1
   

Crossroads of a nation-Why we need Bush to win

 
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:10 am
You jumped on the war wagon in Desert Storm, I understand that.

this day, October 10, 2002,

That was the day the bill to invade Iraq was voted on. That was the day Sen. Graham said would come back to haunt us.

I'm not interested in assigning blame for 9/11. My interest is in the subsequent events...the mistakes that could have been avoided.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:11 am
Al-Qaeda was "on the ropes" about a year ago but the shift of resources to Iraq has allowed it to regenerate, he said.

I doubt the soldiers in Afghanistan would agree with you on this... or Graham..

Thats the thing about making blanket statements like that and not including all the details...

Details of:
Mission requirements
Unit MET-L's
Troops needed
Support Units needed
Type of Mission
AAR's from time on ground till now

Afghan mission requirements now are different than what they were at the start. They have the troops they need there, after reviewing the AAR's and where the mission is at this time.

There actually wasnt a shift in troops per say
The units are working in shifts to support many ongoing missions. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only missions our troops are embroiled in, and their are different types of soldiers used for specific missions...

No one likes to talk cold hard facts anymore...

I cant seem to bring up Grahams voting records if anyone has some links that go from 1992 till present I would thank you to post them
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:18 am
Armyvet, if you write:

[QUOTE="The name of whoever you wish to quote"]quote text[/QUOTE]

For example:

[QUOTE="panzade"]Al-Qaeda was "on the ropes" about a year ago but the shift of resources to Iraq has allowed it to regenerate, he said.[/QUOTE]

You get a result that looks like this:

panzade wrote:
Al-Qaeda was "on the ropes" about a year ago but the shift of resources to Iraq has allowed it to regenerate, he said.


That makes it easier for people reading your posts to keep track of which parts of your post is quoted, and which parts of your post is your own.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:27 am
Thanks Smile Ill try to get the quote thing right...

"panzade" wrote:
You jumped on the war wagon in desert storm, I understand that.


No I saw reality from the ground and talking to Iraqi civilians and soldiers that were practically begging for our help to get rid of Saddam while I was there 11 months. Not from the news medias portrayal of the war, which ill add was nothing near the truth.

As for 10 oct when the biss was signed......I was speaking in reference to his remarks on terrorists coming in a shadow and doing it again.... they were here doing it well before Bush took office and we did nothing...........COLE, WTC EMBASSY BOMBINGS.....

Which is why I thought he may have forgotten americans were dying to terrorism long before 9-11 and the iraq war
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:30 am
Graham book: Inquiry into 9/11, Saudi ties blocked

By FRANK DAVIES

[email protected]


WASHINGTON - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources -- including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders -- were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was ``looking troubled'':

``Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.''

''Excuse me?'' I asked.

''Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,'' he continued.

Graham concluded: 'Gen. Franks' mission -- which, as a good soldier, he was loyally carrying out -- was being downgraded from a war to a manhunt.''

Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against al Qaeda terrorism.

He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Rep. Porter Goss, nominated last month to be the next CIA director. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.

Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.

Al-Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation that jumped from $465 to $3,700 in March 2000, after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar -- two of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, just before they began pilot training.

When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.

The administration and CIA also insisted that the details about the Saudi support network that benefited two hijackers be left out of the final congressional report, Graham complained.

Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. ``It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.''

Saudi officials have vociferously denied any ties to the hijackers or al Qaeda plots to attack the United States.

Graham ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination and then decided not to seek reelection to the Senate this year. He has said he hopes his book will illuminate FBI and CIA failures in the war on terrorism and he also offers recommendations on ways to reform the intelligence community.

On Iraq, Graham said the administration and CIA consistently overplayed its estimates of Saddam Hussein's threat in its public statements and declassified reports, while its secret reports contained warnings that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was not conclusive.

In October 2002, Tenet told Graham that ''there were 550 sites where weapons of mass destruction were either produced or stored'' in Iraq.

''It was, in short, a vivid and terrifying case for war. The problem was it did not accurately represent the classified estimate we had received just days earlier,'' Graham wrote. ``It was two different messages, directed at two different audiences. I was outraged.''

In his book, Graham is especially critical of the FBI for its inability to track al Qaeda operatives in the United States and blasts the CIA for ``politicizing intelligence.''

He reserves his harshest criticism for Bush.

Graham found the president had ''an unforgivable level of intellectual -- and even common sense -- indifference'' toward analyzing the comparative threats posed by Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

When the weapons were not found, one year after the invasion of Iraq, Bush attended a black-tie dinner in Washington, Graham recalled. Bush gave a humorous speech with slides, showing him looking under White House furniture and joking, ``Nope, no WMDs there.''

