Ticomaya wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.
Cheney was responding to Russert asking him to respond to the report from the Czech Interior Minister that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta 5 months before 9/11. He factually stated that report had "been pretty well confirmed."
and then went on to later deny that he had ever made that statement.
----
ya know,.... i don't really care.
bush, cheney and company are finished.
the country has turned against them. except for that 33% that don't care about anything but taxes, abortion and getting some payback on them derned a-rabs.
their own party has turned against them. except for mccain who can't get his head far enough up "the base"'s tail.
bush is already a lame duck, but things are quickly coming to the point where he's not gonna be able to find someone to spit on him if he's on fire.
and if that means that he is constrained from doing any more stupid shite, i am happy to grit my teeth and deal with it for the miserable 2.5 years he has left on his dance card.
-----
DTOM, Well stated and to the point: I'm looking to see them all hang after an impeachment; now or later doesn't matter.
Oooops I forgot the best part.....
Better Dead Than Red ! !
Lightwizard wrote:Cheney's answered that question regarding the supposed meeting of Iraqi officials with members of Al Qaeda for at least two years with the same sly, out of the side of the mouth duplicated statement with no further evidence whatsoever. He's the one who has to put up or shut up.
The chickenhearts have nothing but mouth and spin ... then they have to spin to explain their lies to get out of the spin they spun!
Then they deny they said what they meant, because they meant what they said, but it wasn't exactly said like it was said, but it meant what it meant no matter what they said it meant ... ... ...
Anon
Maggs, Excellent find on the Bush letter to congress. Congrats!
HOW LONG
by Jackson Browne
When you look into a child's face
And you're seeing the human race|
And the endless possibilities there
Where so much can come true
And you think of the beautiful things
A child can do
How long -- would the child survive
How long -- if it was up to you
When you think about the money spent
On defense by a government
And the weapons of destruction we've built
We're so sure that we need
And you think of the millions and millions
That money could feed
How long -- can you hear someone crying
How long -- can you hear someone dying
Before you ask yourself why?
And how long will we hear people speaking
About missiles for peace
And just let it go by
How long will they tell us these weapons
Are keeping us free
That's a lie
If you saw it from a satellite
With its green and its blue and white
The beauty of the curve of the earth
And its oceans below
You might think it was paradise
If you didn't know
You might think that it's turning
But it's turning so slow
How long -- can you hear someone crying
How long -- can you hear someone dying
Before you ask yourself why?
And how long will it be 'till we've turned
To the tasks and the skills
That we'll have to have learned
If we're going to find our place in the future
And have something to offer
Where this planet's concerned
How long?
It's called grasping for straws, whistling in the dark, putting your girdle on inside-out (...er, skip that last one).
Honestly, I have trouble taking American politics seriously even though I know it's a serious matter -- our politicians are laughable and that's what late night comics thrive on. Bush looked so frustrated this morning at the press conference, whining about how you can't get things done in Washington.
LW, I've come to the same conclusion, except it's sorta limited to the current administration and congress. I'm hoping beyond reason that the next administration and congress will be what America and the world expects from this country.
Magginkat wrote:Here you go guys in the words of the un-great one himself! And it was a letter to Congress not the state of the union address to the Congress as I mentioned earlier. Better still, he put it in writing!
Wow! It took you this long to figure out it was in that letter to Congress, and not his SOU speech? Oh well, let's press on.
This is what Bush said yesterday, which you characterized as "a whopper":
Quote:"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said - at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
Now, let's look at what you characterized as the "smoking gun catching him in a lie." It's helpful for you to understand the purpose of that letter to Congress. It's purpose was to tell Congress that pursuant to the AUMF, Bush had determined that:
Quote:... further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
and therefore he had:
Quote:... directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.
Let's now examine the portion of the 3/21/03 letter you highlighted:
Quote:I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
That doesn't say Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It simply says that using force against Iraq was consistent with the policy of taking action against international terrorists, including --
but not limited to -- those who committed the September 11 attacks.
When Congress passed the AUMF, it contained many "
Whereas" clauses that outlined the reasons force against Iraq was authorized, but involvement with 9/11 was not one of them. In his speeches in the lead-up to the war, including the SOU speech, Bush did not indicate Iraq was directly connected to 9/11. And it's certainly not stated in the letter you quoted.
And this is all you got?
Tico admonishes me for my inability to read, but he failed to understand completely what president Bush wrote to congress posted by Maggs on the previous page.March 21, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area.
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.
These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.
As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html
LOL Light Wizard...... you are baaaaaad! Does the following sound like some people we know?
How to spot a baby conservative
POLITICS
Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional.
Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006
KURT KLEINER
TORONTO STAR
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.
The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar
conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.
But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings - the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.
A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.
The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests.
i guess we can be pretty sure who would or wouldn't vote for bush again.
around here, anyway.
Brandon9000 wrote:Montana wrote:Maybe Bush didn't come right out and say it, but him and his whole administration mislead the American people and led them to believe that Saddam was involved.
isn't that just as bad?
