Us presidential election 2004

[Akira 0]

Kerry=billionaire.

Correction...

Theresa Heinz=Billionaire

Quote[/b] ]You dont find it hypocritical of him giving us all thes lectures on "benidict arnold companies", saying he understands the poor, wanting to tax the rich, etc, when he's dirt rich himself?

I find it very hypocritical of him to blast "benidict arnold" companies, and the rich when hes no better.

How the hell do you know he's no better?

The fact he and Edwards both voted against the tax cuts that would have greatly benefited themselves says quite alot.

Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice continue to rake in the cash and you say nothing....

That ,my son, is hypocritical.

Quote[/b] ]my goodness you Bush fanboys better come up with a better argument than that before the debates start

LOL

I can picture them with their autographed Dubya picture on their desk, with a poster on their wall of Dubya striking a provocative pose...

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

You dont find it hypocritical of him giving us all thes lectures on "benidict arnold companies", saying he understands the poor, wanting to tax the rich, etc, when he's dirt rich himself?

I find it very hypocritical of him to blast "benidict arnold" companies, and the rich when hes no better.

I find it hypocritcal that we have a president in office who preaches about doing the right thing and duty, honor country and he doesn't know jack shit about either...I find it hypocritical that every republican wants to point fingers at Kerry and Edwards for making an honest living while Bush sends our troops off to war so him and Cheney can fill their pockets with BLOOD money..how many oil companies does bush and cheny have in their pockets again...get real dude...your comparing apples and oranges...Bush is the ONLY president of this country that has sent people to their death for the benefit of his investments and a personal vendetta

[adrenaline red 0]

No, when people get married they have the same income, you know, houshold income? Plus hes got millions in heinz stock, not to mention hes the heir to his families fortune.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....doubled

http://www.kansascity.com/mld.....htm?1c

Plus he and his wife invest in these "benidict arnold" companies, they even own one.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily....038.htm

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/april/0422_heinz_supports_bush.shtml

Hes no better cause he says one thing "blah blah blah benidict arnold companies" when Heinz ketchup is one of them, they outsourced like 60% of their workers.

Your gonna say "its not his company", so let me respond by saying, you dont find it hypocritical for him to never mention the outsorcing of Heinz ketchup and other companies he invests in when he gives speeches on "benidicta arnold" companies??

LOL, yeah tax cuts suck. I know you democrats keep on saying the sky is falling, but you gotta look at the cold hard facts. Weve seen the greatest economic growth in decades, and all economic indicators are up. So I dont see how the sky is falling.

You wanna prove all this stuff on blood money and war for oil? Cause thats an outrageous claim.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

No, when people get married they have the same income, you know, houshold income? Plus hes got millions in heinz stock, not to mention hes the heir to his families fortune.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....doubled

http://www.kansascity.com/mld.....htm?1c

Plus he and his wife invest in these "benidict arnold" companies, they even own one.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily....038.htm

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/april/0422_heinz_supports_bush.shtml

Hes no better cause he says one thing "blah blah blah benidict arnold companies" when Heinz ketchup is one of them, they outsourced like 60% of their workers.

Your gonna say "its not his company", so let me respond by saying, you dont find it hypocritical for him to never mention the outsorcing of Heinz ketchup and other companies he invests in when he gives speeches on "benidicta arnold" companies??

LOL, yeah tax cuts suck. I know you democrats keep on saying the sky is falling, but you gotta look at the cold hard facts. Weve seen the greatest economic growth in decades, and all economic indicators are up. So I dont see how the sky is falling.

You wanna prove all this stuff on blood money and war for oil? Cause thats an outrageous claim.

