BRIANC1046

if another country invaded my country.. claimed they were helping me.. but in the process detroyed alot of my country, killed a load of my family and friends and dropped a 500 pound bomb on my mosque.. I might fight also.. You have to realize that is exactly what these Iraqis are thinking.. I am not defending these people at all.. but.. You need to realize what they are thinking right now..

plus way too early to write an article "what has gone right in Iraq".. 100 Iraqis and 20 americans have been killed since Sunday..

I care about freedom in Iraq.. but just have to think we had other intentions of starting a war with Iraq.. I mean North Korea is basically cut off from the rest of the world.. They also gave us a huge threat to OUR country.. If we care about freedom and other humanitarian issues, North Korea should've been the first place we started..

Here are some questions for you.. Do you care about freedom in Iraq? Do you think George Bush cares about freedom in Iraq? Was the goal of military action in Iraq to free Iraqis, give them better jobs and an over-all better life? After Operation Iraqi freedom is over.. Whenever that might be.. Should we have Operation North Korea freedom? Should we take military action to free other countries from their dictators? There is no need to get defensive or argumentative either.. I'm simply asking questions

ok.. just tell me if I'm wrong.. I could be.. but.. I believed the meeting in Feb 1998 was over inspections and not about the Oil for Food program.. the quote at the end says "I can do business with".. It DOESN'T say "Saddam is a man I can do business with"..

annoying.

I don't believe in the Feb 1998 meeting between Kofi Annan and Saddam the oil-for-food program was even mentioned.. They met because the US wanted unconditional freedom for all inspections in Iraq and they wanted to negotiate a deal..

If he REALLY knows where they are.. why haven't they gott em' yet?

The Hair-raising Truth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By: Richard A. Stitt - 03/27/04 _ The reason why Bush/Cheney will be gone in November is becoming more obvious now that we have heard public testimony from many high-ranking people from both the Clinton and G. W. Bush administrations during the last three days. The reason is quite simple: the Truth, after three years of being buried by the Bush/Cheney cabal, is finally coming out._ This administration for the past three years has had their priorities totally focused on Bush's campaign for election in November while ignoring the welfare of our country._ Much of Bush's time, more than any president in US history, has been spent on fundraising events while ignoring the needs of our country. While Wall Street exults in the munificent tax giveaways to the wealthiest 10% of the population, over 2.5 million jobs have been lost and the total number of people unemployed is over 8 million under the Bush/Cheney administration._ While Republicans became immersed in their obsession with Clinton's sex life in the late 90s, and while they couldn't satisfy their prurient, prying eyes and noses enough, they allowed the nation's priorities for dealing with terrorism to stagnate, thereby permitting Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban buildup in Afghanistan which ultimately resulted in the attacks on our soil in September 2001._ During the Clinton administration the Republican-controlled US Congress also mismanaged their spending priorities, choosing instead to cut funding for terrorist surveillance and intelligence gathering, and at one point, voted to cut off the funding to support the 1,500 US military troops deployed in Kosovo where they were sent to help maintain order in the aftermath of the criminal leader, Slobodan Milosevic's war and tyrannical rule there._ This time around, it's absolutely clear that Bush the Second is struggling to avoid giving truthful answers, not only about what he and his war hawks knew prior to and leading up to 9/11, but the true costs of the Medicare bill in which he used phony figures to get the bill passed, lies about the budget deficit, the cover-up of the leak of the identity of a CIA agent, thereby jeopardizing national security, and lies about Iraq's possession of WMD, which the Republicans and Bush want us all to forget. Of course this was Bush's emphatic justification to Americans and the world for bombing Iraq._ The last two day's 9/11 Commission testimonies prove beyond a doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration allowed al-Qaeda to flourish while they became focused on bombing Iraq during their first year in office. They continued that fixation until the Iraq War began. Then, in March 2003 in a display of military "shock and awe," Bush sent 10,000 Iraqi men, women and children to their deaths and put 570 (so far) US military in body bags. Thus, Bush, the War President, emerged._ Now, Bush will not allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify in public on what she knew (or didn't know) about al-Qaeda or the terrorists, choosing instead to shelter and covet information that could help answer vital questions about pre-9/11 al-Qaeda operations which may have prevented the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center._ It is all the more loathsome because Rice went out of her way to openly and publicly discredit Richard Clarke's criticisms of the Bush/Cheney intelligence failures, but now she refuses to testify in front of the Committee. What does she have to hide? Like information about Cheney's Energy Task Force participants in early 2001, we may never know._ Not only that, but Condoleezza Rice is 180 degrees out of sync with Colin Powell's testimony two days ago in which he stated that the Bush security team was given ample information about al-Qaeda from the Clinton transition security team. Rice claimed publicly that the Clinton administration offered "nothing" and their policy was, in her words, "bankrupt" of any useful information concerning terrorist threats._ However, a separate staff report on the government's diplomatic response to the terrorist threat found that "Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, and her deputies rebuffed a staff proposal in early 2001 that the administration step up its support for anti-Taliban rebels in Afghanistan."_ Apparently she didn't bother to read any of the Hart-Rudman Report either. This was a bipartisan panel "led by former US senators Warren B. Rudman and Gary Hart which called for the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to assume responsibility for defending the United States against the increasing likelihood of terrorist attacks in the country. The commission making the recommendation included high-ranking military and former Cabinet secretaries. Their report warned bluntly that terrorists probably will attack the US with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."_ The report was handed over to the Bush administration in early 2001, documenting warnings of precisely the kinds of attacks that occurred on 9/11. Instead, Bush was so obsessed with Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, he gave the report to his Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director, Joe Albaugh, and it was never brought up again until after 9/11._ In the meantime, Iraq is in chaos and Bush's "coalition of the willing" countries is weakening. And it is not just Spain which has rejected the pro-Bush, pro-war policies, but Italy and Poland as well, are reconsidering their troop deployments and commitments in Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian Road Map is in a shambles and offshoot al-Qaeda terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam are thriving as never before. US military commanders admit this as they see insurgents carrying out attacks throughout Iraq almost with impunity._ What does the Bush/Cheney regime have going for them now? Well, we know the template that Karl Rove, Andrew Card, Marc Racicot and Ed Gillespie have laid out for the next seven months is grounded in "War Forever" with Bush proclaiming on the Tim Russert interview that he is the "war president" and the specious claim that only Bush can lead our country in the fight against terrorism._ During Donald Rumsfeld's testimony two days ago there was the astonishing disclosure that he "never received a briefing from the Pentagon's departing senior counter-terrorism expert, the report stated, and counter-terrorism aids said that the new team was focused on other issues and was not especially interested in their counter-terrorism agenda."_ One member of the 9/11 Commission, Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, said at the hearing that information in the documents "would set your hair on fire, and not just George Tenet's hair on fire." She further added that there was an "extraordinary spike of intelligence warning of al-Qaeda attack" that was cited in the daily (presidential) briefing during 2001 and that "it plateaued at a spike level for months."_ Will the Bush/Cheney regime succeed with their artifices in stonewalling and concealing the Truth long enough to get by the November Election?_ From the testimony given in the last three days, it should be clear enough to the voters, now that the Hair-raising Truth has been revealed, that they will not. _ Richard A. Stitt is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant

very interesting article

if he was really planning it, why would he announce his plans in a newspaper? it doesn't seem like a threat... he uses the word prediction.. yes, i am trying to discredit it.. and no.. It really doesn't answer the question mentioned in the beginning of the article.. Why did the Bush administration immediately suspect that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks when there was no evidence of any connection, as Richard Clarke and other Bush critics maintain? Why?

whats the point of this? Its pretty obvious that Saddam didn't like us.. they defintely praised the attacks.. but I still see no evidence that shows a connection between 9/11 and Saddam?

With all the debates about steroids in Congress, don't you find it funny that the govenor of California did steroids for years? I mean it doesn't prevent him from doing his job well at all, but you can't even be a state police officer or hold any federal job after doing steroids.. I think the whole 'steroid' thing is being blown out of proportion but he still supports the sport of bodybuilding.. The Super Bowl of bodybuilding is called the Arnold Classic and 100% of the 'athletes' in the event do steroids..

i read Bush's opinion that if we wait until an imminent threat we might be waiting too long, but do you really think we should invade and go to war with a country that doesn't pose a MAJOR threat? Once we feel a minor threat, should be go to war to prevent an imminent threat?

Igloo we all aren't on the same intelligence level as you.. YOU my friend must be the only one that actually understands what a US President does at these media dinners.. IF WE ONLY KNEW! Bad Taste.

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war. - CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

try Ice on Saturday..

loved Ice... We went on a Saturday and had a blast there.. Great venue with good music

An interim constitution was signed.. Not a permanent constitution.. Some of the Shiites have actually backed out of the agreement because of some provisions

mr. mahs, what has happened in the past three weeks that have changed the issues mentioned in this article?

nah, no resident.. I'm too busy to post 4,000 times on a current event message board on clubplanet.. I'm more interested in the club aspect of clubplanet.. you won't be seeing me very often.. but.. when I'm around you will sure all hell hear me..

actually, I was the dude in the bus throwing spit balls at the back of your lame ass

i read the quote bro.. your just annoying.. no obviously they won't give us notice before they strike.. but.. the experts that know the difference between a threat and an imminent threat determine that.. and they didn't think it was imminent.. The words don't come from the terrorists or tyrants, THEY COME FROM OUR INTELLIGENCE!!

i must have missed the war on Iraq Clinton started.. but wait he didn't start it, Bush did.. I won't deny the fact that almost everyone thought he possesed WMD is some way, but he wasn't an imminent threat.. Bush started the war and lied to us.. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction

our terror experts tell us when a threat is imminent.. they didn't believe Iraq was a threat