It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lying about Iraq?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I ignored your certain remarks because they
were irrelevant to the specific chain of
logic that I gave which proved Bush was telling
the truth. You ignored my chain of information
all of which was verifiable and witnessed by
millions while you brought up this information
that in no way negated the truth in my statements.
Your information was totally irrelevant in so far
as the point I made. Its pretty apparent to me
that your attention span was exceeded here.
To illustrate the point another way, I put up
information that showed beyond a doubt that
George Bush was wearing a blue suite, and
you said he was wearing black shoes. Your
attention span was exceeded or you were trying
to direct attention away from the blue suite.

But to go ahead and talk about the black shoes,
I believe your remarks on nuclear technology
does not show much expertise in what is going on.

Enriching uranium is the key to making a bomb.
Many people can tell you how to make a bomb.
The problem is getting the enriched uranium.
Enriching uranium is monumental job and it
took Iraq many years of intensive effort by
a good number of people to figure it out and
when they were done that total knowledge base
was the treasure. This treasure was pretty
much the property of scientist who had overseen
the problem and put all the pieces together
and he had a complete set of plans, instructions,
and blue prints that detailed this intellectual
treasure. This is an intellectual problem. It
is all in know how. That know how was buried with
over 200 manuals describing in detail how
to build the centrifuges. This know how
was the result of many years of work by
Iraq and finally resulted in the successful
enrichment of uranium. This know how with
complete details was what was buried and
awaiting digging up after attention died
out. This was all done in violation of the
UN sanctions and inspections. It was done
to keep Iraq's nuclear program viable. It
was the basis that made it true when Bush
said Iraq is working toward the bomb. It
was the key component of the latest UN inspections
failing. When the UN inspectors were denied
access to nuclear scientist for questioning
away from the control of Iraq it served as
proof that this program must be there and
hidden. When all this information became
known in 2004 it served as absolute proof
that Bush had been truthful when he said
that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program.
This is the most important truth told in
the story. If Bush got it wrong when
he believed reports concerning some gas
weapons, or when he said the Saddam probably
liked Three Musketeers candy bars, he was
probably mistaken. But on the most important
weapons issue in the inspections project,
that of nuclear weapons he proved to be
correct. Being correct about that and having
stopped that program once and for all should
be cause for praise of Bush, instead of calling
him a liar because he got it wrong on the
candy bars. Nuclear weapons are weapons of
mass destruction. Bush was right, Saddam
was intently working toward this as proven
by the hidden plans and prototypes.

Now if you want to get outraged about someone
lying concerning WMD and Iraq, why don't
you speak out against John Kerry?

John Kerry insisted that Bush lied and
attacked Iraq for no reason, that there
were no hidden weapons programs going on
in Iraq. Apparently Kerry, the genius that
he is, did not draw any conclusions from
the fact that Iraq would not let their
nuclear scientists be interviewed out of
the control of Iraq. This mental giant
could not connect the dots when looking
at the fact that Saddam refused interview
of his scientists and the fact that the
only plausible reason for this was that he
was trying to hide something. No, Kerry
could not do this. He insisted throughout
his campaign the Bush lied and attacked for
no reason. He gave great testimony to be played
over and over on Al Jazeera TV that the US
attacked Muslims for no reason. He gave
motivation to any Muslims so inclined that they
should go to Iraq and fight the Americans, after
all even this American running for president was
publicly stating the US lied, that there
was no reason to attack Iraq. Where is the
outrage here, when as it has been proven
that Kerry was wrong, that the program was
there hidden away, because of Iraqi orders from
the very top to hide and save this program.

How come no one is pointing out the fact
that Americans might have died at the hands
of some these jihadists that have gone to
Iraq and that these very jihadists might
have been motivated by the words of presidential
candidate, John Kerry who said, "The US lied, and
there was no reason to attack Iraq."

Lets face it. Kerry was dead wrong. THere
was a hidden nuclear program in Iraq and
when he declared that there was not, some
people could be justified in screaming out,
"Kerry lied, Kerry lied". Kerry doesn't know
more about Iraq's weapons programs than their
scientist that was given the job to hide it.
Why wasn't this thread entitled, "Kerry's lies
and how they have cost American lives"?

No we aren't discussing how Kerry got it totally
wrong concerning Iraq's hidden nuke program
instead, people are yapping about Bush getting
it wrong about the candy bars or some other
lesser important issue that had nothing to
do with when UN inspections broke down and
broke down specifically on the nuclear issue.

If you want to get outraged about someone getting
it wrong and lying, you might take up the subject
of John Kerry. It would probably be more accurate
to call him a liar than Bush, because the evidence
of the buried nuke program proved Bush was right
about the most important issue in WMD, that being
the nukes. It also proved Kerry to be wrong.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 31-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 31-8-2005 by MajorCee]




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
wow, ok, so after all that mumbling about nuclear weapons, how do you connect that subject which is a totally different subject from that of the attacks in 2001...

Why in heaven's name would bush create justifications for going into Iraq after the attacks done by 'terrorists' were the works of al-qaida and obl???

Bush's first reason for going into Iraq was different then the second reason. The second reason was based off what you are talking about.

If it was such a dreadful and urgent problem why wouldn't he just use this as his first reason?

Not like that justification for going into Iraq had anything to do with the terrorists flying planes into buildings anyway..



And still no bin laden who masterminded the plans to attack on american's on american soil...


now north korea and chinda and iran also have enriched uranium, and I view iran far more dangerous then sadam....sadam was a sadistic, narcissistic person who was on a power trip.. He was more of a threat to the people in Iraq. The Kuwait war showed how much of a power hungry person he was by invading another country. This country was in the middle east, he would of used those wmd's somewhere in that region to take hold of the oil supplies within those bording countries.

Now Iran is a different story, they hate Israel as we all know, their last attempt of building a nuke was destroyed by the israeli's, and i'm sure as # they want to try this again, and on top of that go after america the evil satan as their clerics call it.

I still see no correlation to what happened in 01 to the scrounging up facts so bush and his cabinet could wage a war and stretch the budget to go on a manhunt for sadam.

Shouldn't we all make the conscience choice to remember how easy it is to bull# people, to find information to back your story up so you can continue on with your agenda (it's a salesman's m.o). When it's a person of whom is running in the party of your choosing, people like to close their eyes and pretend that this doesn't happen.. but only on the 'other side' ...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I am glad you asked why we attacked in Iraq and
how this is connected to Al Qaeda. Bush never
did give a good account of this to the public,
so I can understand people not connecting all
the dots. Since inquiring minds do want to know
how this is connencted here is some background
and I can give you more if your mind is still
inquiring.

Reasons to attack Iraq


Quite a few people say we should not have attacked
Iraq, but several good reasons can be ascribed to
why the US went into Iraq. Here are some of them.

(1) US needed an operating base to fight in the
middle east. In Afghanistan, no one would help
us. Saudi would not let us operate out of there.
Turkey would not. Pakistan would not although
they let us overfly. About the only place that
would let us operate was Kuwait. Taking Iraq
would give us an operating base and let us project
force nearby if needed.

(2) Gaining credibility among the Islamic states
was also a factor. Nobody believed the US was
really serious about finishing the job. Who can
blame them. Gulf war one left those that turned
on Saddam victims with no help. US left Afghanistan
alone as soon as Russia left. Pakistan was left high
and dry as soon as the US did not need it to
funnel stuff to Afghanistan and fight the Russians.

(3) But surprise, the main reason that Bush went into
Iraq was WMD. To be more precise Nuclear weapons was at
the core of the problem. If you think back real hard
you may remember that Nuclear weapons and terrorists
made the news heavily for a few weeks and was a great
fear at the time. There was much talk in the news (TV,
magazines etc) about Al Qaeda having obtained suit case
bombs from Russia. In November 2001 it was even
reported in the Pakistan press that Al Qaeda had
nuclear weapons. After Tora Bora it was reported that
some Al Qaeda people showed up in Iran. This gave a
fear that Iran might possibly give Al Qaeda nuclear
weapons. Similarly, it was feared that Pakistan might
give Al Qaeda a nuclear bomb, since the Pakistani
military had many Taliban supporters and Al Qaeda
sympathizers. In late October of 2001 the CIA received
reports from a Russian source that Al Qaeda may have
obtained two 10 kiloton suitcase bombs. In this backdrop
the scene at the time was very concerned about nuclear
weapons.

This actually was a major point in the war
and shaped the focus of the US to go beyond just Al Qaeda.
Nuclear weapons was becoming a very major concern.