I DON'T CARE IF KERRY OR EDWARD IS RICH!!! name me one president in the last couple years who isn't rich...are you jealous or something..get over it. Is this the best argument you have..your comparing how Kerry and his wife got married to someone who lied to the American public and got people KILLED!! you have no clue bro..maybe you don't have friend and family over there ...I do and there is a massive difference between fighting a war that is nessesary and fighting one of choice especially over a personal vendetta..yall Bush cronies don't seem to get it..BUSH LIED and not about fucking some fat chick in the white house he lied and sent people to die when he knew he was lying hes full of shit, Cheney is full of shit..and I can only hope when they die God punishes them for this....but yeah go back to saying Kerry is a billionaire and Edward is an "evil" trial lawyer I hope for your case you never need legal help cause your foot will so far in your mouth you won't be able to ask...I'm gonna withdraw form this conversation cause I have a feeling your gonna say something extremely uncalled for thats gonna get me cussing and a warning level...have a good day uninformed one

[adrenaline red 0]

The hell I dont know, I have good friends over there, even my neighbor is in Iraq (coming back this week). And these guys tell me they feel good freeing 25+million people.

Again, your accusing him of an outrageous claim, you care to provide any evidence to support your claim? Or do you just rely on michael moore for your info? You democrats are so hypocritical. Kerry had the same info available to him, and came to the same juedgment on iraq as Bush, yetI dont here you guys saying anything about that. You let him off when he did the same thing Bush did, yet you praise Kerry and bash Bush even when they both came to the same conclusion.

Just check this out:

http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryOnIraq/Default.aspx

Bush never lied to us. He based his decision and gave us the best intel they had at the time, was it faulty, yeah, does it mean he deliberatly lied? No, truth is we got this mess thanks to bubba, he neglected the inteligence community so much that we are in this situation.

You really should look up the facts, you will see that it is you who is misinformed. And you really should provide some evidence if your gonna accuse people of stuff, when you dont it just makes you look stupid.

Yeah, im out too, noone is gonna change anyone elses mind, and im not gonna bother trying.

[Schoeler 0]

You dont find it hypocritical of him giving us all thes lectures on "benidict arnold companies", saying he understands the poor, wanting to tax the rich, etc, when he's dirt rich himself?

I find it very hypocritical of him to blast "benidict arnold" companies, and the rich when hes no better.

The man married into the money for Christ's sake. Don't you read?

[denoir 0]

The hell I dont know, I have good friends over there, even my neighbor is in Iraq (coming back this week). And these guys tell me they feel good freeing 25+million people.

Too bad that the people of Iraq don't feel so liberated [bBC]:

31% supports attacks on coallition troops

56% think the occupation was wrong

55% oppose the presence of US troops

16% said that the coalition was a "liberating force"

10% said that the coalition was a "peace keeping force"

51% said that the coalition was an "occupying force"

18% said that the coalition was a force that "exploits iraq"

69% of those questioned said no priority should be given to "dealing with members" of the previous regime.

Quote[/b] ]Bush never lied to us. He based his decision and gave us the best intel they had at the time, was it faulty, yeah, does it mean he deliberatly lied? No, truth is we got this mess thanks to bubba, he neglected the inteligence community so much that we are in this situation.

Even if one would believe that Bush and his merry men did not influence the intelligence agencies, you can hardly argue against what the rest of the world. You had the intel from the DSGE, BND, GRU and others that all told you that the status of the WMD was unknown. Did Bush listen? Nope. In his own words he "ran out of patience". Well, over 1,000 Americans dead and far more than 10,000 Iraqis dead because he "lost his patience".

Kerry signed on the deal, voted for it, so he's equally to blame.

One thing however you can't blame Kerry for and that is the gross mismanagement of Iraq. The incredible incompetnecy that has plagued the occupation. The endless string of idiotic errors. The complete lack of a post war plan etc

And that's the fault of the Bush administration.

[Schoeler 0]

The hell I dont know, I have good friends over there, even my neighbor is in Iraq (coming back this week). And these guys tell me they feel good freeing 25+million people.

Did your good friends in the war also tell you that they are being spponfed almost pure propaganda over there and that the majority of the troops believe Saddam and Bin Laden are connected because that is what their commanders have been telling them?

Quote[/b] ]Kerry had the same info available to him, and came to the same juedgment on iraq as Bush, yetI dont here you guys saying anything about that. You let him off when he did the same thing Bush did, yet you praise Kerry and bash Bush even when they both came to the same conclusion.