Well, since he never once said Saddam was involved - ever - what are you basing this opinion on?
Ummm...I don't know where you were after 9/11, but since I wasn't working at the time, I was plastered in front of the tv and I only wish I had a nickle for every time Bush and his buddies insinuated that Saddam was linked with the terrorists. Look around as it's plastered everywhere in this thread!
Why else would people have accepted the reasoning for attacking Iraq instead of continuing to hunt for Osama?
Do you really think Bush would have gotten the support he got if he didn't link Saddam to 9/11? I think not!
People wanted and still want who was responsible for 9/11, so where the hell is Osama?
Bush stated several times that he wasn't concerned about Osama (please don't ask for a link or proof) and I would like to know exactly why Bush is not concerned about Osama since he is, after all, responsible for 9/11.
It amazes me every single day that I see endless talks about Iraq and 9/11, yet it's rare that I see or hear anything more on Osama.
This just blows my mind!
Some of you guys in here really need to come out of your coma
Wake up!
This story about Enron seems to portend what's in store for Bush and Company.
Lay, Skilling knew, lied about Enron problems: witness By Jeff Franks
Tue Mar 21, 7:35 PM ET
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Former chief executives Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay lied to investors about Enron Corp's worsening financial condition because they knew the truth would destroy the company, former treasurer Ben Glisan said on Tuesday.
Glisan, who came out of prison to testify in their fraud and conspiracy trial, said his former bosses were fully aware the now bankrupt Enron was piling up debt and lying about earnings despite their claims now that they thought everything was fine.
"By the summer of 2001 we had mounting debt, our balance sheet was well levered, we had a great deal of debt to carry for the credit rating we had, we were not generating much cash flow," said Glisan.
"There were a number of subsidiaries that were struggling. We were manufacturing both cash flow and earnings in order for those subsidiaries to meet their targets," he said. "The company was struggling to deal with all those problems at the same time," he added.
"All those issues you just explained to the jury. were those known to Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling?" asked prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler.
"Yes, they were," Glisan responded. "Those issues were discussed in both management committee and finance committee meetings."
Enron's international assets, in particular, were performing badly and the top executives knew they needed to be written down by at least $5 billion, but did not do it because the survival of the company was at stake, Glisan said.
"That was a larger loss than we could have stomached," he said. "A loss of that magnitude would have resulted in a credit downgrade, I'm sure, and also in large problems in raising additional debt and large problems in our equity valuation."
A credit downgrade would have been deadly for Enron because it borrowed heavily to finance its energy trading operation and to pay for its failing operations, he said.
"Enron had a vast appetite for capital. We borrowed a lot of money. In 2000, we borrowed approximately $20 billion," Glisan said. "To borrow that level of money you have a very strong credit rating."
Ruemmler played audio tapes from an August 14, 2001 conference call conducted by Lay and Skilling on the day Skilling suddenly resigned after just six months as CEO.
Both men said Enron was strong and Skilling's departure was strictly for personal reasons.
Mr. Lay said: 'The company is probably in the strongest and best shape that its ever been in.' Was it?" Ruemmler asked.
"No, it was not," Glisan said. "It was weak."
Enron collapsed into bankruptcy in December 2001 after disclosures it had used off-the-books deals run by chief financial officer Andrew Fastow to hide debt and inflate profits.
Fastow has admitted looting the side deals of millions of dollars and pleaded guilty to two conspiracy charges in exchange for a 10-year sentence he has not yet begun serving. He also testified earlier that Lay and Skilling participated in what he described as a massive deception of investors.
Glisan, 40, worked under Fastow and illegally skimmed $1 million from one of the off-the-books deals.
He pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in exchange for a five-year prison sentence, went straight to prison in 2003 and has now served about half of his time.
He was brought from the prison in Beaumont, Texas 90 miles east of Houston, and is staying at his home with his wife and two children while testifying.
Lay and Skilling face multiple charges that they defrauded investors, but have pleaded not guilty and blame Enron's demise on rogue employees such as Fastow and Glisan.
Glisan presents a special problem for the defense because unlike most previous witnesses he has no plea bargain with prosecutors and does not expect more lenient treatment because of his testimony.
He began testifying near the end of the day and was on the witness stand briefly before U.S. District Judge Sim Lake adjourned the court. Glisan was to testify again on Wednesday as prosecutors said they were nearing the end of their case in the now eight-week-long trial.
I believe once the pins begins to drop, more witnesses will come forward with the truth. No matter how much denial is taking place now by Bushco and their supporters, it's only a matter of time. Most people are more interested in America more than the politicians that serve for some limited time. America must be for the future of our children; not for the current politicians to ruin.
Hey Montana, how's that soundproofing coming?
Very well, Snood :-) You wanna help me test it to make sure it's up to par? ;-)
CI,
I would love to see Kenny Boy start rolling over on Bush and Cheney and expose their energy sleight of hand mechanizations! You just have to know there was some money passing hands under that table!!
Anon
Yeah, someone really needs to do some cleaning under that table. It looks pretty filthy from here.
