The 911 Report Get it here!

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
Warnings will be handed out if the personal Insults continue.

Well Gee I got one with no warning! Oh well, guys debate but with a bit less "stuff"....

[edit on 15-10-2004 by edsinger]

Okay...you guys have been told ENOUGH already...but no, continue to conduct a bitchfest that could have taken place in u2us...or, MORE preferrably, NOT taken place at all.

I have banned Solaris. Be thankful that the other party/parties engaging in this bickering have made some decent contributions to ATS in the time they have been here...so have been granted some leeway...otherwise I'd be tempted to have shown the door to more than just him.

STICK TO THE TOPIC FROM NOW ON.


-Alien


[edit on 16-10-2004 by alien]

Did anyone even find this interesting?

THe point I am trying to make is that Bush warned of what he was going to do in response to 911, everyone was put on notice! Why the Iraq had no 911 connection? Iraq supported terrorism and therefore was warned also.

The question is, at least to me, Why will the Government not come totally clean on the connections with Iraq and terror and what made them the most likely target after Afghanistan? It is right there in the report, They listed 3 immediate targets.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

Well I really expected some to be shocked by Bush's word on Sept 20th. Some just really dont get it, if you harbor terror, you are a target..Iraq was just such a case....Plus now it is comming into the mainstream that Osama and Saddam DID have connections far bigger than even the 911 Report states.

Fox News was talking about this subject this morning with Chris Snow.

The mainline press is now starting to see this....

Originally posted by edsinger
This war is not against just Afghanistan or Iraq, it is a war on the whole network of terror. This would include nations that harbor, fund, or support terrorists.

So then Saudi Arabia comes to my mind, how about yours? Well the 911 Report does a pretty decent job of telling how the Saudis helped the United States, as does Pakistan.
[edit on 15-10-2004 by edsinger]

Ed you crack me up and make me want to crack heads. You don't even realize that in the white house each position has separate agendas with staff supporting their agendas from various think tanks, senators, and corporations.

The war on terror? North Korea posed a much greater threat than Sadaam ever did as does the funding from saudi arabia and Syria.

The Wolfowitz agenda was to protect Israel while expanidng a perimeter where a fight on terrorism could be conducted according to the new american century and his buddy Richard Perle from the Jewish Institue for National Security Affairs and of course the Project for a New American Century of War but of course you wouldn't know about that would you.

The Franks agenda comes by going down in history as the man who took Babylon. Ahh he secured his place in history as did many other generals in the special decoder ring club.

When I see in the papers how they say, 'the Iraqi puppet regime,' really thats how the white house operates. The men who have been there for decades build up their alliances and toy with every president who comes in office. President Bush is a Cheney, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and JCOS toy thing.

Oh and yes the saudis do help by financially supporting the killing of our troops in Iraq and the attacks on 911 and every other terrorist attack in the last 20 years. They have F%%ked with our economy causing recession's do you remember 79'? and the worst part of it all they allied themselves with the biggest oil barrons in power the Bush family. They get special security, special stock treatment, and special BJ's by those in the white house. Any american who supports saudi arabia is a traitor to this nation. How do ya like them apples ed?

People say deny ignorance on this forum. I say wake up and smell the F#$kin coffee.

Originally posted by vincere7Ed you crack me up and make me want to crack heads. You don't even realize that in the white house each position has separate agendas with staff supporting their agendas from various think tanks, senators, and corporations.

Well they have a big job to do and one person cant. You just make sure you have good teams.

Originally posted by vincere7The war on terror? North Korea posed a much greater threat than Sadaam ever did as does the funding from saudi arabia and Syria.

I disagree, North Korea wasn't killing Americans as was islamic fundementalism

Originally posted by vincere7The Wolfowitz agenda was to protect Israel while expanidng a perimeter where a fight on terrorism could be conducted according to the new american century and his buddy Richard Perle from the Jewish Institue for National Security Affairs and of course the Project for a New American Century of War but of course you wouldn't know about that would you.

Well as a matter of fact I do and I agree with them. They know we either do it now, or later. It is our choice and I think now is much better.

Originally posted by vincere7The Franks agenda comes by going down in history as the man who took Babylon. Ahh he secured his place in history as did many other generals in the special decoder ring club.

Oh yeah, the great army of Iraq. Thats funny. He didnt accomplish near what Norman did or could have done.

Originally posted by vincere7When I see in the papers how they say, 'the Iraqi puppet regime,' really thats how the white house operates. The men who have been there for decades build up their alliances and toy with every president who comes in office. President Bush is a Cheney, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and JCOS toy thing.

Ok so the puppeteers in which you speak controlled Clinton also? Read the report and you might be surprised atthe actual power the CiC has.

