Who's the genius that decided to have Kerry run as a 'war hero'???

Scarry Kerry is an insult to the Nam vets. The only hero I know from that war, are the ones whose names are listed on "The Wall". How can anyone who spent 3 to 4 months of a 12 month tour, and not be missing some body parts be considered anything more than a participant? I have known a couple of bros who came back before their end of tour, but these bros are rolling instead of walking. They also did not go in front of congress and betray us, either.

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by Intelearthling


I haven't got it, but the veterans who served with him sure have got it.

well could you ask them to pass it to you, and then pass it on to me? cause i know a lot of swift boat vets who say kerry's a hero, and i just don't know who to believe.

-koji K.

Queen Elizebeth knighted Elton John? A flambouyant homosexual with a knighthood title. I know this happened a while back, but I'm just using it as an example;

Elton John: homosexual=knight

John Kerry: admitted baby killer=hero

See any parallellism here?

The world has gone mad.

And the swift boats vets?

It tells you a little something about what a little bit of bribery can do for a person.

There's a lot more vets that knew him personally that are against him, than the ones who knew him that is for.

Eh, go figure.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by Intelearthling


I haven't got it, but the veterans who served with him sure have got it.

well could you ask them to pass it to you, and then pass it on to me? cause i know a lot of swift boat vets who say kerry's a hero, and i just don't know who to believe.

-koji K.

The ones that where actually on his boat seem to have much different opinions than the ones who weren't on his boat.

i've noticed that too. mighty odd, if you ask me.

-koji K.

Your right American Mad Man those are facts that no one is disputing because everyone knows them including Kerry. Cmon not ONE night in the hospital. Plus the things he said when he came back from Vietnam. I can't believe this is the Democrats choice. Then there is his 19 years in the senate where he did a whole lot of nuthin. It is smart for the Democrats to take the voters minds off of Kerrys senate voting record since that is more horrendous then his war record.

"If in the event that George Bush HAD to go to Vietnam, he would have never killed babies, threw away any medals he'd recieved, and given a false testimonies that all soldiers in Vietnam were taking part in atrocious behaviour. That's the kind of character our president has got. An honorable one. Not super-shady as the one Kerry has demonstrated."

How would you know? Were you there? You should join the Swift Boat folks as an authority.

During those days George Dubya was a spoiled, drunken rich kid who had no respect at all for authority. He was an embarassment to his father and mother and potentially detrimental to Daddy's political future. So, Daddy asked one of his buddies to take little Georgie under his wing for awhile and use him to help out on a political campaign that his buddy was working on in Alabama. This guy was also George 41's personal campaign strategist. George Dubya's parents basically wanted to get rid of him for awhile to avoid any possible scandal that might arise as a result of George Dubya's wreckless behavior.

Yep, that's what I call character, all right.



Nice ducks ...


[edit on 9/8/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 9/8/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 9/8/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 9/8/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 9/8/2004 by netbound]

You guys are ridiculously funny. All this back and forth crap is such nonsense.....what happened to the issues?

LadyV

"You guys are ridiculously funny. All this back and forth crap is such nonsense.....what happened to the issues?"

Issues? What? There are issues? What issues?

Oh, you mean like the skyrocketing deficit? That li'l ol' thang. Why shoot! Dont you worry yourself none about that now. George Dubya's got it under control.

Or the increasing number of people who have inadequate health care, or none at all? Why shucks, Miss LadyV, that ain't nothin'. George Dubya knows all about that. He'll take care of it. You can count on it.

Or what we are going to do about bringing home our troops who are dying every day over in a country we illegally occupied to avenge George Dubya's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein? I do declare! You just worry way too much, Miss LadyV!! George Dubya's a wartime President. He knows all about war and such. Don't you worry none, Child, George Dubya's gonna brang those boys home in due time. He has inside knowledge of thangs we couldn't possibly understand, and he alone will know when the time is right. You can bet on it. He's a Man of God, you know!

Well, I guess that covers the issues. Now let's get back to trashing the draft dodger!!