For example, in December of 2001 General Hameed Gul of
the Pakistani ISI (military intelligence) gave in a newspaper
interview the following quote, "No one can tell us how
to run our nuclear facilities and nuclear programs.
The Taliban will always remain in Afghanistan, and
Pakistan will always support them." George Tenet,
director of CIA went to Pakistan in December to
confront Musharraf with evidence that Gul and nuclear
scientists were collaborating with Al Qaeda. Tenet
gave Musharraf a list of scientists that CIA wanted
questioned concerning technology sharing with al
Qaeda. Two of them were out of the country. Tenet
demanded that they return and that Musharraf get control
of his nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis upon interview
convinced the US that they were not cooperating with Al
Qaeda, but they said that Al Qaeda was believed to have
Russian suit case bombs and even provided the serial
numbers of them and the date of manufacture, October
1988. The serial numbers did not check out with
Russian sources, and also no good story was given
as to why the Pakistanis had not confiscated the weapons
if in fact they had access close enough to get the
information. The story was probably born out of an
effort to give cause to the Americans to hesitate or
hold back on its anti Al Qaeda efforts. This intensifying
nightmare was being born at about the same time that
Tora Bora fighting ended. A number of advanced radiation
detectors were deployed around key spots in the US. These
are much more advanced than just Geiger counters. On Dec
20, 2001 Bush made the following comments at a press
conference.

"Today I'm announcing two more strikes against
the financing of terror. We know that Al Qaeda would like
to obtain nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and
we know that often times they do no act alone. Al Qaeda
has international supporters,..............Last year
a former official of the Pakistani atomic energy commission
set up an organization known as UTN. UTN claims to serve
the hungry and needy of Afghanistan, but it was UTN that
provided information about nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda."

Bush went directly after Gul and the nuclear scientists
allied with him. Also during this time a crisis had surfaced
between India and Pakistan. Some Pakistanis had made an
attack on Indian Parliament. India was threatening invasion
and nuclear war. Now Musharraf was being squeezed on two
sides. The US was ready to eat his lunch and so was India.
The US told Musharraf that they could call off the Indians
but the price would be the arrest of the terrorists that
bombed Indian parliament and to go after ISI's Islamist faction.
Musharraf being between a rock and a hard place followed the
advice. As time went on documents were obtained in a raid on
Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar and carefully analyzed.
They showed links and hints of nuclear collaboration
between Al Qaeda and ISI. In December in an address to the
Citadel Bush said, "The authors of mass murder must be defeated
and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction"
Still the situation in Pakistan was not locked down.

In January the Bush team decided to deal with the danger of nuclear
weapons, as well as Al Qaeda. Things were not going well.

You had the Pakistani situation. Reports of Al Qaeda visiting Iran
after Tora Bora, gave concern that Iran may be switching positions.
Iran had sided with the US in Afghanistan, by lending it the
Shiite Army in western Afghanistan which helped along with the
Northern Alliance Army from the north. On top of this, many of
the core of Al Qaeda had slipped away, and this core of
less than 200 is the real danger. They are very secretive and
don't even let many followers in on their strategies. In this
setting the Bush doctrine could be summed up this way. Al Qaeda
is a global, conspiratorial movement found in many countries.
It will be attacked in whatever state it is found. Preferably
the attack will be aided by the concerned state, but if for
any reason the concerned state is hostile or prevents attack
then the US will also attack that state. This doctrine created
a parallel and not talked about strategy.(secret) The US will
not tolerate existence of nuclear weapons unless those weapons
are under verifiable control of a government in which the US has
confidence. There was one group of countries that fell into the
classification of having or getting nuclear weapons that might
possibly give them to Al Qaeda. The nations were Iran, North
Korea, and Iraq. This was the so called axis of evil.

Plans were also developed for locating and attacking any nuclear
locations that were determined to be in the category of being
under a nation that the US has no confidence in.

The biggest concern was about the 3 nations in the axis of evil. Beyond
that they also had concerns about Syria, Libya, and Pakistan.
Russia was different. They weren't likely to give weapons to
anyone, but might have lost control of some when the USSR
broke up and no one was keeping track of the weapons. The US
wanted the following from every nuclear state in the world.
Verifiable evidence that existing weapons were secured or
if this were lacking then specific plan for dealing with the
problem. Some countries like Iraq and Iran denied they had
nuclear facilities while other countries were prepared to
give the guarantees. By the time Bush made his axis of evil
speech the Bush team had made the decision to do everything
necessary to insure that no nuclear weapons would fall into
the hands of Al Qaeda, even if that meant destroying nuclear
facilities in other countries. At this point the Bush team
made public that in an extreme case the US was prepared to
make preemptive nuclear strike on any unsecured nuclear site
if that was the only way to destroy it and if it was determined
to be a threat to the US. Most countries of concern granted
access to US agents and troops to search for and secure
nuclear facilities. Some did not. The US started plans for
destroying sites in these countries, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and
Pakistan. Pakistan was thought to be a key country because
it was believed to have the most advanced capability and also
close ties to Al Qaeda. It was believed the Iranians would be
too cautious to furnish weapons. Iraqis were thought to be
more likely if they had them. North Korea was thought to be
too concerned with their own survival and they were being
watched closely. One concern that surfaced was what weapon
would be required to take out a hardened nuclear site. Many
nuclear sites are built very strong in order to take accidental
explosions of the high explosives used in conjunction with
the nuclear core. These sites are very tough and it was
believed that nuclear bomb surface attack might not destroy
the weapons within the site. No US nuclear bombs were available
that could drive deep into the earth before detonation, so
it was determined to develop some. The purpose of this new
doctrine was to warn countries like Iran and Pakistan, not
to trigger nuclear war. These countries had to be made aware
of these policies without making it public knowledge within
the countries that their governments were submitting to US
blackmail. The Russians had to be reassured that the US did
not plan nuclear war and the US had to ask Russia to work
with them in convincing former USSR countries the intentions
of the US. The US planning was done by mid December and a
declassified version was released January 10 which contained
no mention of the new first-use doctrine, but it did contain
a request for funding in preparation for "future underground
nuclear bomb tests" if needed. The development of a new
underground detonating nuke was not an especially big deal.
The big deal was that the US was telling countries like
Pakistan as early as December 2001 that it would not tolerate
any existence of a nuclear facility that was not under
clear control. So in late December 2001 when US officials
went to mediate the conflict between Pakistan and India.
Pakistan was looking at the possibility of nuclear
attack from 2 directions, India and the US, unless the US
was given access to Pakistani facilities in order to guarantee
that no nuclear materials were being taken out by nuclear
scientists. What the US was insisting on was placing US
observers on site and in effect taking over the site. The US
wanted control of Pakistan's nuclear capability and it was
not bluffing. The US insisted on sufficient personnel on
the ground in Pakistan to insure the control of access to
the materials. It is not sure how the details were handled
but in March US forces (not in uniform) along with scientists
from NEST (nuclear types) deployed simultaneously to
Pakistan's nuclear reactors.

Musharraf worked with the US on this and it was pretty well kept
under wraps. The ISI probably knew what happened but no
challenges were made. Also Musharraf was carrying out some
careful purges in the ISI of Islamist types that might be
loyal to the jihadists. The Pakistani nukes were locked down
as phase one of the Bush program to take out any rogue state
nuclear capabilities. Phase 2 would be Iraq and when Saddam
refused UN weapons inspector Hans Blix interview of his nuclear
scientists, Saddam found also that Bush was not bluffing.
Phase 3 will probably be Iran. Iran knows the US is not going
to allow it to have nuclear weapons but will do as much
posturing as they can in order to gain Shiite influence in
the Iraqi government. Phase 4 will be North Korea.

For some reason Bush chose not to make that big of deal of
nukes to the public. Maybe he thought it would be too scary.
Maybe he thought he would be embarrassed if inspections
proved Iraq had none. One thing that was accepted by everyone
though, at that time, was that Iraq had gas weapons. So
the Bush team decided to keep low key on the nuclear issue
and just stress generally Weapons of mass destruction. In
retrospect this turned out to be a major public relations
problem for him. As it turned out, no gas worth mentioning
was found, but in final analysis Saddam's nuclear program
turned out to be real. Along about October of 2004 I watched
interview on TV of Saddam's top nuclear scientist. He estimated
that they would have got to build a bomb within 3 years if
they had not been stopped. He now lives in the US and his
book "The bomb in my garden" came out about that time and
is available from Amazon.com. This was one of the scientists
that Saddam had refused to be interviewed by the UN inspectors.
If you remember it was the refusal of Saddam to let his
nuclear scientists be interviewed that was the breakdown
of UN inspections and this eventually led to the invasion
of Iraq. We also confiscated several tons of uranium and
brought it to the US. This was in the news shortly before
that time, but hardly covered in the mass media.

