give you one example in this post and let you search for evidence yourself of it's accuracy because it has been widely reported and even verified from a government agency under the Bush Administration.

Funny, those who don't want to believe the White House accounts will look for every reason not to believe.
And, Paul O Neil, who has an axe to grind, already backed down from his statements the day after it was released. And again, even he said the media was spinning and not completely accurate.
Perhaps if you heard his speach you would feel different, though you probably would not agree with him.
Not everyone agrees with their policies, but at least they are doing something. I would sure rather have Bush in office again than any of the democratic runners this time around.
What I heard the General say, is very similar to what I have heard in other circles. I don't know President Bush himself, but I know people who do know him. The stories are consistant.
I guess you just had to be there.

Ok.

Whether you agree with the policies of the Bush administration, they genuinely feel that they are doing the right thing, to protect the United States and stand up for what is right, and do what must be done.

How about the Bush Administration forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to issue misleading information about the air quality of lower Manhattan near Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks? The White House told September 11th survivors and rescue workers it was safe to go back to work, deliberately misrepresented the truth about environmental threats to New Yorker's health and safety, and put them in peril. According to Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, 78% of the Ground Zero workers they examined suffered from lung ailments. In August 2003, the EPA's Inspector General reported that the White House instructed EPA to give the public misleading information about the air quality in lower Manhattan after the September 11 attacks. As a result of the White House influence, guidance for cleaning indoor air spaces and information about potential health affects from the World Trade Center debris were not included in the EPA's press releases.

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/

Do a search on the topic. You will find numerous reports on this one issue. But I suppose George W. Bush is doing something about things, and always acting in our best interest.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=epa+%2B+september+11th&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=

and while we are sitting here praising the integrity of the Bush Administration, look what popped up on the news wire from the AP as I composed this post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/intelligence_cia_21

CIA Boss: Iraq Never an Imminent Threat

53 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In his first public defense in the growing controversy over intelligence, CIA ( news - web sites) Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq ( news - web sites) was an imminent threat. The urgency of such a threat was the main argument used by President Bush ( news - web sites) for going to war.

In a speech clearly aimed at protecting the CIA from becoming a scapegoat, Tenet said analysts held varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before the war. Those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House, he said.

"They never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said of the analysts. "Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

"No one told us what to say or how to say it," Tenet said.

In the months before the war, Bush and his top aides repeatedly stressed the urgency of stopping Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites ). In a Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations ( news - web sites ), the president called Saddam's regime "a grave and gathering danger." The next day, he told reporters that Saddam was "a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Ohio, Bush said "the danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time."

On Thursday, Bush repeated that "America confronted a gathering threat in Iraq. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal, corrupt and dangerous regimes in the world. For years the dictator funded terrorists, and gave reward money for suicide bombings."

Speaking in Charleston, S.C., Bush said Saddam is today "sitting in a prison cell, and he will be sitting in a courtroom to answer for his crimes." But, he conceded, "As the chief weapons inspector has said, we have not yet found the weapons we thought were there." Bush added that inspectors have found possible evidence of weapons programs.

"Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq," he said, in a line that drew long applause from an audience of military personnel and cadets.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is turning into a major political issue ahead of the presidential election, calling into question Bush's justification for the war as U.S. casualties mount.

Tenet said U.S. intelligence accurately reported to Bush before the war that Saddam's regime posed a danger. He revealed that two sources with high-level access to Saddam's regime told the CIA in the fall of 2002, shortly before the war, that production of biological and chemical weapons was going on inside Iraq.

Those sources "solidified and reinforced ... my own view of the danger posed by Saddam's regime," Tenet said, taking direct responsibility for what was passed on to Bush.

Yet he acknowledged no such weapons have been found, and that many of the agency's prewar estimates of weapons of mass destruction have not been borne out so far. He insisted the search isn't over.

"We are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said, in a direct rebuttal to statements made by his former chief adviser on Iraq's weapons, David Kay that sparked the intense debate over prewar intelligence.