[edit on 9/6/2004 by netbound]

Well apparently Clinton thinks Kerry needs to get off the Vietnam band wagon. From his hosptial bed he urged Kerry to move away from Vietnam and start focusing on other issues.

I wonder if Kerry will listen. Here is a link to the story:

www.nytimes.com...

Liberals think John Kerry will give them a nice little government program to fix all of our problems. All we have to do is nothing. No hard work on our part is needed. It is not any presidents fault you don't have health insurance. It is your fault for not preparing when you were younger. Even if you worked for 40 years in a factory you can't expect a lot outta that job. Life insurance doesn't care how hard or long you worked. I t cares how much MONEY you made. No president is to blame for your lack of MONEY.

netbound,
although I may not agree with your stand - if you did that cartoon you are pretty damn gifted...

Originally posted by netbound
Well, I guess that covers the issues. Now let's get back to trashing the draft dodger!!

let's stay in the current, ie...bush and kerry. there is no point in rehashing the clinton thing at this late date.

bios - Thanks. All I did was make a few small changes to the cartoon posted earlier in this thread. I'm certainly no artist. But, thanks just the same.

Actually, when it comes to Bush/Kerry, it's not that I'm a big Kerry fan. To the contrary, he makes me a little nervous. BUT, I have a number of problems with Bush that I just can't personally reconcile.

First of all, the pre-emptive strike policy the administration has adopted seems contrary to the values I thought made America great. It seems to me that if we adopt that policy, then why can't every other nation? There's too much gray area (wiggle room) with this strategy. It leaves the door open for any country to invade another whenever they like; all they need to do is say the other country was a perceived threat. To me, this untimately will lead to chaos and mass disorder/destruction, and it's not a step forward.

I developed a great deal of distrust for George Dubya over the Iraq war, and the reasons for us waging it.

I agree that Saddam is a bad guy and has a lot of blood on his hands, but then so do a lot of other dictators around the world. It's a cold, unforgiving world. It wasn't that long ago that we supported Saddam, supplying him with all the weapons he ultimately used against his own people. But, we didn't like/trust Iran at the time, so we hopped in the sack with Saddam. It's also a fickle world.

Then came Desert Storm. It was basically over oil, IMO, and our desire to keep Saddam from becoming too powerful in that market. If not for that, I doubt the USA would have cared that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Anyway, George 41 developed a formidable coalition, followed the UN mandate to the tee and pulled out as soon as it was satisfied. Those were the marching orders at the time. George 41 couldn't justify going ahead into Baghdad because that was not part of the plan. I don't blame George 41. To the contrary, I think he did the right thing. To go into Baghdad at that time would have been outside the original mandate and would have been considered excessive. I'm sure George 41 would have loved to have gone into Baghdad back then and come back with Saddam's head on a platter. Had he done that, however, the world could have justified bringing George 41 up on war crimes and crimes against humanity. So, George 41 did the right thing and exercised good judgement and restraint.

Then, some time later, came the assasination attempt on George 41, orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.

Then there were the Clinton years ...

Now, George Dubya comes into power. He made no secret that the policy of his administration toward Iraq was "Regime Change". He even said in one of his early speeches, "After all, this is the man who tried to kill my Daddy ...". To me it was obvious from day one that George Dubya had a personal score to settle with Saddam. This is problem number one that I have with Bush. I don't think a President should EVER bring personal issues (baggage) into office with him/her and use America's national security to disguise it. That's unethical and immoral. You can argue all you want that Saddam was violating UN resolutions during the 90's, but IMO that has nothing to do with the reasons George Dubya wanted to take him down. It was just another excuse he could use to do what he had planned to do from his first day in office anyway.