So in this situation, Bush did tell the truth,
but he just did not go far enough in his WMD justification
when he soft pedaled the nuclear end of it.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 31-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 31-8-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
We all know partisan politics plays a role in determining our thought process about this war in iraq..

That's obvious.

How about we take it back to the beginning to see what their actual justification was?!
-----------------


Ed, and then Jim, and then tie man.

Q Thank you.

Q Yes, Mr. President, thank you. We continue to see reports on the state of planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I know it's unlikely that you'll share any details with us, though we'd be delighted to hear them, sir --

THE PRESIDENT: Somebody else thinks they are, evidently. (Laughter.)

Q But I wonder, Mr. President, regardless of when or how, is it your firm intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- and how hard to you think it will be?

THE PRESIDENT: It's the stated policy of this government to have a regime change. And it hasn't changed. And we'll use all tools at our disposal to do so.

I actually didn't read the whole story about somebody down there at level five flexing some "know-how" muscle, but there's all kind -- listen, I recognize there's speculation out there. But people shouldn't speculate about the desire of the government to have a regime change. And there's ways, different ways to do it.

Q How involved are you in the planning, sir? We know that you meet with General Franks, you meet with Rumsfeld to talk about this. How involved are you?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm involved. I mean, I'm involved in the military planning, diplomatic planning, financial planning, all aspects of -- reviewing all the tools at my disposal. And -- but in my remarks to American people, I remind them I'm a patient person and there's a -- but I do firmly believe that the world will be safer and more peaceful if there's a regime change in that government.

Yes, Anne.

Q On Iraq, can the American people expect that by the end of your first term you will have affected a regime change in Iraq, one way or another? And by the same token --

THE PRESIDENT: That's hypothetical.

Q But can the American people expect that? Should they expect that?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a hypothetical question. They can expect me not to answer hypothetical questions.

Q On Osama bin Laden does your promise still --

THE PRESIDENT: On sensitive subjects. (Laughter.)

Q Sir, on Osama bin Laden, does your promise still hold that he will be caught, dead or alive, at some point?

THE PRESIDENT: What? Say that again?

Q Does your promise on -- or your goal of catching Osama bin Laden dead or alive, does that still stand?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know if he is dead or alive, for starters -- so I'm going to answer your question with a hypothetical. Osama bin Laden, he may be alive. If he is, we'll get him. If he's not alive, we got him. (Laughter.)

But the issue is bigger than one person. That's what I keep trying to explain to the American people. We're talking about networks that need to be disrupted, plans that need to be stopped. These people are cold-blooded killers. They're interested in killing innocent Americans, still. And, therefore, we will continue to pursue them.

And I understand the frustrations of this war. Everybody wants to be a war correspondent. They want to go out there and see the tanks moving across the plains or the airplanes flying in formation and -- but that's not the way this war is going to be fought all the time. There's a lot of actions that take place that you'll never see. And there's -- and some of it, hopefully, will continue to take place as a result of the actions of our friends, such as that which took place in the Philippines -- Abu Sayyaf, the leader evidently was killed by Philippine troops. And that's positive. That's a positive development.

We're constantly working with nations that might become havens for terrorists, to make sure that there's no place for them to bunch up or train or to -- and it's -- and we're making progress. But it's a long journey, and that's what people have got to know.

-------------------

Did you see anything in there about wmd's yet? All I saw was Bush felt Iraq needed a regime change because Sadam has been thumbing his nose the world for along time and playing games with the un...

Don't get wrong, i'm glad he's gone, but my point still remains that the connection to 9/11 and Sadam was purposely manufactured to justify taking Sadam out because it was long over due.. Bush imo, had a bone to pick with him prior to 9/11...

So as you red those two answers you kind of get an affirmative, but then you get 'i'm not answering hypotheticals' the wmd story was a manufactured one, if it was as urgent as they later made it out to be, he would of said that the first time around..

No?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Justification for the war on terror in Afganistan where Al qaeda was based...


Taken from Bush's speech on Sept 20th

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.)

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me -- the Office of Homeland Security.

And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend -- Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. (Applause.) He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. (Applause.)


And then Tom Ridge says:

We will not tolerate such acts. We will expend every effort and devote all the necessary resources to bring the people responsible for these acts, these crimes, to justice.

Remember the anthrax spread that was blamed on terrorists?

GOVERNOR RIDGE: Good afternoon. Today I'd like to share with you the latest information and actions we are taking to protect the American people from the anthrax threats here at home.

Our investigation continues. We are aggressively pursuing every conceivable lead to find and bring to justice those responsible for these terrorist acts. Our health system nationwide is on full alert, and is working around the clock -- and is working around the clock -- to identify and treat those potentially affected by anthrax.

Today we want to share with you the latest scientific analysis of the anthrax samples. Major General John Parker, Commanding General of the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, has joined me today to further explain and answer your questions concerning these latest findings.

As I outlined last week, Department of Defense DNA tests showed the anthrax samples from Florida, New York and Washington are indistinguishable, meaning that they all come from the same strain of anthrax or the same family of anthrax. That continues to be the case. The DNA tests have also revealed that none of the anthrax samples have been genetically altered, which is very good news, obviously, because it means that the samples all respond to antibiotics. And, therefore, people who are exposed can be treated.

This week, we have received new information from additional laboratory tests. I convened a meeting at the White House last night to bring together the scientists, as well as representatives of the different agencies, to analyze and evaluate this information. It shows that the anthrax in the letter received in Senator Tom Daschle's office had some different characteristics. It is highly concentrated. It is pure. And the spores are smaller. Therefore, they're more dangerous because they can be more easily absorbed in a person's respiratory system.

We've also received a new preliminary analysis on the anthrax that was mailed to The New York Post. The preliminary analysis shows that it is more coarse and less concentrated than the anthrax in the Daschle letter. But I want to tell you, it's still highly concentrated. The New York Post anthrax is also sensitive to antibiotics.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to conduct similar tests on the anthrax from Florida or the Brokaw letter because of limited amounts of substance retrievable from the scene. Just wasn't enough for us to retrieve from the scene to conduct the same tests.

Now, I know there has been a lot of both public and private discussion, some of it with me and much of it among yourselves and even within this country, about the term "weaponize." It seems to have different meanings, different definition and meanings to different people. Based on these latest lab reports, it is clear that the terrorists responsible for these attacks intended to use this anthrax as a weapon. We still don't know who is responsible, but we are marshaling every federal, state and local resource to find them and bring them to justice.




Did Sadam do all these things??

Later an FBI spokesperson said

(AP) The suspicious powder sent in a threatening letter to Sen. Tom Daschle's office was talc, the FBI said Friday.

"We are going to investigate the letter as a criminal hoax," FBI spokesman Chris Murray said.


These terrorists were sure hell bent on creating choas and killing people, why would they put talc powder in an envleope and create a hoax out of it?
These terrorists don't stop at anything.. These are the terrorists who saw people's heads off remember?

This is terrorism so why spend our resources on going out on a manhunt for Sadam??

On Oct 9, 2001

U.S. Assistance to the Afghan People
Fact Sheet



After 22 years of war, three years of severe drought, and five years of Taliban rule, Afghanistan now faces a major famine. The U.N. Security Council has pointed to the Taliban's repressive policies and harassment of expatriate relief agency workers as being directly responsible for the current crisis.

Because of the Taliban, the world is likely to see death and starvation on a massive scale as Afghanistan enters the coming winter. Islam promotes charity, yet the Taliban has cut off humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population.

As President Bush announced today, the United States is prepared to contribute an additional $320 million in humanitarian assistance for the Afghanistan and neighboring states suffering from drought. The total includes $25 million authorized on September 28 by the President from the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund to provide assistance to a potentially large number of refugees who could cross from Afghanistan into the surrounding countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Additional assistance totaling $295 million will be provided through United Nations assistance agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, nongovernmental organizations, and through direct provision of food and relief supplies.

The United States has led the international community's response to the suffering of the Afghan people.

The United States has contributed more than $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people since 1979, more than any other country.

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2001, the United States provided nearly $184 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans. This amount includes contributions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture ($99.8 million), the U.S. Agency for International Development ($50.55 million), the Department of State ($32.6 million); and the Centers for Disease Control ($569,000).

The United States has supplied more than 80 percent of all food shipments sent to vulnerable Afghans through the United Nations' World Food Program, and will continue to be the leading food donor to the Afghan people.


Seems like this is more of a dire situation then removing sadam, doesn't it?

Here is a list of the most wanted terrorists unveiled to Bush in oct 01
www.fbi.gov...

here is bush eyeing Bin Laden in a photo



Seems that these people are more of a priority then Sadam doesn't it??