Graham wrote: ``It was one of the most offensive things I have witnessed. Having recently attended the funeral of an American soldier killed in Iraq, who left behind a young wife and two preschool-age children, I found nothing funny about a deceitful justification for war.''
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:30 am
Armyvet35 wrote:
Thanks Smile Ill try to get the quote thing right...

"panzade" wrote:
You jumped on the war wagon in desert storm, I understand that.


No I saw reality from the ground and talking to Iraqi civilians and soldiers that were practically begging for our help to get rid of Saddam while I was there 11 months. Not from the news medias portrayal of the war, which ill add was nothing near the truth.

As for 10 oct when the biss was signed......I was speaking in reference to his remarks on terrorists coming in a shadow and doing it again.... they were here doing it well before Bush took office and we did nothing...........COLE, WTC EMBASSY BOMBINGS.....

Which is why I thought he may have forgotten americans were dying to terrorism long before 9-11 and the iraq war
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:36 am
Armyvet35 wrote:
Thanks Smile Ill try to get the quote thing right...

You're welcome Smile

Armyvet35 wrote:
"panzade" wrote:
You jumped on the war wagon in desert storm, I understand that.


It doesn't work with spaces in it. (you left a space behind = )
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:46 am
THANK YOU, Armyvet!!

Hello Georgia.!

First off, I don't think it was any one mans fault for 9-11. It was a combination of many things. For years we lived with a false sense of security. Since Pres Bush has gotten a lot of flak on his part, I just want to add one more broken link. Yes, it is critical of John Kerry, but he is the one running around saying he sounded the alarm before 9-11.

It is hypocritical arrogance to criticise others for not doing certain things and you have this fact hanging over your head..

What Did John Kerry Know and When Did He Know It?
March 21, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Joe Mariani

SEN. John Kerry boasts how he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9/ 11," referring to his 1997 book "The New War." Too bad he didn't blast it when it really counted - four months before the hijackings, when he was hand-delivered evidence of serious security breaches at Logan International Airport, with specific warnings that terrorists could exploit them.

Presidential hopeful John Kerry has more guts than most people gave him credit for, after all. It takes unbelievable audacity to attack President Bush for "stonewalling" the 9/11 terrorist attack investigation, when Kerry was personally warned by an FAA agent about the possibility of a terrorist hijacking at Boston's Logan International Airport only months before... and did nothing.

In a letter to Senator John Kerry on 7 May 2001, retired FAA Special Agent Brian Sullivan wrote that the FAA needed to change its focus from hijackings for hostages (the usual purpose until 9/11) to encompass the possibility of terrorists taking over airliners for other, more deadly purposes. "While the FAA has focused on screening for handguns, new threats have emerged, such as chemical and biological weapons," Sullivan wrote. "Do you really think a screener could detect a bottle of liquid explosive, a small battery and a detonator in your carry-on baggage?" Sullivan continued, "And with the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers? The answers to these questions are obvious."

The night before, a local tv station had broadcast a report concerning security vulnerabilities at Logan Airport featuring Sullivan and another former FAA Special Agent named Steve Elson. The two had waltzed in and out through airport security multiple times with a variety of weapons and gadgets. Many times, their bags weren't even opened, even when "suspicious items" were inside. Agent Sullivan sent Kerry a video of the report following his letter. In a chilling prophecy, he encouraged the Senator to "[t]hink what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day." In the last week of July, Kerry's office finally sent Sullivan a reply saying that the video had been forwarded to the Department of Transportation. Less than two months later, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were hijacked after taking off from the same Logan International Airport and flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC, killing thousands.

Was this the famous "alarm" John Kerry claims to have "sounded... on terrorism years before 9/11" in his television commercials -- sending a video to the DoT mere months beforehand? Anyone with money for postage could have done as much. Isn't it possible that a Senator with a direct warning from a former FAA agent could -- and should -- have done much more? While it's true that few people would immediately leap into action on a warning alone, most people lack the hypocritical arrogance to criticise others for not doing so when they hadn't themselves.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:48 am
Grrr ill never get it right...."ill try it again soon" darn quote thing
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:55 am
Xena wrote:
First off, I don't think it was any one mans fault for 9-11. It was a combination of many things. For years we lived with a false sense of security.