SO IMHO, everything leading up to the invasion of Iraq was orchestrated around a personal vendetta in the guise of National Security interests. In reality Sadam represented no real threat to us. We (America) made sure nothing would get in our way, though. We flipped the bird to the rest of the world, who wanted the weapons inspections to have more time to work with a newly refocussed effort. But, we had no patience for all that, and when it finally came down to it George Dubya read off a laundry list of reasons why our only choice was to exercise a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. He spoke of mushroom clouds, 9/11 and the urgency of stopping the threat of Saddam at all costs. He basically scared the American people into this war. And as it turned out, none of the things on George Dubya's laundry list were true. This is where I have problem number two with Mr. Bush. It upsets me to no end to think the President of the United States blatantly lied to the people in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. And this was no little, white lie. We're talking BIG, SCARY LIES. So, I will never trust this man as long as I live. People may say that Kerry lies, but nothing can compare to the lies we were told by George Dubya Bush. It was obvious to me from the get-go that this was his intention, and everything he did along the way confirmed my suspicions. He scares me. I think he's a loose gun.

My third problem with George Dubya is that I think he has damaged our Democracy and our once great reputation in the world. Much of the rest of the world now disrespects America and it's values. It perceives us as arrogant, irresponsible and dangerous. They see us as the biggest terrorist of them all. The very thing that made America's light shine so bright is that we were above all that. We represented the greatness that can be achieved by following Democratic principles. The rest of the world envied and looked up to the USA as a living testament to the fact that Democracy and freedom works. We demonstrated that you don't have to be a bully (terrorist) to be the greatest power on Earth. But the rest of the world no longer perceive us that bright, shining light. Instead, many countries fear they may be next on our pre-emptive strke list.

The fourth problem I have is that while occupying Iraq under questionable circumstances, losing 1,000 American lives in battle so far, no telling how many innocent lives lost in the crossfire, and the poor individuals who've lost their heads literally during this conflict, what ever happened to the mastermind of 9/11? You haven't heard much about OBL until recently, 2 months before elections. If he's captured before the elections, then that's the last straw for me. That would be a little too convenient politically for my taste. And I don't know how anyone could be so blonde as to buy that one. If that comes to be, then it will certainly drive the last nail in the coffin for George Dubya in my book. As Clinton once said, "If you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, then shame on me".

The above are only 4 reasons I'm disturbed with George Dubya. I have others, as well. But the bottom line is, I don't trust our President to use sound judgement and to tell us the truth. I find him a little scary because, like the rest of the world, I wonder who's next on his list after Iraq.

Like I said at the outset, it's not that I like Kerry, it's that I don't trust George Dubya. That's what drives me and guides my thinking this election year.




[edit on 9/6/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 9/6/2004 by netbound]

Originally posted by netbound
SO IMHO, everything leading up to the invasion of Iraq was orchestrated around a personal vendetta in the guise of National Security interests. In reality Sadam represented no real threat to us�������. This is where I have problem number two with Mr. Bush. It upsets me to no end to think the President of the United States blatantly lied to the people in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. And this was no little, white lie. We're talking BIG, SCARY LIES�������..My third problem with George Dubya is that I think he has damaged our Democracy and our once great reputation in the world. Much of the rest of the world now disrespects America and it's values�������. And I don't know how anyone could be so blonde as to buy that one. If that comes to be, then it will certainly drive the last nail in the coffin for George Dubya in my book. As Clinton once said, "If you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, then shame on me".

Suppose that credible evidence existed that Iraq was targeting the US for terrorist activities? Would that make a difference to you? So if he blatantly lied do you believe that Clinton, Kerry, most republicans and most democrats lied as well gulf 1 resolution 52-48 gulf 2 resolution 77-26�..something appeared more convincing to them. Would you advise that we follow a peer pressure policy for all of our policies? So you would believe that the Nixon era republicans couldn�t find eight to ten hardcore partisans that could keep a secret�but you�ll believe that hundreds of military personnel drawn from across the political spectrum would somehow find it easier?

keholmes

�Suppose that credible evidence existed that Iraq was targeting the US for terrorist activities? Would that make a difference to you? So if he blatantly lied do you believe that Clinton, Kerry, most republicans and most democrats lied as well gulf 1 resolution 52-48 gulf 2 resolution 77-26�..something appeared more convincing to them.�

CIA Chief George Tenet spoke at Georgetown University on Thursday, February 5, 2004. The views he expressed that day would not have supported Bush�s justification for the invasion of Iraq. Had the American people been told, prior to the invasion of Iraq, that our intelligence could not confirm that Saddam actually possessed WMD, Bush could not have commanded the popular support he needed to launch the attack.