After all these are the ones who show no mercy and have a global agenda against the west right?

And this is what he says about it:

The men on the wall here have put themselves on the list because of great acts of evil. They plan, promote and commit murder. They fill the minds of others with hate and lies. And by their cruelty and violence, they betray whatever faith they espouse.

These 22 individuals do not account for all the terrorist activity in the world, but they're among the most dangerous: the leaders and key supporters, the planners and strategists. They must be found; they will be stopped; and they will be punished

This effort is part of a worldwide assault on terror. All our allies and friends will now be familiar with these evildoers and their associates. For those who join our coalition, we expect results. And a good place to start -- help us bring these folks to justice.

Eventually, no corner of the world will be dark enough to hide in. I want to thank all the State Department employees for helping to build an unprecedented -- I mean unprecedented -- coalition to stand with us for freedom. I want to thank the American people for understanding that we are engaged in a new war, a war that will require a new way of thinking.

There is a fascination about the conventional aspects of the military operations that are taking place now, and I can understand that. But the American people must understand that we're making great progress in other fronts: that we're halting their money, that we've got allies around the world helping us close the net. And today, by shining the spotlight on the first 22, it's going to make it more likely they will be brought to justice.

I say "the first 22" because our war is not just against 22 individuals. Our war is against networks and groups, people who coddle them, people who try to hide them, people who fund them. This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America, the most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that rejects hate, rejects violence, rejects murderers, rejects evil. And we will not tire. We will not relent. It is not only important for the homeland security of America that we succeed, it is equally as important for generations of Americans who have yet be born.

Now is the time to draw the line in the sand against the evil ones. And this government is committed to doing just that.

I also want to remind my fellow Americans as we round up the evildoers, as we look for those who might harm our fellow Americans, we must remember not to violate the rights of the innocent.

Our war is not against a religion. Our war is against evil. There are thousands of Muslim Americans who love America just as much as I do. And we will respect their rights. We will not let the terrorists cause decay of the fundamental rights that make our nation unique. As a matter of fact, what they'll find out is that our nation has responded in a way they never envisioned. We're united.


And so the next day he gives us a short report on what they have accomplished in the 'war on terror'


I can report to the American people we're making substantial progress.

First, our Secretary of State and our diplomats around the world have put together a broad coalition of nations to make a stand against terrorists, terrorism and those who harbor terrorists. And I'm really pleased. This coalition includes not only our friends in Europe and South America, but as we saw at the OIC Conference, the Organization of Islamic Conferences, many Muslim nations have taken a very firm stand against terrorist activities, as well.

Obviously, the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Department has been busy. As I said today, America is very proud of the men and women who wear the uniform; they're proud of your leadership too, sir. We'll leave the military briefing for the Pentagon.

I had a good visit with our Secretary of Treasury, who informed me that we've now frozen $40 million worth of assets -- Taliban and al Qaeda assets all around the world, and we've just begun. We want the terrorists to know that we're after them in all kinds of ways, and one good way to make them ineffective is to cut off their money.

The Attorney General has reported that here at the homeland -- in the homeland we've interrogated over 600 people that may have been involved with the bombings, as well as spending a great deal of time analyzing information that could lead to the disruption of any potential attack on America.


And on Oct 11 which is the same day as what he said above, he releases the letter:


Iraq Report
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
October 11, 2001



Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President


Consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and as part of my effort to keep the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

# # #


This is where it all begins in my opinion.... Let the spin doctor's do their job!

And the Radio Address On Oct 13, 2001


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week, we opened some important new fronts in the war on terror. We're taking the war to the enemy and we are strengthening our defenses here at home.

In last weeks' radio address, I warned that time was running out for the Taliban to turn over the terrorists they shelter. They did not listen, and they are paying a price.

On Sunday, American and British forces launched strikes at terrorist camps and Taliban military targets in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform are performing as they always do, with skill and courage. And they have achieved the goals of the first phase of our campaign. We have disrupted the terrorist network inside Afghanistan. We have weakened the Taliban's military. And we have crippled the Taliban's air defenses.

American forces dominate the skies over Afghanistan and we will use that dominance to make sure terrorists can no longer freely use Afghanistan as a base of operations.

This campaign will not be completed in one attack. Our enemy prefers to attack the helpless. He hides from our soldiers. But we're making a determined effort to take away his hiding places. The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.

At the same time, we are taking further action to strengthen our protections against terrorism here at home. This week, I signed an executive order creating a new Office of Homeland Security. The Office is headed by a skilled and tested leader, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

Governor Ridge is a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. He's an effective executive and he knows what we're up against, because his own state was one of the three where Americans died on September the 11th.

Governor Ridge is charged with coordinating a comprehensive national effort to protect our country against terrorism, to frustrate terrorists' plans, to help protect vulnerable points, and to prepare our response to potential threats. Tom Ridge will report directly to me, and he will have the full support of our entire government.

I understand that many Americans are feeling uneasy. But all Americans should be assured: We are taking strong precautions, we are vigilant, we are determined, the country is alert, and the great power of the American nation will be felt.

Our nation is grateful to so many Americans who are rallying to our cause and preparing for the struggle ahead: FBI agents, intelligence officers, emergency response workers, public health authorities, state and local officials, our diplomats abroad, law enforcement teams who safeguard our security at home, and soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who defend us so far away.

Many others are asking: What can I do? Americans already contribute to the war on terror by their patience and patriotism, by their resolve and generosity.

Yet, I have one more task, one especially for America's children. I urge you to show the best of America, by directly helping the children of Afghanistan who are suffering from the oppression and misrule of their own government. Many are malnourished, many are starving.

Put a dollar in an envelope. Mark it, "America's Fund for Afghan Children," and send it here to the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 20509-1600. Working with the American Red Cross, we will get that money to Afghan children in need.

This is something the children of America can do for the children of Afghanistan, even as we oppose the brutal Taliban regime. We will oppose their evil with firm justice, and we will answer their hatred with compassion for the Afghan people.


See I have absolutely no problem with this, as it is totally in line with the attacks of Sept 11...

Remember this assassination in Israel?

President Condemns Assassination
Statement by the Press Secretary
Assassination of Israeli Cabinet Minister



The President condemns in the strongest terms the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi today. He offers his condolences and those of the United States to Prime Minister Sharon, the Israeli government and people, and the family of Minister Zeevi. This despicable act is further evidence of the need to fight terrorism.

We have noted the statement of the Palestinian Authority condemning this assassination. This statement is appropriate, but words are not enough. It is time for the Palestinian Authority to take vigorous action against terrorists. The PFLP, which operates openly in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, has claimed responsibility for this heinous act. The PA must immediately find and bring to justice those who committed this murder, as well as those who would do harm to efforts to restore an atmosphere of calm and security for Israelis and Palestinians.

There have been positive steps recently by both Israel and the Palestinians to improve the situation. Israelis and Palestinians should continue down this path. The terrorists must not be allowed to declare victory. The parties should seize the moment to put an end to violence, implement the Tenet and Mitchell plans, and resume political dialogue. The entire world will support them in their efforts.



And yet another speech in California...


11:38 A.M. PDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all so much for that warm welcome. And I also want to thank the hundreds of our fellow Americans who lined the road coming in from the helicopter pad. It's really good to be here in California to report on our progress in the struggle against terror.

Now, there's the long version, and there's a short version. So I'm going to start with the short version: Our people are united; our government is determined; our cause is right; and justice will be done. (Applause.)

I want to thank Gerry Parsky. I want to thank all the folks who put on this -- organized this event. I appreciate so much the Governor, Gray Davis, coming, and all the elected officials.

I particularly want to say hello to the members of the Sacramento Urban Search and Rescue Task Force Seven. (Applause.) They may not remember, but I do -- I got to meet them in New York City. (Laughter.) They were part of an incredible outpouring of compassion and support from all across the country. I've got to tell you, I was amazed when I went into the building and they said they were from California. I said, this country is fabulous, when we've got people from California, from Sacramento, going all the way over to help their brothers and sisters at the World Trade Center. And I know you're just as proud of them as I am. And thank you all for being here. (Applause.)

This great state is known for its diversity -- people of all races, all religions, and all nationalities. They've come here to live a better life, to find freedom, to live in peace and security, with tolerance and with justice. When the terrorists attacked America, this is what they attacked. And when we defend America, this is what we defend. (Applause.)

We are fighting for the security of our people, for the success of our ideals, and for stability in large parts of the world. We fight evil people who are distorting and betraying a great religion to justify their murder. Our cause is just. We will not tire. We will not falter. And, my fellow Americans, we will not fail. (Applause.)

