jamiroguy1

What does love and war have to do with using images of a terrorist attack in an election campaign?

In my opinion, it seems that using the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11 is in horribly bad taste for the Bush reelection team. Especially, in leu of administration obstruction of the 9/11 commision formed to find out what exactly happened on that day.

Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad By MAGGIE HABERMAN in New York amd THOMAS M. DeFRANK in Washington DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage. "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable." Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission. "I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat." Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots. "How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]." Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled. "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said. Full Article http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html Bush Ads http://www.georgewbush.com/TVAds/

Admit WMD mistake, survey chief tells Bush Julian Borger in Washington Wednesday March 3, 2004 David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons. In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad. He welcomed the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq, and said the wide-ranging US investigation was much more likely to get to the truth than the Butler inquiry in Britain. That, he noted, had "so many limitations it's going to be almost impossible" to come to meaningful conclusions. Mr Kay, 63, a former nuclear weapons inspector, provoked uproar at the end of January when he told the Senate that "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He also resigned from the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which he was appointed by the CIA to lead in the hunt for weapons stockpiles, saying its resources had been diverted in the fight against Iraqi insurgents. "I was more worried that we were still sending teams out to search for things that we were increasingly convinced were not there," Mr Kay said. His call for a frank admission is an embarrassment for the White House at the start of an election year. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has dismissed Mr Kay's assertion that there were no WMD at the start of the Iraq war as a "theory" that was "possible, but not likely". Full Article http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160842,00.html

I think I see the point you are trying to make however, traditions or traditional beliefs don't apply to everyone straight or gay. I think that's the core issue. People will do what they want how they want just like you said, "things happened." Are you going to rot in hell for having pre-marital sex? Of course not. Has the sanctity of your future marriage been ruined? No to that as well. Just let people live their lives as they want.

Looks fake but if this is real? Holy shit. This is funny, actually.

lol... Eat your heart out, Alex P. Keaton.

Good point. Administration Denies Aristide Kidnapped http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=589&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/us_haiti_18&printer=1

US troops 'made Aristide leave' http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8833298%255E1702,00.html President Aristide says, 'I was kidnapped' 'Tell the world it is a coup' http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/01/1521216

So it is your belief that all peaceful methods of censure were exhausted in removing Aristide?

I don't think it has anything to do with being haitian. The US didn't convince Aristide to leave. We forced him. By definition that's a coup.

Ok, you're from Haiti. How do you feel about the World Bank not cancelling debt and not approving badly needed loans for more development?

Al Qaida’s Unknowing Allies By William J. Watkins February 26, 2004 The War on Terrorism is heading to the courts, but not the type with an impartial judge and jury. The Pentagon just announced that it will prosecute two Guantanamo Bay detainees using military tribunals. This is the first use of military tribunals since the end of WWII. The accused are Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi and Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul. Both served as bodyguards and aides for Osama bin Laden and are charged with conspiracies to commit war crimes. Bahlul is especially notorious for the creation of an al Qaida recruiting video that glorified the attack on the USS Cole in which 17 American sailors were killed. The decision to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists dates back to a November 2001 order issued by President Bush. Non-citizens are subject to the presidential order if “there is reason to believe†they are members of al Qaida, have aided or abetted terrorism, or have harbored terrorists. The tribunals will only vaguely resemble anything an American citizen would recognize as a “court.†The tribunals will consist of three to seven military officers, not the twelve person juries used in federal criminal cases. Instead of a unanimous decision, conviction may be obtained by a two-thirds vote. Evidence that would normally be prohibited in federal court (e.g., hearsay testimony), will be permitted if it has “probative value to a reasonable person.†The accused cannot even consult with their attorneys in private without the risk of government eavesdropping. If convicted, the Bahlul and Sulayman may not appeal to federal circuit court. How strange that while conducting a War on Terror to supposedly preserve our system of government and traditions, we discard the very basics of our justice system. What a powerful statement it would be to al Qaida to accord Bahlul and Sulayman a fair trial in civilian courts. In effect, we would be telling bin Laden that even after his best shot, we still believe in the superiority of our system. And to prove the point, we are offering his foreign henchmen the same rights and protections accorded to American citizens. The typical War Hawk response to such a position is that the trial of suspected terrorists in civilian courts will inevitably delve into classified information. While this is true, it does not sanction the use of military tribunals. If the government is concerned about secret information, it need only invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act, which sets forth steps for the safeguarding of sensitive information during the course of criminal trials. Full Article http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040226Watkins.html

9/11 probe is a new terror February 28, 2004, 3:47 PM EST WASHINGTON — Who was most scared of the truth? Was it House Speaker Dennis Hastert? He was the latest Republican standing in the way of the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The commissioners had asked for two extra months to conduct some crucial interviews and track down some late-breaking leads. Until he relented Friday afternoon, Hastert was refusing to bring the short extension up for a vote. Or is George W. Bush the one with the most to hide? While voicing support for the 9/11 probe, he and those around him have been working diligently to undermine the commission's work, going all the way back to before the investigation began. So was Hastert's latest roadblock really just a political favor to his good friend the president, who'd just as soon not have an explosive report dropped into the late-July heat of a re-election campaign? It sure is looking that way. The mission of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, despite the highfalutin name, is really quite straightforward: Explain what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 — and why. Co-chaired by Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the bipartisan panel has approached its difficult mission with extraordinary balance and seriousness. This is, after all, the most nagging single question of our time. What's the real story behind 9/11? New York lost nearly 3,000 people that day. We — and especially their families — have a right to know the truth. The commission has been asking some uncomfortable questions about what Washington knew, including the single most pressing one: Could the attacks somehow have been avoided or stopped? Full Editorial http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/nyc-henn0229,0,4159853.column