Let�s examine some of the facts.

Before the invasion we were led to believe

a) that Iraq had stocked up to 500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents. We were also told that he had concealed equipment and other items needed for continuing chemical weapons production.

b) that Iraq had biological weapons and facilities to develop more of them. We were told that mobile laboratories were believed to be used for developing these biological weapons. Among the weapons we were told to be in Iraq was anthrax, and that it could be quickly produced and delivered by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers or covert operatives.

c) that there was no evidence Iraq had ever abandoned its nuclear program. That Saddam was trying to get fissile material to produce a bomb, and that he also made repeated attempts to acquire high- specification aluminum tubes that could be used as centrifuges ... that Iraq could produce one A-Bomb within a year if it acquired weapons-grade fissile material abroad.

After the invasion we found

a) no chemical weapons. Some sources say Iraq was conducting experiments to develop chemical weapons, but no physical evidence has been found.

b) no biological weapons. Inspectors have found facilities that could be used for biological weapons research, but no weapons that could be used for biological warfare or the production of hydrogen.

c) no evidence of uranium enrichment facilities ... Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, even if he still wanted one ...

Statements made by George Tenet when he spoke at Georgetown University

a) "My provisional bottom line today: Saddam (Hussein) had the intent and capability to quickly convert civilian industry to chemical weapons production. However, we have not yet found the weapons we expected."

b) "My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop biological weapons ... And just as clearly, we have not yet found biological weapons."

c) "We have not yet found clear evidence that the dual-use items Iraq sought were for nuclear reconstitution. We do not yet know if any reconstitution efforts had begun."

Now, you might make the argument that, perhaps, Tenet was speaking with the benefit of hindsight when he spoke at Georgetown University, whereas before the invasion it was thought that Saddam possessed WMD. And so, the most blame you could place on Tenet and the CIA was that it was a matter of an "intelligence failure" -- good intelligence people who were duped and therefore, advised the President wrongly. However, it can be demonstrated that this was not the case.

Keep the above in mind while I bring your attention to the following:

When Secretary of State Colin Powell stood before the United Nations he said, �Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he himself described it ��.

Just one day after Powell stated the above before the entire Security Council of the United Nations, President Bush declared to the American people, �Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.".

This turned out to be misinformation, however, that was largely �extrapolated� from �sketchy information� obtained by a U.S. intelligence agent who had debriefed a captured operative. At least, that was the case according to Bush�s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, who stated that almost everything the United States presented to the UN Security Council was incorrect. That Powell and Bush provided the �extrapolations�, and that they included �leaps of logic so big that any high-schooler could spot them�.

Well, you have to wonder, were Bush and Powell deliberately lying or were they simply misinformed by the CIA?

The operative words from David Kay�s statements here are �sketchy� information and �extrapolated�. Powell and Bush, according to David Kay, took �sketchy� CIA debriefing information, "extrapolated" from it, and then claimed that our intelligence had provided firm evidence that Iraq provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. If Powell and Bush twisted this �sketchy�, raw intelligence data to make it say something it did not, and made it reach conclusions a trained CIA analyst wouldn�t have reached, then, IMHO, Powell and Bush are clearly guilty of lying.

When Powell presented his case to the UN, some of the weapons inspectors were in total disbelief. However, most Americans believed him. They trusted him not on the merits of convincing evidence, but because he was our Secretary of State, making statements that were approved by our President.

Later on, however, Powell stated, ��I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the connection�� between Iraq and Al Qaeda, ��but I do believe the connection existed.��. So now we go from firm assurances to �I do believe�.

This simply doesn�t pass muster by any stretch of the imagination.

The truth is probably that the intelligence community didn�t fail. They likely presented reasonable assessments that were overridden and/or suppressed. On every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case to go to war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views were likely kept quiet as momentum built for a congressional vote on the war resolution. Who could have overridden/suppressed the CIA assessments concluding we had no justification for launching a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation without provocation? Only someone in the Executive Branch could have done so - President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell and even CIA Director Tenet himself.