New York City and Washington, D.C. are 2,500 miles from here. Yet, for all of us, an American is an American, no matter where we live, no matter what our race, no matter how we pray. The people of New York and Washington are our neighbors and when terrorists attack them, they attack us all. And the terrorists are hearing from us all. (Applause.)

They are hearing from a compassionate nation -- a nation that sends food and medicine to starving people of Afghanistan; a nation whose children -- and I know we've got some here who have raised money at the elementary school -- whose children are sending their dollars to save the children of Afghanistan. (Applause.)

They are hearing from a tolerant nation, a nation that respects Islam and values our many Muslim citizens. They are hearing from a prayerful nation, a nation that prays to an almighty God for protection and for peace. And they are hearing from a patient and determined nation, a nation that will continue this war for as long as it takes to win. (Applause.)

Ours will be a broad campaign, fought on many fronts. It's a campaign that will be waged by day and by night, in the light and in the shadow, in battles you will see and battles you won't see. It's a campaign waged by soldiers and sailors, Marines and airmen; and also by FBI agents and law enforcement officials and diplomats and intelligence officers. It's a campaign that is being waged in distant lands, and a campaign being waged by our new Office of Homeland Security.

To keep us safe, we're working around the clock. We're on the lookout. We have questioned and detained more than 750 terror suspects and material witnesses in our country. And the broad coalition we put together has detained hundreds of suspected members of the al Qaeda organization. Our world coalition is working. We are taking apart the terrorist network, piece by piece. We're taking away their money by freezing their assets and choking off their incomes.

Our campaign will be difficult, and it's going to take time. But I can promise you this: It will be waged with determination, and it will be waged until we win. (Applause.) We will do whatever it takes to protect our country, protect the good American families. And we will do whatever it takes to punish those who have attacked us. (Applause.)

We'll do whatever it takes to defeat terror abroad, wherever it grows or wherever it hides. In Afghanistan, our Armed Forces are performing their duty with skill and success. We've destroyed many terrorist camps. We've damaged the Taliban's air defenses. We've seriously weakened all those in Afghanistan who wish to inflict harm on people anywhere in the world.

We're paving the way for friendly troops to defeat the Taliban and root out the al Qaeda parasites that the Taliban hosts and protects. We're enforcing the doctrine that says this: If you harbor the terrorists, you are guilty of terror. And like the terrorists, you will be held responsible. (Applause.)

We are not alone in this struggle. The war against terrorism is an international war, and we're fighting with a broad, broad coalition. Many nations around the world have joined with us in this cause, including nations from the Islamic world. Some countries contribute intelligence. Some help with law enforcement. Some join with military power, like our friends Great Britain. (Applause.) We are supported by the conscience of the world. And we are surrounding terrorists and their sponsors in a tightening net of justice.

Later today, I fly to Shanghai to meet with leaders from all round the Far East, and leaders whose nations touch the Pacific, including Russia and China. We'll be strengthening our cooperation in the war on terror. We'll strengthen the economic ties that bring growth and hope to the entire world.

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and we will defeat them by expanding and encouraging world trade. (Applause.) In order to help me expand world trade, I've asked the Congress to give me what's called trade promotion authority -- the ability to seek America's interests around the world.

America will do whatever it takes to strengthen our security here at home. I've named former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to head the new Office of Homeland Security, to help expose and to frustrate the plans of terrorists. We've adopted new measures to protect our airlines, so Americans can fly with greater confidence.

We're responding rapidly to investigate anthrax reports and to quickly give preventative treatment to any who are exposed. Thousands of FBI agents are aggressively following every lead in our anti-terror campaign. And I urge Congress to act quickly to update our laws and procedures so we can better protect our country and punish those who threaten us.

The terrorists want us to stop our lives -- that's what they want. They want us to stop flying, and they want us to stop buying. But this great nation will not be intimidated by the evildoers.


This is what I thought the war on terror was all about?? What happened?

And back to the anthrax


Q Sir, is the White House under attack now? The latest anthrax case?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is no question that evildoers are continuing to try to harm America and Americans. Today, at a remote facility, we detected some anthrax. And just like at the Congress, our government is responding very quickly.

We're working hard to find out who is doing this and bring them to justice. We're also working to develop measures necessary to protect American citizens and postal workers. All of us around this table grieve when we hear the fact that a citizen has lost a life. Two postal workers passed away and our hearts are with their families, our prayers are with their loved ones. And the evil ones continue.

Q Is there any way, sir, that whatever contaminated that machine, whether it be a letter or a package, got into the West Wing? Or has all mail been cut off to prevent that from happening?

THE PRESIDENT: Ron, we're making sure that the West Wing, the White House is safe. Let me put it this way, I'm confident when I come to work tomorrow that I'll be safe.
Q Mr. President, have you or the Vice President been tested for anthrax? And what is your sense of this latest development, sir? For the most part, these attacks have been aimed at prominent people and prominent places. Is it your sense that the real purpose here is to sow fear and confusion in the American public?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I don't have anthrax. It's hard for Americans to imagine how evil the people are who are doing this. We're having to adjust our thinking. We're a kind nation, we're a compassionate nation, we're a nation of strong values and we value life. And we're learning people in this world want to terrorize our country by trying to take life.

They won't succeed. This country is too strong to allow terrorists to affect the lives of our citizens. I understand people are concerned, and they should be. But they need to know our government is doing everything we possibly can to protect the lives of our citizens -- everything. We're waging an aggressive campaign overseas to bring al Qaeda to justice.

They won't succeed. This country is too strong to allow terrorists to affect the lives of our citizens. I understand people are concerned, and they should be. But they need to know our government is doing everything we possibly can to protect the lives of our citizens -- everything. We're waging an aggressive campaign overseas to bring al Qaeda to justice.

Today, I've -- in working with the Postmaster General -- got our OMB to allocate $175 million for immediate relief, immediate safety at post offices around the country. This is what he requested, he thinks this is what is necessary to assure the post office employees that they will be as safe as possible. And we're going to spend that money.

Our health care workers are working around the clock to help people in need and I will tell you that I think not only are they doing a good job, I think they probably saved a lot of lives by their quick action. And I'm proud of how quickly and how hard they're working.

The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life, is to force us to retreat, is to force us to be what we're not. And that's -- they're going to fail. They're simply going to fail. I want to assure my fellow Americans that our determination -- I say "our," I'm talking about Republicans and Democrats here in Washington -- has never been stronger to succeed in bringing terrorists to justice, protecting our homeland. Because what we do today will affect our children and grandchildren. This is our calling. This is the time for us to act in a bold way, and we are doing just that.

Q Mr. President, are you now operating on the assumption that the September 11th attacks and the anthrax attacks, anthrax letters, are linked? And if I may shift gears for a second and ask about your meeting with Foreign Minister Peres. Would an Israeli failure to withdraw from the Palestinian areas make it harder to keep Arab states in the international anti-terrorism --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I told Shimon Peres that, first of all, our country and the people of our country are saddened by the fact that a Cabinet Minister was assassinated. It's just unacceptable behavior. I also told him that we continue to call upon Chairman Arafat to do everything he can to bring the killer to justice. It's very important that he arrest the person who did this, or those who did this act, and continue to arrest those who would disrupt and harm Israeli citizens. He must -- he must show the resolve necessary to bring peace to the region.

And, finally, I did express our concern about troops in Palestinian territory, and I would hope the Israelis would move their troops as quickly as possible.

Q Did you get any satisfaction?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's a very thoughtful man. He's a friend, a friend of America's, and I listened very carefully.

Your first question was?

Q The link between September 11th and --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't have any hard evidence. But there's no question that anybody who would mail anthrax with the attempt to harm American citizens is a terrorist. And there's no question that al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. So it wouldn't put it past me that there -- you know, it wouldn't surprise me that they're involved with it. But I have no direct evidence.

I do know that this country is strong enough to endure, to endure the evil ones. And we're making great progress on the ground in Afghanistan, and we'll bring the al Qaeda to justice and we'll -- we're doing everything we can to find out who mailed these letters.

Stretch.

Q Mr. President, have you been tested for anthrax?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have anthrax.

Q So you've been tested, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have it.



Let me now give you an update on the anthrax situation. To date, we now have 14 confirmed cases of anthrax; 5 suspected cases; 18 cases that are under investigation; and 3 cases that appear suspicious and are being looked at further. As has been reported, teams of medical personnel have been working double shifts at D.C. General Hospital to provide counseling and antibiotics prophylactics to postal workers and mail handlers.
As of Sunday night, 10,916 postal workers had received counseling and preventive care.