Tenet spoke a day before Bush was expected to name a commission to examine intelligence problems.

On specific matters, Tenet acknowledged that U.S. analysts believed that Saddam's regime was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program but have found no evidence of that.

On chemical and biological weapons, Tenet said analysts believed that Saddam had ongoing programs and perhaps stockpiles and have found no evidence of such weapons production.

Tenet outlined the sources of the CIA's prewar estimates with a public detail that intelligence agencies usually shy from. He said they were based on years of U.N. weapons inspections. Once the inspectors left in the late 1990s, the estimates were based mostly on informants ? some he acknowledged as suspect ? and on technical intelligence, he said.

On one key point that is befuddling weapons inspectors, Tenet said he did not know at this point whether it was possible Saddam's own officials had lied to the Iraqi leader about what his regime had in the way of weapons.

Republicans in Congress have increasingly been citing poor intelligence and Tenet, who was appointed by President Clinton ( news - web sites), in the growing controversy over why no weapons have been found. Democrats have said intelligence agencies deserved only part of the blame and have accused the White House of cherrypicking intelligence that bolstered the case for war, while ignoring dissenting opinions.

Even as Tenet acknowledged some intelligence shortcomings in Iraq, he cited other work that he said represented great successes. He credited U.S. intelligence on Iran and Libya's nuclear programs, for example, with recent decisions by those countries to cooperate with international arms inspectors.

Tenet also said CIA spies provided the tips that led to the arrests of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and of Asia's leading terror suspect, Hambali.

13

General Tommy R. Franks

by freedom96 in

jw
friends

i attended a seminar this weekend, in which retired 4 star general tommy r. franks was the keynote speaker.

what a fine job he did.

he loves this country; there was no doubt about it.

Reborn2002

For those who love to bash our President, and suggest that the war with Iraq was decided long before 9/11, that is simply not true. General Franks made that very clear. There were discussions in the White House specifically about the war, and how they did in fact delay it, and allow Saddam many opportunities to avoid the conflict.

Nice to know that just because Tommy Franks told you something, it must be true!

I am amused at how quickly people accept as indisputable fact whatever political and military leaders tell them. The United States has a long history of lies perpetrated on it's own citizens, yet people lap up whatever the media spins to them or whatever the politicians proclaim as truth.

Let's see.

Watergate.

The Tuskegee Experiment.

The numerous Clinton scandals including Vince Foster's very strange suicide and MonicaGate.

George Bush telling the world that Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa and possessed WMD that posed an imminent threat to the United States and it's allies.

Tony Blair emphasizing the 45 minute window.

Politicians lie. This is true of all political parties. It is the nature of the beast.

The fact remains that to date no WMD have been found, and Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay (whom Bush proudly cited in his 2004 State of the Union regarding WMD) has now come forward stating he believes no WMD were there. Paul O'Neill, a member of Bush's own Cabinet, stated that this war was being planned pre 9/11. Let's look at facts. Bush's father was President when the US last went to war with Saddam Hussein. Bush 1 did not finish the job and took egg on the face for his incompetency and lost his reelection bid. Hussein tried to assassinate George H. W. Bush. Dubya goes after the attempted murderer of his father and finishes what his father started. Hell, I predicted in 2001 when Dubya was inaugurated that the economy would tank and we would go to war with somebody. Wanna know why? Because Republicans pass laws and cozy up to heavy political contributors and lobbyists, which means giving breaks to corporations at the expense of the average American. And also because Bush has a background in oil and Cheney and Ashcroft among others have backgrounds in weapons. War means profit for the powers that be. But you go on believing whatever Tommy Franks tells you. After all, if he says it, it must be true.

39

Saddam bribed Chirac?

by MegaDude in

iraqi govt.

papers: saddam bribed chirac .

baghdad, iraq, jan. 28 (upi) -- documents from saddam hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top french officials into opposing the imminent u.s.-led invasion of iraq.. the oil ministry papers, described by the independent baghdad newspaper al-mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new iraqi governing council, the independent reported wednesday.. "i think the list is true," naseer chaderji, a governing council member, said.