I think you are incredibly misinformed on this issue. Kerry and the rest of Congress, did not have the same information as Bush did with respect to pre-war intel. They were given a briefing by the Pentagon that excluded sources and means, which had they been included like they were for the President, would have revealed some incredibly shaky and shady sources that at best were questionable and at worst provided zero basis for beginning an armed conflict on foreign soil. Read the intelligence commission's recently released report. They reached a bi-partisan agreement that they were misinformed. Oddly, the second half of the report is not due out until after the election, which is a little bit worrisome considering it is supposed to reveal the Administration's role in exaggerating the pre-war intel and the White House's role in cherry-picking the intel that would allow them to start the war. How coincidental.

Quote[/b] ]Bush never lied to us. He based his decision and gave us the best intel they had at the time, was it faulty, yeah, does it mean he deliberatly lied? No, truth is we got this mess thanks to bubba, he neglected the inteligence community so much that we are in this situation.

Bush may very well have lied to us, we won't know until after the election. What we do know now, is that the decision was not made with the best intel available at the time. Thanks to the Intelligence Commission report, we know the decision was made on very faulty intel gathered by community members trapped in a "groupthink" paradigm that ignored any information contrary to the purposes of finding info that would justify a war.

Quote[/b] ]You really should look up the facts, you will see that it is you who is misinformed. And you really should provide some evidence if your gonna accuse people of stuff, when you dont it just makes you look stupid.

I think you have some fact checking to do yourself. I don't want to embarass you, but I can back up these assertions i've made with evidence and i will if you are unwilling to do the research yourself, but then I will be the one making you look foolish and that really isn't something i'm interested in.

[denoir 0]

LOL, yeah tax cuts suck. I know you democrats keep on saying the sky is falling, but you gotta look at the cold hard facts. Weve seen the greatest economic growth in decades, and all economic indicators are up. So I dont see how the sky is falling.

LOL. Yeah, that's why the US dollar is commonly used as toilet paper these days around the world  

Seriously though. When Bush came to power it was 0.88 USD/€, now it's 1.25 USD/€. That's really bad.

Not to mention the lovely little deficit of over $500 billion. Who is going to pay for that? Santa Claus?

[denoir 0]

Thanks to the Intelligence Commission report, we know the decision was made on very faulty intel gathered by community members trapped in a "groupthink" paradigm that ignored any information contrary to the purposes of finding info that would justify a war.

I'd say you don't know anything. The senate report was the senators trying to explain why they voted for a war without any real reason. It was a political report that came to some very odd conclusions and completely left out important elements such as the Office of Special Plans.

The senate report is nothing but a whitewash. And it's not because they're covering Bush's ass - they are covering their own asses. They all voted for it. So Kerry is as much to blame for the starting of the war as Bush is. Bush contributed to the post-war mess, which Kerry did not. For the starting of the war, they're on the same page.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Economics has always been a hard to understand concept for the drones of the communist tendancy of the republican party.

It is fact the NeoConMen have used in their coup to take over the party and why many traditional conservatives in the the republican party realy hate the foul mouthed liar Dodgy Dick Cheney and his NeoConMen.

Let us look then at the economic achievements of Bush/Cheney un-presidency.

Big but by no means complete list

* Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

* Shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.

* Set the economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

* Set the all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

* In his first two years in office over 2.7 million Americans lost their job. No Bush president has ever created one net new job yet.

* Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

* Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

*Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

* Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans. (Ba**tards sorry an ungrateful Vietnam War Dodger and his Draft dodging running mate p*ss me off)

* First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

* Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

* Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

* Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

*Their biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

* Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

* Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Source: http://www.topplebush.com/bushresume.shtml

I have concentrated on economics and pulled it out of a vast list there if you go to the site there are a lot more.

I guess the next thing will be to sum up Bush/Cheney un-presidency's failures in security.

The Cost of the Republicans Tax and Spend Policies

Getting back to the economics though where does everyone think the money to pay back the massive debt that the Bush/Cheney un-presidency has run up will come from. Government has only one source of income; it does not run a business; it does not make profits there is only one way to pay of government debt and that is with taxes. Republican Tax and Spend Policies have got to be stopped.

Latest NeoConMen attack policy: Attack the American Dream

And against all this what is the latest attack policy fed by the NeoConMen to the easy to con drones of the Communist tendancy of the Republican party.