BUT STILL NO PROOF AS TO WHO CREATED THE ANTHRAX! LOOK.


Q Governor, if I can follow on that question more specifically. Is what makes the information credible that it came from Osama bin Laden or his operatives? And secondly, before you answer that, with the alert, if, as everyone hopes, nothing happens, don't you then do something for a second time that alarms people unnecessarily, and B, may, in effect, create an atmosphere where people think, God, they keep telling us to be ready, and we're ready, and nothing happens -- who knows what's real and what's not -- and, therefore, the level of preparedness is not as high as you'd like?

GOVERNOR RIDGE: Well, it's certainly -- the story that a lot of people allude to is the one you tell your children from time to time, the little boy who cried wolf. And it's one I've told my kids over the years. And I can appreciate the concern. But I do think that right now, given the war that we're confronting against terrorism on two fronts, that when, on occasion, when we have credible multiple sources suggesting that America will be a target, it is still better to perhaps reiterate the previous alert. I'm not too sure too many groups or agencies or individuals were able to stand down in the intervening two weeks, but to reiterate it.

Look, you get that kind of convergence of information from credible sources, and you have two options. You have an option to remain silent, or you have an option to have General Ashcroft and Director Mueller put out the alert. And we chose as little -- we would like to have been able to divulge more information, but there really wasn't any more to divulge. We decided the second option, and that's just tell the American public.

And what I have to say is, this is a condition of alert, to your point, that we're going to have to maintain. We have to be on guard for the foreseeable future. But I don't think that we should be discouraged when the information suggests that it may occur at a particular -- this was at a particular time frame, within the next week or so -- that we just get everybody thinking about it again.

Q How about the first one point, Governor? I'm sorry, can I just follow on the first point, whether is what makes this credible that it's coming from Osama bin Laden or his operatives? The President said yesterday in response to the question I asked him that indeed -- he suggested bin Laden is still active.

GOVERNOR RIDGE: Well, I think the analysts would conclude that the sources were credible because of their connections with the terrorists that we're trying to fight. Where they're located right now remains to be seen. But again, you've got people gathering information from around the world, from a variety of sources. And its credibility we leave to the experts. But I think you can fairly assume that the experts view this tied in -- this information somehow related to al Qaeda or bin Laden, else we wouldn't have ramped it up.


And in Nov of 2001 it's stilla bout Afganistan


Afghanistan is the first overseas front in this war against terror. And I'm pleased to report the military is performing really well. In a short period of time, most of the country now is in the hands of our allies and friends. We've rescued the humanitarian aid workers. We've destroyed the Taliban military. They're in total confusion. The government that used to hate women, and not educate its children, and disrupt humanitarian supplies, and destroy religious symbols of other religions is now in rout.

And we've got al Qaeda on the run, too. Now, they think they can hide, but they can't hide for long. And they think they can run, but they can't run forever, because we will patiently, diligently, pursue them until they are brought to justice. (Applause.)


On Afghanistan:

Q What's your definition of the mission being complete in Afghanistan, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: In Afghanistan? Well, Taliban gone, the country secure, the country stable, that al Qaeda cells rounded up, Taliban fighters brought to justice. The over 6,000 troops, prisoners being held -- prisoners of war being held by our allies interrogated, finger-printing. I mean, there's a lot to do. And the American people just must understand when I said that we need to be patient, that I meant it. And we're going to be there for a while. And I don't know the exact moment when we leave, David, but it's not until this mission is complete.


On Bin Laden in Dec 2001:



Q What's your reaction to the bin Laden tape. Are you afraid he's alluded the manhunt.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, the tape, yes. I didn't watch it all. I saw snippets of it on TV. You know, it's -- who knows when it was made. Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy who, three months ago, was in control of a county. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run.

Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all.

So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know. There's all kinds of reports and all kinds of speculation. But one thing we know is that he's not in charge of Afghanistan anymore. He's not in charge of the -- he's not the parasite that invaded the host, the Taliban. We know that for certain. And we also know that we're on the hunt, and he knows that we're on the hunt. And I like our position better than his.

In terms of whether or not the tribunals will be able to render the justice necessary, that -- I spoke to the Secretary of Defense today about the story in the newspaper. Evidently, somebody in our government wanted to show off to his family, or her family, in between Christmas and New Year's by leaking information in the press that he or she thought would be helpful to the government. The truth of the matter is the Secretary of Defense hadn't even seen the report that was on the front page of America's newspapers.

So my answer to your question, Scott, is I know that the leaked report is preliminary, that they're still in discussions about how best to bring justice. But one thing is for certain, that whatever the procedures are for the military tribunals, our system will be more fair than the system of bin Laden and the Taliban. That is for certain. The prisoners that we capture will be given a heck of a lot better chance in court than those citizens of ours who were in the World Trade Center or in the Pentagon were given by Mr. bin Laden.

David. Good to see you.

Q Good to see you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.



Q Can you say with confidence now that Osama bin Laden in no longer in a position to mastermind another terrorist attack against the United States or our allies? And related to that, you talked about 2002 being a year of war. What can you say to prepare the American people for what that vision is, what they need to be prepared for, as compared to what they've seen in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope 2002 is a year of peace. But I am also realistic, and I know full well that bin Laden and his cronies would like to harm America again, bin Laden and his cronies would like to harm our allies. How do I know that? I receive intelligence reports on a daily basis that indicates that that's his desires. And therefore, the United States must be vigilant, must make sure we continue to focus on our homeland security measures, must disrupt, must use our intelligence-gathering network to prevent the enemy from attacking.

And so, while I hope 2002 is a year of peace, I'm realistic. As to whether or not bin Laden is in control of some network, who knows? The thing we're certain about is that he's on the run, that he's hiding in caves, if hiding at all. And the other thing I'm certain about is we will bring him to justice. I don't know whether it's going to be tomorrow, but Tommy will tell you that I haven't said, Tommy, get him tomorrow. I said, just get him. And we will. We will bring him to justice.

We don't know, David, whether or not he's given any orders to any of his soldiers, but we take nothing for granted. And so our country still remains on alert, and we're actively looking for anybody who would harm America.

The shoe bomber was a case in point, where the country has been on alert. A stewardess on an American Airlines flight -- or a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight was vigilant, saw something amiss, and responded. It's an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness. And I'm grateful for the flight attendant's response, as I'm sure the passengers on that airplane. But we've got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.

Q Mr. President, do you think that India and Pakistan are sliding toward war?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things that we discussed today in the national security conference, and I discussed yesterday with members of my national security team, was the India and Pakistan issue. Colin Powell has spoke to both sides today, urging restraint, urging calm. I was pleased to -- I'm pleased to note that President Musharraf has announced the arrest of 50 extreme terrorists -- extremists or terrorists. And I hope India takes note of that, that the President is responding forcefully and actively to bring those who would harm others to justice.

The war on terror is not just an American war on terrorists, it's a civilized government war on terror that we're talking about here. But my government and my administration is working actively to bring some calm in the region, to hopefully convince both sides to stop the escalation of force. And as I say, I'm pleased that President Musharraf is responding to the Indian requests to round up those who would do harm to others and incarcerate them, which he did.


March of 2002 Bush releases this memo:


President Condemns Pakistan Terrorist Attack
Statement by the President



I am outraged by the terrorist attack that took place today in Islamabad, Pakistan against innocent civilians. I strongly condemn them as acts of murder that cannot be tolerated by any person of conscience nor justified by any cause. On behalf of the American people, I extend my deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy, and I wish a full and fast recovery to those injured. We will work closely with the government of Pakistan to ensure those responsible for this terrorist attack face justice.


On April 17 2002 he says this about the progress

Our progress -- our progress is measured day by day, terrorist by terrorist. We recently apprehended one of al Qaeda's top leaders, a man named Abu Zabaydah. He was spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al Qaeda, plotting and planning murder. He's not plotting and he's not planning anymore. (Applause.) He's under lock and key, and we're going to give him some company. (Applause.) We're hunting down the killers one by one.

We're learning a lot about al Qaeda operations and their plans. As our enemies have fled their hideouts in Afghanistan, they left some things behind. We found laptop computers, drawings and maps. And through them, we're gaining a clearer picture of the terrorist targets and their methods.


In ending after bush's decision was made up to take sadam out he comiled a list of reasons as to why they should have a war in Iraq.


The world changed on that terrible September morning, and since that day, we have changed the world. (Applause.) Before September the 11th, Afghanistan served as the home base of al Qaeda, which trained and deployed thousands of killers to set up terror cells around the world, including our own country. Because we acted, Afghanistan is a rising democracy. (Applause.) I don't know if you know this or not, but over 10 million people have registered to vote in the upcoming Afghan presidential elections. (Applause.) Because we acted, many young girls now go to school for the first time in Afghanistan. (Applause.) Because we acted, Afghanistan is an ally in the war on terror, and America and the world are safer. (Applause.)