Originally posted by vincere7Oh and yes the saudis do help by financially supporting the killing of our troops in Iraq and the attacks on 911 and every other terrorist attack in the last 20 years.

The Saudi's do that? All of them? Are you sure about that? Some Saudi's did as well as others that didnt. I could agrue that Americans did the same thing. As I could also argue that the Anti-Bush crowd who talk of nothing but the bad things in Iraq are aiding the enemy by causing dissent at home for the war and therefore the troops in the field and therefore embolding the enemy. Give you a warm fuzzy?

Originally posted by vincere7They have F%%ked with our economy causing recession's do you remember 79'? and the worst part of it all they allied themselves with the biggest oil barrons in power the Bush family. They get special security, special stock treatment, and special BJ's by those in the white house. Any american who supports saudi arabia is a traitor to this nation. How do ya like them apples ed?

Yes I remember 79, and I also remember who was PONTUS at the time nad how the islamic world knew the US had no backbone. The Iranians woudnt have attacked our embassy with Ronnie Raygun in office. I dont support Saudi Arabia at all, but I know that the monarchy in which we prop up has done a fair job in at least giving INTEL to the US...I know poeple who have worked over there and the main anti-US feelings are generated by our support of Isreal. So when you say that the nation of Saudi Arabia is not a US ally, I would not nessesarily argue with that but would ote they are better than France. Notice, they didnt ask France to save their arse in 1990. As for apples, I like oranges

Originally posted by vincere7People say deny ignorance on this forum. I say wake up and smell the F#$kin coffee.

As long as it has caffine!

It seems that the proof of the intent of G. W. Bush announced before hand goes unchallenged in this thread. Iraq was not a legit war because of no WMD, yet that is not all that Bush said. I have laid out the proof and yet....silence............Maybe they forget?


I guess that is good.................??

I find it funny that I have to cut and paste from this thread so much because it shows there was no LIE.

Every country that supports terror was put on notice that night in 2001, yet so many deny and try to spin their way around the truth.

Its there , dont take my word for it, read the damn report.


Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda because Iraq HAD ties to Al Qaeda, simple as that, and since even more has come out and yet silence from the Bush bashers cause the now deep down , they know they were wrong.

Ok I have found a link to the 911 report, please download it and read it. Then maybe you can understand the threat a bit better than listening to the left's B.S.

www.9-11commission.gov...

Based on the quotes I saw at the beginning of your post, it really seems like the Pentagon was cool with Afghanistan but was up GW's rear about Iraq from the get-go. No two ways around it...Iraq is the a war with the bigger price tag and the generals even wanted a larger force. Eventually, they got their invasion and occupatoon, but they haven't gotten their larger force; not right away at least.

Now a lot of folks have claimed that 911 was an inside job. That's a bold statement. An even bolder one to say that an administration that hadn't even been in office 2 years had cooked it up. But what about the house of five sides? Internet booms, globalization, cat-and-mouse diplomacy games with North Korea and Iraq and Iran, a SecDef whose vision is of a lighter, smaller, more specialized armed forces; none of these things are really helpful for Pentagon budget expansion. You need something to fight over and the 'terrorists' hadn't pulled off anything big enough to make a President's trigger finger itchy yet. Sure we launched some cruise missles, but we'd already bought them. You need a nice long engagement to open the $$ faucet and keep it running.

So you get yourself into Iraq and you don't manage looting and lawlessness for a bit and let it get ugly; you don't secure the borders and allow an influx of jihadists; you don't find (or don't stop from leaving the country) WMD's (we're gonna have to look some more...how 'bout Syria, Jordan, Lebanon if Iraq settles down?); you go into a country where you would have had to smoke all of the opium from Afghanistan (your first stop) to imagine a guerrilla war wouldn't break out and these folks with different religious opinions and heritages who could only keep from engaging in a bitter power struggle with a dictator in power wouldn't fight to destabilize any governing power they didn't back; and you stretch duty and call up reserves and it drags on and the faucet gushes.

This is, of course, a silly what-if stemming from the more paranoid parts of my thoughts, but the same way that there's more than one way to skin a cat...there's more than one way to read a report. This war ain't cheap and they've got our little Texan in the White house pretty ticked off.


Imaginary conversation between Bush and the Joint Chiefs:
"Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?"

Well the election nears and in my opinion GW Bush has not STRESSED the need for the war in Iraq, the 911 report explains what we are up against and just what these folks will do...


Saddam did support Terror.....therefore......

For all that was said of Saddam, I still don't believe it was the right war for setting Amerian boots in Iraq. Getting information from Fox is the least convincing of all. All we needed to do was to keep a hold on Iraq and focus on cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan, now poppy/opium production if rampant and the Iraq is turning into a wasteland.

God Bless America and help us make the right decision on 11-02-2004!