Reborn2002

Valis said:

I think we should invade France for assisting the enemy

I second that! I agree with earlier comments. The French are only interested in the French. They opposed the war for monetary gain, but the moment a WMD from any nation landed on the Eiffel Tower, they would be begging for US aid.

WWII is an excellent example of their modus operandi. The Nazis were able to successfully topple France because the German soldiers marched into the country backwards and told the French they were leaving.

11

Holly Exploding Whales Batman!!!

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

whale explodes in taiwanese city

a dead sperm whale has exploded while being delivered to a research centre near the southwestern city of tainan.

passers-by and cars were soaked in blood and body parts were sprayed over a road after the bursting of the whale, which was being carried on a trailer.

Reborn2002

Heard this story on the local morning news today.

Truly disgusting! LOL

13

Blair And The 45 Minutes Warning - Hutton Report.

by Englishman in

it seems that that nice mr. blair was acting on information believed to be genuine when he took britain to war.. that nasty old beeb beeb see has received a right bollocking for not checking it's own information properly.. it's unprecedented for the bbc to be so castigated.

click here.. heads are going to roll!.

englishman.

Reborn2002

That's ok. Good ole Dubya manages to avoid egg on his face like a teflon don here in the States.

Let's have a look at the facts shall we?

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush cites British Intelligence stating unequivocally that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. Current status of this claim? The Administration has since backed off this claim entirely.

Bush did not dispute the Blair intelligence that Hussein had capability within a 45 minute time frame, and that Iraq possessed WMD. Current status: Nothing more than a speculative allegation, after almost a year, no WMD have been found.

Hell, even one of his own Cabinet secretaries, Paul O'Neill, came forward and admitted that Bush was after Hussein pre 9/11. Or how about David Kay himself coming forward in recent days and saying no WMD are there? Revisionist history is convenient for Bush supporters. This was a preemptive war based on WMD and a threat, now the facts come out that no WMD are there, and Bush instead touts the war as a victory for democracy and freedom for Iraqis under a despot. That was not the justification for the war. If it was, the US should be invading North Korea, China, and other tyrannical nations.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040128/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_weapons_040127184120

Kay Blames Weak Intel in Iraq WMD Failure

58 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told members of the Senate Wednesday that the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ( news - web sites) exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence-gathering apparatus.

AFP/File Photo

Reuters
	Slideshow: Iraq

Kay Blames Weak Intel in Iraq WMD Failure
(AP Video)

Latest headlines:

·	Kay Blames Weak Intel in Iraq WMD Failure AP - 2 minutes ago

·	Iraqis to Discuss Debt With G-7, IMF AP - 10 minutes ago

·	Iraq Probes International Oil Scandal Charges Reuters - 13 minutes ago

Special Coverage

"We've had a number of surprises," Kay told reporters after meeting behind closed doors with the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It's quite clear we need capabilities that we do not have with regard to intelligence."

Later, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee ( news - web sites ) that "we were almost all wrong ? and I certainly include myself here," in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But Kay denied suggestions by Democrats that intelligence analysts felt pressured by the administration to shape intelligence to help President Bush ( news - web sites) make the case for war. He said he spoke to many analysts who prepared the intelligence and "not in a single case was the explanation that I was pressured to this."

Kay also said despite no evidence of weapons stockpiles, Iraqi documents, physical evidence and interviews with Iraqi scientists revealed that Iraq was engaged in weapons programs prohibited by U.N. resolutions.

Senators have been anxious to speak to Kay, one of a number of U.S. officials who have recently adjusted their positions on Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites )'s military capabilities. The Bush administration cited a threat from such weapons as a principle justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam last year.