Before September the 11th, Libya was spending millions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Today, because America and our allies sent a clear and easy-to-understand message, the leader of Libya has abandoned his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and America and the world are safer. (Applause.)

Before September the 11th, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America. He was defying the world. He was firing weapons at American pilots who were enforcing the world's sanctions. He had pursued and he had used weapons of mass destruction. He harbored terrorists. He attacked his neighbors. He subsidized the families of suicide bombers. He and his henchmen murdered thousands of his own citizens. He was a source of great instability in the world's most volatile region. I saw a threat.

After September the 11th -- one of the lessons of September the 11th, an important lesson that this country must never forget is that we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. (Applause.)




All very noble, but point being first point above this post was bush just said a regime change needs to be made in Iraq.. In his speech above, he said sadam was a sworn enemy before 9/11... Ok so why on earth were we doing business with the guy?! Why were we doing business with sadam after he gassed his own people...Obviously it wasn't such a big deal until he needed that as a reason for his ammo to justify..

That's all i'm saying.. i'm glad he gone he's a piece of # but if yoru going to remove someone from power let us know the truth the first time around..
Have facts beforehand, don't make up facts as you go along or already made up your decision.. Now we have people who think this war in iraq is unjustified and wrong..

See what lying does?? It creates a mess...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Lying also plays a useful part in confusing the
enemy. It is not smart to tell on the six o'clock
news what your strategy is. Bush has deliberately
withheld information or glossed over very generally
at times in order to not give away strategy.

The fighting in Afghanistan is a good example of
this. Al Qaeda had as a goal to pull the US into
a prolonged guerrilla war in Afghanistan. Bush
never did acknowledge that strategy to the public.
What he did do, was to avoid that strategy which
was the brain child of Al Qaeda. By not sending
a large land army into Afghanistan, he avoided
a replay of the Russians efforts in Afghanistan.

Bush relied on Muslim forces, the Northern Alliance,
and the Eastern Alliance, for the land force there
and only furnished Air support. With this tactic,
Bush was able to thwart, the Al Qaeda strategy and
take down the Taliban government, with only the loss
of two Americans. This was done by using Muslim
forces present. It was a master stroke.

Bushes number one strategy all along has been to
get the Muslims to clean up their own territory,
but you never have heard that in his speeches.
He does not put this message forth, because he hopes
the jihadists has no clear understanding of his
strategy. Instead of saying "we want to arm the
Iraqis to take on this insurgency" he says, "lets
bring democracy to Iraq". His hope is to disguise
the fact he is setting up a play that pits Iraqis
against jihadists, without ever even mentioning
either side. Sure, if democracy does succeed, it
will be a good thing, but even if it doesn't he
has trapped the jihadists into fighting against
those Iraqis who are trying to set up this new
Iraq. It is a beautiful trap. The goal of the
jihadists is the spread of their government through
out the Muslim world. They absolutely had to fight
this new effort in order to achieve their goal.
The beauty is that they have to fight Iraqis to
do it, not the US. This strategy has pulled them
out of Afghanistan where they had hoped to just
kill thousands of Americans for many years similar
to how they handled the Russians. Al Qaeda has
totally blown their strategy. Not one thing they
planned has worked well for them at the strategic
level. Bush never mentions this, he just quietly
keeps executing the plan of training Iraqis to
take over the job, so that we can pull out once
Al Qaeda is expended fighting Iraqis. This has
been just a good a stroke as it was in Afghanistan
if it works. It appears to be working since
the Iraqis are taking 95% of the casualties and
lines to join the Iraqi police and army keeps
getting longer.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies


That's all i'm saying.. i'm glad he gone he's a piece of # but if yoru going to remove someone from power let us know the truth the first time around..
Have facts beforehand, don't make up facts as you go along or already made up your decision.. Now we have people who think this war in iraq is unjustified and wrong..

See what lying does?? It creates a mess...



The reason we didn't take out Saddam the first time is all around us in history books and probably news reports. The most plausible reason is that most likely, someone convinced Bush Sr. that sanctions against Saddam would work, instead of waging a full scale war on him. Maybe he knew the mess he would be getting into if he tried to get rid of Saddam (As Bush is doing now), and didn't want to risk his popularity. Maybe he knew that he, alone, didn't have time to do it. Clinton knew this as well. But the Bush we have now is different. He apparently doesn't care as much about polls, but more about finishing the job his father didn't finish and removing Saddam from power, which he did. It's obvious that there are terrorists in Iraq, who want Americans dead. You don't think they, in any way, had any prior knowlege or anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
The reason we didn't take out Saddam the first time is all around us in history books and probably news reports. The most plausible reason is that most likely, someone convinced Bush Sr. that sanctions against Saddam would work, instead of waging a full scale war on him. Maybe he knew the mess he would be getting into if he tried to get rid of Saddam (As Bush is doing now), and didn't want to risk his popularity. Maybe he knew that he, alone, didn't have time to do it. Clinton knew this as well. But the Bush we have now is different. He apparently doesn't care as much about polls, but more about finishing the job his father didn't finish and removing Saddam from power, which he did. It's obvious that there are terrorists in Iraq, who want Americans dead. You don't think they, in any way, had any prior knowlege or anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?


If you were to read the above documented facts from bush and his cabinet staff themselves instead of just quoting my bottom paragraph, You wouldn't be giving any hypotheticals or asking questions..



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
Lying also plays a useful part in confusing the
enemy. It is not smart to tell on the six o'clock
news what your strategy is. Bush has deliberately
withheld information or glossed over very generally
at times in order to not give away strategy.

The fighting in Afghanistan is a good example of
this. Al Qaeda had as a goal to pull the US into
a prolonged guerrilla war in Afghanistan. Bush
never did acknowledge that strategy to the public.
What he did do, was to avoid that strategy which
was the brain child of Al Qaeda. By not sending
a large land army into Afghanistan, he avoided
a replay of the Russians efforts in Afghanistan.


You make a very good point. A lot of people just expect Bush to tell us every little thing he's going to do. "We're going to pull out on March 27th". What do you think the enemy is going to do? They're going to wait until we pull out, then do what they do best... A lot of people also make the mistake in thinking that they're as well versed in war strategy and foreign policy than our president and government. These "Arm Chair Generals" can criticize all they want, but if they were put in the situation, would have no idea what to do.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman


You make a very good point. A lot of people just expect Bush to tell us every little thing he's going to do. "We're going to pull out on March 27th". What do you think the enemy is going to do? They're going to wait until we pull out, then do what they do best... A lot of people also make the mistake in thinking that they're as well versed in war strategy and foreign policy than our president and government. These "Arm Chair Generals" can criticize all they want, but if they were put in the situation, would have no idea what to do.



For starters you don't know that.. Battles throughout history haven't always been lead by 'generals' herman. Besides we're not dealing with genius enemies.. They are civilian's trained in how to make bombs, blow stuff up, capture and kill, and run and hide.. Does this take a genius general to strategize how to 'take em out'???

Your theory has holes in it no matter how much you try and jump over and side step them.

Banding with this other poster doesn't make your argument any better or stronger. What you've been ranting about in almost every thread, i've heard from fox news already, and repeatedly..

An original thought, Please.

And i'm not going to repeat myself again to satisfy you... I sat down yesterday for 2 hours going through white house archives, trying to get a sense of the big picture and time line of events.. By doing that, I'm not getting my sources from Rush, or fox, or cnn to arm myself with in times of debate.. But right from the decision maker's mouth.
That to me is solid proof enough that he made # up as he went along and lied the first time around...

It wasn't a big deal to him back when sadam was in power to urge the people of a dangerous threat..
The reason for Iraq today is full of bologne and definitely different from the beginning, he just had the help of the press (of which you get your sources from) to help in the creation of an urgent threat to rally support and create a list of justifications.

It doesn't have to be difficult, the reasons don't have to be just to a president with a prior agenda, but for the american people to support it, they'd better be. Which is why we have a wonderful list made just for us today, and very well packaged I might add.

Perfect to the blind eye, but a bit holey to those who have the eye sight and ability to be abit cynical because of it.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
As I asserted before, UN inspections broke down because
Saddam would not let his nuclear scientists be
interviewed in an environment without Iraqi coercion.
The Bush team interpreted this as proof that Saddam was
hiding a nuclear weapons program, and as things turned
out this was proven to be true and hiding of the program
was documented by the scientist in charge of the
Iraqi centrifuge program.