"Edwards is a self made millionaire you should be jealous of him."

Err Right So as well as everything else the NeConMen who's coup took over the Republican Party are against the American Dream

Shakes Head in Wonder walker

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]So Kerry is as much to blame for the starting of the war as Bush is.

I would put Kerry far below Bush in the blame for starting a war. Bush and Co. planned the war from Day One. They knew exactly what they were doing and that they were sending troops and civilians to their death for personel vendetta and personel gain.

Kerry stated on 60 Minutes last night, that his vote was for the use of force as a last resort, given the shady intel they were given. The vote at the time was also while UN wranglin' was still going on.

In that regard I put Bush far above Kerry and the other Sen. and Reps. (Rep and Dem) to place the blame.

Indeed, this entire country share's the blame for Iraq. Some are a bit(or a lot) more guilty than others.

[BoweryBaker 0]

Bush is both wrong for the war and right. He did topple a cruel dictator. On the other hand, he used artificial reasons to go in. Nukes? America has nukes. Harboring terrorists? America has terrorist camps too. Ever heard of the klu klux klan? They plot against american citizens for a political goal. If anything these African nations, if they had the money would definitely go after hate groups but would America let them in to do it? Hell no. So whats stopping them from calling America a dictatorship? Some people are referring to America in the context of a cruel order bent on conquering the world. If you believe that and weigh the odds, Al qaeda isn't sending medical help to African nations to control AIDS. America is. So when people choose sides in this war, they have to know that even though both have their problems, America is still the better choice.

[Schoeler 0]

Thanks to the Intelligence Commission report, we know the decision was made on very faulty intel gathered by community members trapped in a "groupthink" paradigm that ignored any information contrary to the purposes of finding info that would justify a war.

I'd say you don't know anything. The senate report was the senators trying to explain why they voted for a war without any real reason. It was a political report that came to some very odd conclusions and completely left out important elements such as the Office of Special Plans.

The senate report is nothing but a whitewash. And it's not because they're covering Bush's ass - they are covering their own asses. They all voted for it. So Kerry is as much to blame for the starting of the war as Bush is. Bush contributed to the post-war mess, which Kerry did not. For the starting of the war, they're on the same page.

Well Denoir, that's a matter of opinion. They didn't vote for war, they voted to authorize the President to use force, which is not the same as a carte blanche authorization for war. It was largely symbolic anyway as the President could have conducted combat operations for 90 days with or without Congressional authorization. Many members of Congress went along with the program and voted for authorization while also urging that all available diplomatic means be exhausted first. Senator Kerry claims to be among that bunch. Whether or not that is true I can't definitively say. Either way, the President chose to ignore that advice.

I disagree that the members of Congress are as much to blame as the President for starting the war. They didn't give the go ahead, and I distinctly recall some of them asking for us to wait or to build a true coalition first, so in my opinion, your view is a bit distorted.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Here's my take on Kerry voting for the authorization of force. He was in the wrong in that by voting for the authorization, he abdicated Congress' Constitutional control over the executive branch when it comes to wars. However, in light of what Congress knew at the time, and because the resolution entrusted the president with the responsibility of doing everything within his power to deal with the situation without resorting to war. It was a a serious lapse in judgement, but for more indirect reasons than what Denoir enumerated.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Seriously though. When Bush came to power it was 0.88 USD/€, now it's 1.25 USD/€. That's really bad.

Not to mention the lovely little deficit of over $500 billion. Who is going to pay for that? Santa Claus?

ehmmm. If Bush is responsible for that deficit then Clinton was responsible for the boom in the nineties.

You cant blame Bush for the after-9/11-dollar-shock or for the previously undervalued Euro.

I am not defending his politics but to draw that conclusion is nonesense  

[Brutal_Impact 0]

Its so sad, American troops REALLY belive that they are liberators.

If you talk to American soldiers they will always say that. They dont know that Bush's company has made 2 billion off of the war so far or that he "forced" to Intelligence to bend the truth.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush never lied to us.

This has already been proven wrong. Bush used the "nigeria" deal in his speeches although he was warned from CIA not to use it as it was a made up story. Well, he used it, although he knew it wasn´t true. Now you say he has never lied to you ?