When you read prewar statements made by Secretary of State Powell you can't help but notice that he was very explicit and very firm about his assertions that Saddam posed an imminent threat, because a) Saddam had WMD's, and b) because he had solid links to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Yet, when you read Powell's later statement, ��I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the connection�� between Iraq and Al Qaeda, any thinking individual must pause and question it. If Powell had never seen such "smoking-gun concrete evidence", how could he tell the United Nations and all the people of the world that the US possessed "intelligence" that very strongly showed that these assertions were true? Why do I smell a rat here? Then, when President Bush backed up Powell's assertions that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked, why do I smell an even bigger rat?

I could go on and on with this, but I�ll spare you. Plus, I'm tired. You can believe whatever you like. As for me, and from what little I know, I can�t help being a little skeptical. And, perhaps, a bit distrusting ...


[edit on 9/7/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 9/7/2004 by netbound]

Originally posted by FredT
Kerry based his campaign on the issue. The miscalculation was his and his alone

Kerry HAD to try to make people believe that his four months in Vietnam
were really two full tours of duty (he lied). He HAD to try to get people
to believe that he was a genuine war hero and that he had medals
(he threw the medals away, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have
them anymore). He HAD to try to make his four months in Vietnam
30+ years ago the main part of his run for the White House. If he
didn't, then people would look at his senate voting record (what
little there is when he bothered to show up) and they'd see (with horror)
that he continually voted AGAINST making America strong, but he
managed to vote FOR higher $$$ to go to the useless U.N.

He had to make people look at his version of Vietnam, or they'd see
his voting record, and they'd see him for what he is. A useless
buffoon who subverts American interests at every turn.

keholmes

�Suppose that credible evidence existed that Iraq was targeting the US for terrorist activities? Would that make a difference to you?

Oh yeah, sorry keholmes, the answer to the above question is ,"Yes, it would make a difference to me.". But it would have to be "credible evidence", not blanket, unsubstantiated accusations ...

Originally posted by netbound
LadyV

"You guys are ridiculously funny. All this back and forth crap is such nonsense.....what happened to the issues?"

Issues? What? There are issues? What issues?

Oh, you mean like the skyrocketing deficit

While many of us who are voting for George Bush HATE his spending.
We appreciate that he understands the need to keep America safe.
Something Kerry seems to never have gotten his head around.

www.foxnews.com...

It is no longer 'It's the economy, stupid'.
Now it's 'It's about staying alive, stupid'.

I dont' see how Kerry has a plan to help the economy either. From
what I see, his raising of taxes and his promised job cuts in the
Aerospace and Defense industries will just lead this country back into
a recession (or worse). BTW - just WHO is going to pay all those
higher taxes???? It won't be the hundreds of thousands in the
aerospace and defense industries who are destined to loose their jobs
if Kerry gets in.

Flyersfan

"He had to make people look at his version of Vietnam, or they'd see
his voting record, and they'd see him for what he is. A useless
buffoon who subverts American interests at every turn."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a Kerry fan. But at least he did have a version of Vietnam to make people look at. Were you around during the Vietnam War? There was a lot of dissent over that war. It nearly tore this nation apart.

Name 3 accomplishments of Bush the last 4 years.

I won't even respond to the "buffoon" remark.


[edit on 9/7/2004 by netbound]

Originally posted by netbound
Oh yeah, sorry keholmes, the answer to the above question is ,"Yes, it would make a difference to me.". But it would have to be "credible evidence", not blanket, unsubstantiated accusations ...

In my signature at the end you will find a link to a story by CNN about the Russian president saying that he and Russian intelligence did warn the US about Iraq planning terrorist activities with-in the US�.I actually watched on FOX when it broke�.interestingly it was buried almost as fast as it came up. But, nonetheless I will point out some inconsistencies in what you did respond with.