I thought it would be appropriate to include some of
the comments made by Mahdi Obeidi that confirmed the
fact that Iraq hid their nuclear program, in violation
of UN sanctions. Mahdi was the top scientist on
developing the centrifuge that successfully enriched
uranium. The enriched uranium was confiscated but
the program to hid the centrifuge technology was
successfully hidden for many years. The centrifuge
is a key building block. If you can do the centrifuge,
you can build the bomb.

Concerning the detailed drawings, dimensions, blue prints
and instructions for making the centrifuges and the
prototypes buried in his garden Mahdi said this:
===========
These drawings, documents, and prototypes represented the
accumulated knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear centrifuge
program. They were not actual weapons of mass destruction,
but they were probably the most valuable building blocks
for WMD that Iraq ever possessed. Saddam's son Qusay had
ordered me to keep them safe from inspectors in 1992,
and the Iraqi government concocted a story that they
had been destroyed by the security services.
===========


Mahdi also gave details of how the scientists and their
families were threatened and never given free access to
the inspectors. In 1998 during the last attempts of
the UN inspectors to question nuclear scientists, The
closest the scientists ever came to being given free
access to inspectors required that Iraq get tape recordings
of the questioning, thereby letting the scientists know
that they could not divulge any thing secretly to
inspectors. At one time Scott Ritter questioned Mahdi
and he gave accounts of that. Scott Ritter as you may
recall was a tough inspector who became convinced at
one point that Iraq was not hiding anything. Here
is what Mahdi said of the Scott Ritter interview.
============
Then Mr Ritter turned his attention to me with a penetrating
stare.
"We're onto you" he said. "I know you're hiding things"
He was looking for any inch of hesitation. The image of the
documents and components buried in my garden flashed into
my mind. I knew what could happen to me and my family if
he were to get any hint that those secrets were buried there.
I went on the offensive as my best defense using what I knew
to be his weakness: his lack of knowledge in the nuclear
field.
============
At the above point Mahdi was able to make some arguments
that sounded convincing enough that Ritter gave up and
later apparently believed Iraq was not hiding a program.


As final comments to his account of the Iraqi nuclear
program Mahdi had these things to say:
=============
As I try to make sense of my past and put it in perspective,
one thing is clear. Although Saddam never had nuclear
weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came
to developing them should serve as red flag to the international
community. The threat of nuclear weapons is not going away.
........The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece
of nuclear technology. Because it is the most efficient
and easiest method to hide, the centrifuge will
continue to be the preferred method for illicitly producing
bomb-grade uranium. With advances in centrifuge technology,
it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program
inside a single warehouse.
=============



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Source
Meeting between hijacker, Iraqi agent discounted
In a second staff report released Wednesday, the commission staff said that Mohamed Atta, the pilot of one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center and leader of the 19 hijackers, never met with Iraqi agents in Prague, Czech Republic. That purported meeting also has been cited as evidence of a possible al-Qaida connection to Iraq.

“We do not believe that such a meeting occurred,” the report said.

The release of the reports came as the 10-member commission opened its final public hearing on the attacks. The hearing, being held Wednesday and Thursday, will cover the Sept. 11 plot and the emergency response by the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. air defenses. Commissioners say they will delve into the actions of the nation’s top leaders during critical moments of the attacks.



Source
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States

-snip-

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”



Source
The royal family of Saudi Arabia donated more than $4 billion to the Palestinians between 1998 and 2003 to help finance offensive terrorist operations against Israel, a new report says.

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Washington, D.C-based group that monitors Mideast media, the House of Saud's support has gone to "'Mujahideen fighters' and 'families of martyrs'" killed in operations against the Jewish state.



Source
"US Secretary of State Colin Powell says there is "no hard evidence" to suggest that Iraqi stocks of weapons of mass destruction were hidden in neighboring Syria before the U.S. and coalition forces attacked last year."



Source
"Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring."


www.iraqwatch.org...

The C.I.A. reports seem to paint a different picture, one of Saddam waiting out the lifting of sanctions before he continued the WMD program.

Maybe that's not being lied to but it's clear Blair lied to the British Public. The idea that Saddam could hit targets within 45minutes of giving the order - seems... well a lie to me.

The stockpiles of WMD also seems a lie to me and the C.I.A. reports paint it as one.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
You have to put the accusations of WMD in perspective
as they really happened at the time. Here is that
perspective.

(1) Saddam kicked UN inspectors out of Iraq in defiance
of UN initiatives. I could look up the date but its not
important to make my point. Pretend it was 1996 for now.
So after 1996 we could not investigate allegations of
WMD, gas, or any nuclear program that might be successfully
hidden.

(2) Bush became very worried about nuclear weapons in
particular in about Oct of 2001 and pushed to get a
solution that denied nukes to Saddam. As part of this
pushing for solution, Bush made accusations that Saddam
was hiding chemical weapons and a program to develop
nuclear weapons. This charge was made to get UN action
to take care of those areas. This charge was made because
our best intelligence guess was that this was happening.
One of the factors that prompted that guess was that
Saddam had kick inspectors out and would not comply with
them.

(3) Bush threatened war if Saddam did not let inspectors
back in and to pursue inspections that had been denied.
Threatening war and making the accusations were necessary
to get the program restarted. It really did not matter
if Bush was lying or acting on bad information at that
time. What mattered was that if Saddam cooperated with
inspections the matter could be resolved.

(4) Being under the gun, Saddam let inspectors back in
and for a short time it appeared that things were going
okay. Suddenly a snag appeared. This snag was that Saddam
would not let his nuclear scientists be interviewed properly.
He would not let them be interviewed in a setting where they
could feel free from Saddam's boot on their head. This boot
was also on their family's head. This is a key point. If
Saddam had complied with UN inspectors and let his nuclear
scientists be interviewed properly sanctions would have
worked. The hidden program would have surfaced. It would
have been effectively dismantled. He could still be there
today raping and killing until his heart was content. However
this program was important enough to him, that he refused
to let it be divulged. If it was that important, is it not
a reasonable conclusion that he wanted to continue it at
some point?

(5) When Saddam refused interview of his nuclear scientists
Bush was left with no intelligent conclusion other than
that Saddam was hiding a nuclear program. With the fear
that Bush had of nuclear weapons in the hands of this
man he took the action to invade.

(6) In review, the key point in all this is that the entire
situation in Iraq fell apart because Saddam refused interview
of his nuclear scientists and Bush took this to mean that
at some point Saddam was going to have nukes if not stopped.

(7) The accusations that the weapons were there were actually
just charges made to get UN inspections and actions to work.
If Saddam had complied with the inspections they would have
worked. They would have shown that there were no chemical
weapons. They would have shown that there were no nukes.
They would have shown that a nuclear program was buried
awaiting the attention to go away. None of these things
happened though. The reason they did not happen was Saddam
Hussein's fault. It was not the fault of Blair or Bush.
These two leaders only made the logical conclusion that
Saddam was hiding something and they proved to be correct.

(8) In conclusion you should not get to wound up that WMD
did not turn up. The charges of WMD were only a charge asking
for a fair trial. The fair trial was denied by Saddam
when he refused to let his nuclear scientists be interviewed.
Saddam got what he deserved. Blair and Bush should be
commended, in my opinion, for making an unpopular, hard
choice and the choice has been correct.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
MajorCee, you honestly believe Iraq was able to hide its Nuclear Program/had one and that anyone in the administration believed that?

The C.I.A. reports [I linked a site earlier I do believe] happen to show otherwise on the Nuclear option.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
What the CIA knew and didn't know is in question in my mind.

The fact is that Iraq's top scientist on uranium enrichment,
the key to building a bomb, hid their program under orders
from the top. This program had effectively solved the
problem of uranium enrichment and had the detailed plans
and specs ready to be put back into manufacture if the
opportunity became present.

Iraq refused under threat of war to let UN inspectors
interview these scientists in a neutral setting where
they were uncoerced where this above fact might have
been established.

With these two facts established above confirmed, I ask
you, what logical conclusion would you make about
Iraq's nuclear aspirations and intentions?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The CIA did in fact know that Saddam did not have any WMDs in his country's possession. What the CIA doesn't know is if he did have WMDs, where in the hell did Saddam put them? I personally believe that he had the weapons trucked over to the Valley of Death in the douth of Syria. Hey, Saddam's trial starts in a couple days and everyone is saying that he will squeal on a few countries. It will be known after the trial that the U.S. did deal arms with Saddam during his war with Iran back in the 1980s. Also, he might reveal the workings of the mess in the U.N.'s Oil "For Food" scandal. He might even implicate George H. W. and George W. on a few things. But that we can only hope he does.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join