He has lied and a lot of these lies just pop up.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Bush never lied to us.

This has already been proven wrong. Bush used the "nigeria" deal in his speeches although he was warned from CIA not to use it as it was a made up story. Well, he used it, although he knew it wasn´t true. Now you say he has never lied to you ?

He has lied and a lot of these lies just pop up.

A lot of lies, indeed.

Impeccable timing, Bals!

Quote[/b] ]July 10, 2004, 1:50AM

Report: Wife had role in ex-diplomat's Niger mission

By SUSAN SCHMIDT

Washington Post

Quote[/b] ]CONTRADICTION

· The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Valerie Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip.

· She later sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, saying her husband "has good relations" with top officials there, the report said.

· Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

WASHINGTON -- Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson, who last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war, has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House. Wilson's claims -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined Friday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House that it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Friday's report said that whether Iraq sought to purchase lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame. The disclosure of Plame's identity led to an investigation into who leaked her name. The report may bolster the rationale that officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as a investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Its so sad, American troops REALLY belive that they are liberators.

If you talk to American soldiers they will always say that. They dont know that Bush's company has made 2 billion off of the war so far or that he "forced" to Intelligence to bend the truth.

Again I have to disagree for the second time.

I believe that to a certain extent the american soldiers ARE liberators. A brutal regime was destroyed and there was a certain bloodprice the nation had to pay. I indeed believe that a great percentage of iraqis see the americans as liberators. Certainly, with all their pride they want this dominant western nation to get out of their holy land as soon as possible. Lets not forget that we are considered as weak non-believers and it must be pretty shamefull for muslims to be "controlled" by one.

The brutality with which many of the attacks in Iraq are being carried out shows that actual "resistance" fighters are only a minority.

Noone can tell me that deliberately killing iraqi civillians, attacking aid organisations or blowing up hospitals has any use. No, those are being organised by leaders that want to profit from the power vaccum if they get the power they wont be any different than Saddam.

But at the moment I am somewhat optimistic that Iraq can find its own way and I believe that many american soldiers are liberators, even if the liberators killed ordinary soldiers or unfortunately "civillians"

On the other hand the administration did several mistakes. I do not defend the way the war was carried out. You cannot put a naive redneck-marine, who never left the country before, into such a culturally sensitive environment. Of course some of them start looking at muslims just like at Vietcongs.

Abu Ghraib was a "deliberate" lack of control. Söldners are a "deliberate" lack of control, saying "first every male iraqi is a soldier unless proven otherwise" that was a "deliberate" lack of controll as well.

Why do I think it was deliberate?

Because A:) A tightly organised and authoritarian military like seems to be rather untight and anarchistic when it comes to treating prisoners.

Because B:) After ABU Graib heads were supposed to role. Which ones did? The ones of Lower ranks!

It is not too hard to find letters on the net of american soldiers regarding muslims as scum. I dont blame them... that is a logical consequence of war, but with a "tight" morality control no such thing would ever happen.

And the Bush administration was even more dilligent than muslim leaders. By now many american hate muslims more than they hate us. We just got more surgical weapons to punish them.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Avon !

There´s more lies. A lot more...

Bush claims - reality check

Want more ?

Quote[/b] ]1) It is only appropriate that we start the list with the most recent fabrication:

“A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.â€

“Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.â€

And the Administration’s response?

"’We fell for it,’ said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents."

Yeah right! As though the Administration had absolutely nothing to do with this "mysterious" fabrication.

Anyway, in no particular order, here are the other top lies currently being circulated by the Administration and the right-wing propaganda machine.

2) The Bush Administration insists Iraq is developing an 800-mile-plus range missile. A prior UN resolution made it illegal for Iraq to build missiles that had a range in excess of 93 miles.

In fact, The al-Samoud 2, the missile to which the administration refers, has indeed been flying too far in tests… …by about 15 miles and that is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system.

3) The administration claimed they had satellite photographs that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. However, when the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing".

4) The administration asserted that specific presidential palaces were places the inspectors would find incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing".

5) It was reported that an al Qaeda informant claimed that terrorists had found a way of smuggling radioactive material through airports without being detected.