I agree. Funny how many people had 20/20 hindsight
0 Replies
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:10 am
Quote:
For years we lived with a false sense of security.


seems to me there was another thread started by a republican concerning terrorist acts committed on American soil starting with the take over of the American Embassy in Tehran...then lets see we had 12 years of a Republican regime...hmmmmm...and 8 years of Clinton...hmmmmmmmm...but lets blame Kerry now, cause he is running for president...yeah..that makes sense....so whose alarm was turned off..and if the FAA agents were that concerned with security...and felt they got no response from a US senator...why not go higher..hmmmmmmmmm...

<channeling my inner Arsenio Hall>
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:41 am
'Tis okay panzade, I'm often misunderstood, as are politics in general. I think I'm going to go read a few of Letty's poems now, and get out of this quagmyre.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:45 am
right behind you...chef
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:46 am
every american is at fault... we are after all responsibe for who sits in the whitehouse....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:50 am
Armyvet35 wrote:
Grrr ill never get it right...."ill try it again soon" darn quote thing
The easiest way to do multiple quotes is to cut and paste.

If you hit the button that says "quote" on the right side above the post you are responding to. You will notice that the quoted material begins with:
Code:[quote="Armyvet35"]
and ends with
Code: [/quote]

Copy and paste the
Code: [/quote]
to where ever you wish to respond. Type your response. Then, to resume quoting, copy and paste the
Code: [quote="Armyvet35"]
You can repeat this as often as you wish.

Notice I used your name in the example and where your name is located in the code (between the "quotation marks"). You can substitue any name you wish there.

If you don't feel like going to that much trouble; from the "Post a reply" screen you can simply highlight the section you want in a quote box and hit the button that says "Quote".
This will automatically put a
Code: [quote]
at the beginning and a
Code: [/quote]
at the end of the section you are quoting. Notice the only difference is the
Code: /

Also notice the only difference between this generic quote and the specific one is
Code: ="Armyvet35"
is added to identify the quoted party.
Hope this helps.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 08:01 am
thanks occom Smile
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 08:14 am
hint to Xena: that was your opportunity to just let it go....
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 08:14 am
Just curious about a couple things...

How is kerry going to recruit 40,000 more people to send to Iraq, and replace those that will be putting in early retirement and those that will get out because they refuse to serve for him, and also do this while dropping all stop-losses? After all he would never do a back-door draft by allowing stop loss to continue right? He will let those soldiers get out that are on stop loss right now right? Oh and he will bring home all national guard and reservists too correct?

Thats a pretty tall order to fill.....

Oh and all the while keeping that defense budget down, giving the military pay raises and better benefits, not dropping tax cuts for people under 200,000, providing healthcare for every american, leaving no child behind, taking care of all the poor, funding more programs, fixing medicare, and creating 10 million jobs too..... all the while reducing the deficiet..... hmmm where is the money going to come from again?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 08:18 am
Armyvet35 wrote:
Just curious about a couple things...

How is kerry going to recruit 40,000 more people to send to Iraq, and replace those that will be putting in early retirement and those that will get out because they refuse to serve for him, and also do this while dropping all stop-losses? After all he would never do a back-door draft by allowing stop loss to continue right? He will let those soldiers get out that are on stop loss right now right? Oh and he will bring home all national guard and reservists too correct?

Thats a pretty tall order to fill.....

Oh and all the while keeping that defense budget down.....


Well, how's Bush going to do it? Will stop losses cover it? How did Bush manage to find the money to fight two wars halfway across the globe while giving tax cuts?

This is election season, we don't ask how because we know it's all BS.

BTW, the only promise I know of that he has made is that there will be no draft. I believe he may be hoping to bring in allied peacekeepers. It can be argued whether he will be successful or not, but that is his plan as I know it.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 08:27 am
Actually only certain stop losses are in affect, just like under clinton.

Kerry said he would have alot more soldiers trained as well for Special ops and special forces...
The military community kind of chuckle at that one considering the training that goes along with those jobs with a 75% failure rate with applicants that cant perform in those specialty MOS's. Not only in the physical aspect, but in the security clearance aspects as well.....

Most of the stop loss jobs require a security clearance, and they are very peticular on who gets them. I have TS and hubby has a CSI. Took 2 years for his CSI to get approved and a year for my TS. Hard to just put people in those jobs when their credit reports eliminate them....Then they actually have to pass the training standards...

People in the military support Bush...so I dont think that will be a problem. Military people dont want to be the UNs toys either and that is a huge concern. Not to mention they just dont believe in Kerrys ability as Commander in chief.

It will be interesting to see if he does get elected what the military is going to look like 12 monts from now....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:52:58