As special adviser to CIA ( news - web sites) Director George Tenet, Kay was chosen last year as the Iraq Survey Group leader in part because he was convinced weapons would be found. "My suspicions are that we'll find in the chemical and biological areas, in fact, I think there may be some surprises coming rather quickly in that area," he said on CNN in June.

Kay resigned Friday, saying he was stepping down because resources were being shifted away from the search.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services panel, called the hearing to receive Kay's views directly. Before sitting down with Warner's committee, Kay told reporters he believes the work of the Iraq survey group must continue.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said: "Tis a quandary. We're at war and people are dying every day. We went to war on the presumption that we were going to be attacked very soon if we didn't do something and the reign of terror would come from weapons of mass destruction. I'm still in search of those weapons of mass destruction."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said his committee has finished a draft report on its inquiry into the prewar intelligence and plans to get it to members next week.

He said it appears the problem is with some intelligence agencies and not the policy-makers. "Anyone who believes otherwise has not done their homework and certainly was not listening to Dr. Kay," he said.

"I still have a fundamental question that nobody has quite answered yet," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "We know he had biological and chemical weapons in the early 1990s. What happened to them? Did they move to another country? Were they destroyed? There are indications that maybe some of them have been eliminated."

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that it's premature to speculate about "why we were wrong," and rejected Kay's statement that the work in Iraq is 85 percent done.

While inspectors have been unable to unearth weapons of mass destruction, they have found new evidence that Saddam's regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, Kay told The Washington Post in an interview in Tuesday editions.

Democratic presidential contenders have grabbed onto Kay's conclusion on the absence of banned weapons.

"The administration did cook the books," Howard Dean ( news - web sites ) told reporters Tuesday. "I think that's pretty serious."

Kay's resignation and subsequent statements come as many in the administration subtly are changing their assertions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including Bush. In last year's State of the Union, Bush called Saddam a "dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons."

In the State of the Union this month, Bush spoke of Saddam's programs, rather than weapons: "Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. "

Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites ) told the United Nations ( news - web sites ) Security Council that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed "real and present dangers."

This weekend, Powell began to backpedal, saying the United States thought Saddam had banned weapons, but "we had questions that needed to be answered."

24

Would YOU Have REALLY Died For Your Brother or Sister???

by minimus in

jw
friends

since jws say they would do the ultimate and actually die for their brother, was that something that you honestly feel that you would have done?

Reborn2002

Question: Would you have reallydied for your brother or sister???

Condensed and simplified answer: HELL NO

69

How old were you when you left?

by somebodylovesme in

jw
friends

i only know a handful of witnesses, but i do know several ex-witnesses.

all of them left in their late teens, which (as i've read here) is pretty common.

i know there are a lot of people here who left later in life.

Reborn2002

Born into the JW cult a third generation member. Grandfather was a congregation servant and elder for over 40 year.s Mother is age 56 and she was born into it in 1947.

Pressured into baptism at age 12.

Pioneered extensively and was expected to go to Bethel and become a CO.

Realized it was a load of BS as a teenager.

Became inactive and stopped attending meetings at age 18.

Suffered from depression because family was shunning me and temporarily returned to attempt to get family back at age 20.

Really started researching the religion with grandfather's Watchtower and Awake bound volumes from 1930's to 1990's and JW-related websites (i.e. www.quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com)

DA myself at age 21.

Happier than hell and free at age 23.

3

Neil Bush (and other brothers of Presidents)

by Reborn2002 in

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040126/ap_on_re_us/neil_bush_divorce_1

neil bush divorce produces disclosures

mon jan 26, 1:54 pm et

Reborn2002

bttt

guess this post slipped through the cracks completely unnoticed... or was it just ignored? lol

61

Poll-----Who Will Be The Next President Of the United States?

by minimus in

i say george w.

Reborn2002

Doing pretty good Val thanks for asking. Your one of the few people on this site with enough manners to at least ask me how I am doing when you see me post here.

How are things for you? Good I hope.