Unfortunately, the “informant†then failed a polygraph test.

"'This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,' Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told the news network."

Even so, the “Orange†alert status, which was activated when the Administration made these claims public, remained. But wait, if the reason for the heightened alert status was proven false, then why keep it? Good Question. Let’s see…if I were Bush and I wanted to paralyze the populace with fear in order to force them behind me in all my criminal dealings, I would certainly take advantage of this miscue by allowing the alert to remain. Nothing like a little orange to make people see red. Besides, how many people could have possibly even heard about the whole “Hoax†thing?

True to form, Tom Ridge made no mention of the “Hoax†to anyone so why should Bush.

"We have not received any additional intelligence that would lead us to either raise or lower the threat level at this time."

6) Rupert Murdoch helped the Administration by spreading this lie (as though Fox News and the NY Post wasn't enough):

"Saddam Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal. His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim [that] there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war. [The bodyguard] has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited."

They include:

~ An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad.

~ A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea.

~ Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

And…

"William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is 'the smoking gun'."

Needless to say, all of these have proven to be 100% false.

7) As a centerpiece to it's argument for invading Iraq, the Administration has boldly pursued the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots. The CIA and the FBI disagree:

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October:

"They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it," said Vincent M. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can't get him to say what they want on Iraq."

In addition, in a January 30, interview, Blix revealed that:

“ …he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech.â€

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaeda operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government:

"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented,"

She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability.

8) Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report. To this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

9) The Administration latched onto the idea that Ramzi Yousef, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, escaped from New York on a false passport provided by Iraqi intelligence. The reasoning for this speculation is so far-fetched as to be laughable.

10) Bush and Co. claimed that al-Qaeda refugees from the war in Afghanistan have found refuge in Iraq. Some of this relates to a group called Ansar al, which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border. This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government.

11) Rafed Ibrahim Fatah, an Ansar member now in Kurdish hands spoke of meetings between [Ansar] and al-Qaeda leaders, though not Osama Bin Laden himself. Although the implication was that the Iraqi's did indeed have ties to Iraq, as explained above, this in no way implicated the Iraqi government.

12) Rafed Fatah and a senior al-Qaeda operative captured in Morocco, Abu Zubair, supposedly underwent training in Iraq. This "evidence" was touted to be a feature in the British Government's dossier against Iraq. In fact, They were not mentioned in the report. Nor was any alleged link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

13) Blix touted a discrepancy in reported Chemical weapons as potential proof that Iraq has 1000 tons of chemical weapons stashed away. He reported that a document given to UN inspectors by the Iraqis:

“...gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War... The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1000 tons.â€

The implication was clear: There are probably 1000 tons of chemical agent hidden from us, waiting to be used.

But Scott Ritter, former top UN weapons inspector, points out that the viable existence of these agents is impossible:

“Through its inspection activities, UNSCOM [the precursor to the current weapons inspection body UNIMOVIC] obtained reasonable information concerning Iraq's chemical weapons (CW) activities from 1981 to 1987, with the exception of data on the use of CW against Iran. Iraq consistently refused to provide details to UNSCOM regarding such use, probably because of the political fallout that such an admission would cause.â€

and…

“While this refusal prevented a full accounting of Iraqi CW, Iraq could not still have viable CW from that period because the chemical agent would have long since deteriorated... As an internal UNSCOM working paper noted, an Iraqi declaration of CW use during the war with Iran was not required for any meaningful verification: `Taking into consideration the conditions and the quality of CW-agents and munitions produced by Iraq at that time, there is no possibility of weapons remaining from the mid-1980s'.â€

and…

“What was overlooked in 1998 [when UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq] was the extent to which UNSCOM had actually eliminated Iraq's CW capability. The Muthanna State Establishment and most of Iraq's associated production equipment had been destroyed, either through aerial bombardment during Operation Desert Storm [the US military's operational designation for the 1991 Gulf War] or under the supervision of UNSCOM inspectors. Iraq's stockpiles of CW agent had either been destroyed in the same manner or could be assumed to have deteriorated.â€

Blix made no mention of this in either his December 19, 2002 or January 27, 2003 report.

14) Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion:

"The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were 'not directly suitable' for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence."

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA's conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

"A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration's statement."

"[An IAEA] report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals."

15) Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain's assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

The IAEA reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

16) In a January 30 interview, Blix:

“...took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents."

17) In that same interview, Blix said:

" …he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists..."

18) Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending [nuclear] rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said "the photograph had been misinterpreted".

19) [bush] has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities...Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the US'. "[This statement is] false"

20) "Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed. Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports that back the administration's line…

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence."

21) Publicly, President Bush's officials are touting reports that al-Qaeda operatives have found refuge in Baghdad and that Iraq once helped them develop chemical weapons. Privately, government intelligence sources are hedging on that subject, suggesting there might be "less than meets the eye".

22) Contrary to the assertion by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Charles Duelfer, who was deputy chairman of the U.N. inspection agency at the time asserts, "We made the decision to evacuate."

23) Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that Iraq will have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." In reality, no one outside Iraq really knows how close Baghdad is to that point.

24) Bush warned the United Nations that Saddam could have nuclear weapons within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney said:

"On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon."

The CIA's own forecasts do not support these assertions.

25) The administration characterizes Saddam as a supporter of terrorism generally. "Iraq's ties to terrorist networks are long-standing," Rumsfeld told Congress. Those ties are complex. In fact, one group the U.S. government brands as a terrorist outfit has been favored not only by Iraq but by many members of the U.S. Congress. That group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, advocates the violent overthrow of the religious government of Iran. It recently held a news conference two blocks from the White House.

26) The administration alleges al-Qaeda operatives, including senior figures, have been in Iraq. But AP reporter, Calvin Woodward notes that U.S. intelligence sources have said al-Qaeda members are believed to be simply moving through Iraq en route to their home countries. They have not offered evidence these sojourners are putting down roots in Iraq, setting up camps or making contact with Saddam's government.

27) The administration, as evidence of Saddam's venality, has repeatedly noted he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s -- an event that barely elicited a response from Washington at the time. And one that, although known to US authorities, failed to shake US support for Iraq at the time. The lie in this instance would be the feigned Administration outrage toward the use of chemical weapons.

28) Regarding the alleged Iraqi-ordered assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush: "A senior White House official recently told me that one of the seemingly most persuasive elements of the report had been overstated and was essentially incorrect," said Seymour Hersh in a 1993 article. "And none of the Clinton Administration officials have claimed that there was any empirical evidence - a 'smoking gun' -directly linking Saddam or any of his senior advisers to the alleged assassination attempt. The case against Iraq was, and remains, circumstantial."

29) And let's not forget this little classic: "The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. 'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' said Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman."

30) And finally there is my favorite, the British Dossier, a highly anticipated document, touted as the piece of the puzzle that would unconditionally convince the world that Saddam is the greatest threat to humanity since...well... since George W. Bush.

That's right. it was revealed that the UK dossier on Iraq is a sham:

"Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old."

So did "Downing Street" apologize for deceiving the world and presenting heavily plagiarized, years-old information put together by post-graduate students in California? Not on your life. Even after being caught red-handed, they brazenly and unapologetically retorted:

"Dismissing the gathering controversy as the latest example of media obsession with spin, officials insisted it in no way undermines the underlying truth of the dossier, whose contents had been re-checked with British intelligence sources. 'The important thing is that it is accurate,' said one source."

It was not accurate.

So, in summary, remember that you will always be closer to the truth if you simply disbelieve whatever the Administration says. As a rule of thumb, you should remember what the UN inspectors said about the information that they regularly receive from the Bush Administration:

“U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another…. So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....cid=716

Quote[/b] ]

AP Poll: More Voters See Bush As Arrogant

57 minutes ago

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) is viewed by more American voters as decisive and arrogant than Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites), according to an Associated Press poll. Voters are more likely to see Kerry as intelligent.

Asked who makes them feel more optimistic about the future, slightly more voters choose Bush than Kerry, the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs found. Both candidates are viewed as wealthy by nearly all voters, with slightly more seeing Bush as wealthy than Kerry.