Take it easy. We completed the coup d'etat by removing him. That's a fact. He didn't leave. The US could have intervened so that the two time democractically elected president would not be overthrown by rebels, when if fact the US assisted this coup. Get your facts straight.

U.S., Pakistan Deny Bin Laden Was Captured Sat Feb 28,11:19 AM ET By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran - Pentagon (news - web sites) and Pakistani officials on Saturday denied an Iranian state radio report that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) was captured in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan (news - web sites) "a long time ago." The claim came as Pakistan's army hunted terror suspects in a remote tribal region along the border, believed to be a possible hiding place for the al-Qaida's leader. The director of Iran radio's Pashtun language service, Asheq Hossein, said the report was based on two sources — one of whom later told The Associated Press he was misquoted. The report said bin Laden had been in custody for a period of time, but that President Bush (news - web sites) was withholding any announcement until closer to November elections. "Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election," the radio report said. Pakistani officials have denied knowing bin Laden's exact whereabouts, although there have been reports that military forces believe they know his general location and had him encircled. The state radio report, quoting an unidentified source, said U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's visit to the region this week was in connection with bin Laden's arrest. Full Article http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20040228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden&printer=1

Staged Capture of Bin Laden Coming Soon Paul Joseph Watson It has become apparent that the global theatrical stage is being prepared for the presence of the CIA troublemaker Osama bin Laden. With the benefit of hindsight we can look back to the pre-cursor of the arrest of Saddam Hussein and draw some interesting parallels Before Saddam was rolled out, public officials were bragging that the arrest was about to take place. Congressman LaHood told his local newspaper, the Pantagraph, that 'he knew something they didn’t' about the imminent capture of Saddam. Around 16 months ago nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones was told by a source close to the Bush family that bin Laden was already dead and that the body had been handed over after an agreement with the bin Laden family. The source said bin Laden was on ice and his death would be announced only right before the 2004 election. Madeleine Albright recently told Fox News that Bush already has bin Laden and is waiting to roll him at a politically expedient time. Understand that when she said this she was stern faced, she wasn’t joking. The Associated Press reported the comments of Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, who stated that bin Laden's general location was known and that he would be found within months. The recent rumblings about troop movements into northern Pakistan betray the fact that such an operation is in the works. However, they’ve known where bin Laden was all along. I have featured numerous articles on the website where the troops on the ground has his location pinpointed, were about to swoop in, but the raid was suddenly called off because bin Laden had mysteriously disappeared. In the spring of 1999, A British couple called Alan and Cindy Thompson were driving through Pakistan, in the very area that they’re now talking about as being bin Laden’s location. After driving for 11 hours on dirt roads they came to a checkpoint and were detained by armed Pakistani guards. The next day the Dawn newspaper, one of the biggest newspapers in Pakistan, reported that this couple had found the secret lair of Osama bin Laden. More interesting is that they reported that this location had been visited by US consulate officers, British, Australian, and Swiss ambassadors, and that it was guarded by a team of US commandoes. After the couple were picked up by the British embassy they were invited to a garden party where all the British ambassadors and aid workers were bragging that they were stationed in the same area as bin Laden’s secret hideout. After the couple got back home to England they saw a newspaper article calling for the capture of bin Laden. This was a few months before Clinton signed an executive order mandating bin Laden to be killed on sight. The couple immediately contacted Scotland Yard in London; they contacted the FBI and the Pentagon and in every case got nothing. No response, no request for an interview. Nothing. Let us recap. We have British ambassadors visiting Osama bin Laden, whose location is guarded by elite US commandoes, and when the couple that witnessed all this try to report it, they are blackballed. They know where bin Laden is and they have known for at least 5 years. It's important to note that by blowing the whistle on this, it may cause them to change the script and not announce the capture of bin Laden. However, both George Bush and Tony Blair are reeling from the failure to find any WMD in Iraq. They need something to take the headlines away from their transparent lies. I for one hope they choose to roll out bin Laden's dead body. The only other option for them right now is to launch another staged terror attack on US soil. Look out for more 'We got him' headlines soon. Link to article

The gays would be up Bush's ass??

lol Bravo! Something I've been saying all along...If you replace all the language dealing with gay people to black people it sounds like an arguement to oppress african american's civil rights during that era. Same arguement agaist freedom and rights just a different group to oppress.

I think the more logical question is "Does Bush Dick Colon Powell and if so how often?"

Given what you've said, do you think that if they showed the life of Jesus, performing miracles and all that, it would still be considered anti-semitic?

This reminds me of a site, I once saw... http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

bwahahahaha!