I wonder if you could post any of the links that refer to the information provided by D. Kay, I would be interested in reading them�.I could only find a few quotes and they didn�t seem to support that info:

Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation.

And you know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by netbound
Then, when President Bush backed up Powell's assertions that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked, why do I smell an even bigger rat?

And now that the bi-partisan 9-11 commission has also concluded that Saddam and Al Qaeda where connected, do you still smell a rat?


Three accomplishments for demos
Kicked al qaeda out of Afghanistan
Created DHS
Got �no child left behind� legislation passed

Three accomplishments for reps
Afghanistan
Iraq
Made faith based funding of charities a national topic

Do I get a Twinkie now

keholmes,

At the end of this I will include a couple links regarding David Kay's statements. Keep in mind, David Kay wanted to backup the administration and not place the blame on it for the misleading information provided to the public as justification for invading Iraq. However, to use information that has not been confirmed, and is at best questionable, as justification for a pre-emptive strike against a nation, is misleading to put it nicely, and lying to be more accurate.

It's just so obvious to me that the invasion of Iraq was George Dubya's obsession, and that he was going to go through with it no matter what. I find it disturbing.

OK, regarding the article you referred me to, the following is my response:

Quoting from the CNN article, �Russia warned U.S. about Saddam�, at www.cnn.com...,

"I [Putin] can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

He [Putin] said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.
�

The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

In the same article, Bush states,

"This is a regime that sheltered terrorist groups"

What does �sheltered terrorist groups� mean? Supposedly there�s a good chance that al Qaeda cells exist right here in River City, as well. However, that doesn�t mean we �shelter� them. It�s easy to make a broad statement like that, but I don�t recall ever reading or hearing any actual evidence to substantiate it. The President�s allegation is not, in and of itself, proof. It�s not even evidence. It�s merely hearsay. Highly questionable hearsay.

Also, if the Russian intelligence was strong, then why was it never mentioned in the arguments for going to war with Iraq? If I thought Iraq was planning terrorist attacks within our borders, then I would have been all for the invasion.

Finally, the article states,

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

IMHO, the above article lends no support or evidence to justify the US invasion of Iraq. If the Putin intelligence is more solid than it would appear, then as George Dubya would say, �Bring it on ��.

In the CNN article, �Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link�, at www.cnn.com..., Cheney states,

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming, It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

From the same article,

�Members of 9/11 commission found no credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
�
Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.

The above is an example of EXACTLY the point I was trying to make in my previous post, where it mentions �sketchy� and �extrapolated� information. In that post I state,

�If Powell and Bush twisted this �sketchy�, raw intelligence data to make it say something it did not, and made it reach conclusions a trained CIA analyst wouldn�t have reached, then, IMHO, Powell and Bush are clearly guilty of lying.�

Obviously, the Bush/Cheney/Powell interpretation of the facts is quite different from the 9/11 Commission interpretation. This only serves to strengthen my argument.

If Bush/Cheney insist on making public statements pertaining to this so-called �relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda�, then why can�t they back it with solid intelligence? I could claim to be Elvis Presley, aka Agent Fountain Pen, if I wanted to, but that wouldn�t make it so.

The CNN article �Bush insists Iraq, al Qaeda had relationship�, at www.cnn.com..., states,

�After bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, the report said, Iraq apparently never responded."

The article also states,

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

I�m sorry, but I just don�t see the tie. If anything, it would appear Saddam had little interest in it. Saddam Hussein may have been a murderer and tyrant, but he was a smart one. I doubt that terrorist attacks on the US would have furthered his cause.

The following links reference some of David Kay�s statements regarding prewar justification for going into Iraq:

CNN article "DIPLOMATIC LICENSE", at cnnstudentnews.cnn.com..., Info on David Kay�s appearance before a U.S. Senate committee and statements regarding �sketchy� intelligence information.

Newsweek article on MSNBC site: "What went wrong?", at www.msnbc.msn.com...

I'm afraid I still don't trust George Dubya. He seems to me like a spoiled, rich kid who got older, but never grew up, and has to have everything his way, no matter the consequences.