Two-thirds in the poll think the president is decisive, the biggest character advantage the president has over Kerry in the poll. But a majority, 52 percent, also say they think Bush is arrogant.

"The quality I like about the president is he knows what he wants, and he focuses on what he wants to do. He's not wishy-washy," said Sam Werzberger, a 26-year-old independent from New York City, who hasn't decided for whom he will vote. "I've seen very little of Kerry, but he seems to say what people want to hear."

The poll asked voters whether they would or would not use each of seven words — likable, intelligent, decisive, compassionate, honest, arrogant and wealthy — to describe Bush and then Kerry.

Kerry and Bush are evenly matched on qualities like compassion, honesty and likability. But Bush has a 22-point edge over Kerry on the question of who is decisive. Two-thirds said Bush is decisive and fewer than half said that of Kerry. Only two-thirds of Democrats said Kerry is decisive.

As Kerry prepares to introduce himself to the public at the Democratic National Convention in two weeks, one of his biggest obstacles is convincing voters he can provide the kind of firm leadership needed in a time of war and terrorism.

Bush's confidence and unwillingness to change his stand despite opposition are viewed negatively by some. A majority, 52 percent, said he's arrogant, more than the 44 percent who view Kerry that way.

"I think they both kind of come off as arrogant," said Becky Robertson, a 31-year-old independent from Radcliffe, Ky. "That's a typical political thing."

The Bush re-election team spent more than $80 million during the spring trying to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper and a tax raiser. While the president has been unable to gain a lead in the race against Kerry, his campaign succeeded in raising doubts about Kerry's willingness to take a stand.

Kerry played a role in that perception after voting to authorize the war in Iraq (news - web sites), then struggling to explain his views on war when it was clear many Democratic voters in the primaries were opposed.

Four in five voters, 83 percent, say Kerry is intelligent, compared with 63 percent who view Bush as intelligent.

"I haven't heard much about Kerry, but he seems like a pretty sensible fellow," said Judy Bryson, a 56-year-old independent from Dalton, Ga. "I really like the man he's chosen to run with him as vice president."

Nine in 10 voters view the president as wealthy while nearly as many, 85 percent, see Kerry as wealthy. Both men are multimillionaires, but Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, inherited more than $500 million from her late husband, Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania.

Within the last week, Kerry's campaign has been energized by the selection of John Edwards (news - web sites), a senator from North Carolina, to be his running mate. They projected a sunny, optimistic message as they barnstormed through swing states last week.

But when voters were asked which of the candidates makes them feel more optimistic about America, Bush had an edge. Half, 50 percent, chose Bush and 44 percent chose Kerry.

"Since 9/11, there has been no major terrorist attack on this country," said Bob Shea, a 52-year-old independent-leaning Democrat from Westfield, Mass. "So I have to say Bush and his administration have done a reasonable job."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 804 registered voters was taken July 5-7 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Bush does come off a little arrogant....Anyway, I guess the actions by Kerry in Vietnam did not help him. BAH

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]"The quality I like about the president is he knows what he wants, and he focuses on what he wants to do.

Intresting,during the old days "knowing what`s right" was the virtue seaked and apreciated in world leaders.I also have to admit that Bush knows what he wants as does Osama bin Laden and many others that I could think of

Quote[/b] ]"Since 9/11, there has been no major terrorist attack on this country,"

Indeed,but disregarding the fact that there hasn`t been any foiled attacks or any clear signals of intentions either,Al-Queda having not run thin on money nor on recruiters could be a fatal mistake.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Since 9/11, there has been no major terrorist attack on this country,"

“There’s not a single bear in sight—the ‘Bear Patrol’ is working like a charmâ€.

“That’s specious reasoning,†Lisa retorts.

“Thanks, honey,†Homer says to her, adoringly.

“According to your logic,†she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, “this rock keeps tigers awayâ€.

“Hmmm. How does it work?â€

“It doesn’t.â€

“How so?†Homer asks further.

“It’s just a rock,†she says. “But I don’t see a tiger, anywhere.â€

“Lisa,†concludes Homer, while pulling out his wallet, “I want to buy your rock.â€

["Much Apu About Nothing", The Simpsons, episode 0723]