|
CURRENT FR THREADS include:
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697413/posts (1,278 replies · 25,761+ views so far)
Democratic Bloggers Plan to 'Google Bomb' Controversial 9/11 Docudrama at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697579/posts
Dems Send Threatening Letter to ABC - and misspell word in second paragraph. at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697561/posts
Dick Morris: Clinton Attack 'Outrageous' at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697490/posts
Letter from Dem Leaders to Disney to Cancel 'Path' Broadcast at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697777/posts
Thwack! Will Democrats Never Learn? at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697676/posts
Accuracy aside, ABC's '9/11' deserves to bomb (LEFTY 'TV CRITIC' ISSUES WARNING) at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697680/posts
| DEMOCRATS: WEAK ON DEFENSE DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted To Cut Intelligence Funding, Even After September 11th: In 2003, 33 SENATE Democrats Voted To Withhold $50 Million In Intelligence Funding. (H.R. 2658, CQ Vote #287: Motion Agreed To 62-34: R 51-0; D 11-33; I 0-1, 7/17/03)
In 2003, 44 SENATE Democrats Supported An Amendment That Would Have Transferred $300 Million Away From Intelligence Activities. (H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 48-3; D 2-44; I 0-1, 7/23/03)
In 1996, 154 House Democrats Voted To Reduce The Total Amount Authorized By The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization By 4.9 Percent. (H.R. 3259, CQ Vote #187: Rejected 192-235: R 37-193; D 154-42; I 1-0, 5/22/96)
In 1995, 40 SENATE Democrats Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95)
In 1993, 120 House Democrats Voted To Cut Intelligence By $500 Million. (H.R. 2330, CQ Vote #393: Rejected: 134-299: R 13-159; D 120-14; I 1-0, 8/4/93)
In 1989, 31 House Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Appropriations For Intelligence And Intelligence-Related Activities Of The U.S. Government For The CIA And Related Agencies. (H.R. 2748, CQ Vote #288: Passed 369-31: R 161-8; D 208-23, 10/12/89)
DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR OUR TROOPS FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR
|
- |
<---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- <---------------------------- |
For future reference...
NO2
|
Bookmarking
RE: 3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
Didn't they also let him slip through their fingers in the Phillipines while pursuing Ramzi Usef (both were residing in the same safe house)?
BTTT
bookmk ping-a-ling
great reference thread ping
My contribution:
"No Proof Of Qaeda-Saddam Link" Per CBS [ "See B.S." ] [snip]
@ Some would like us to forget that the wife of the pathological liar they voted for twice said the exact opposite:
"[since the inspectors left in 1998]... Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. ...if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
@ Since the radical/extremist left accuse the Bush administration of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, were these prominent DemocRATS I quoted above and below lying also? They said nothing different than what he said, but they said it in 1998 - long before G.W.Bush was even in office. Here are just a few sample quotes - I have lots more:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
@ [End of old 1998/99 DemocRAT quotes long before Bush even became president] Begin 4 quotes from two of the biggest weasel liars in the Senate, one of whom (Jay Rockefeller) wrote the infamous memo in 1993 detailing his plan for exactly how he and the other RATS intend to take Bush down. I HAVE POSTED HIS MEMO IN FULL BELOW THESE 4 QUOTES:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. [2007] And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. .. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot! .." Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor On the Iraq Resolution October 10, 2002 http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
@ Even though the weasel makes the statements above, he still figures he can easily get away with implementing the deceitful plot he outlines in his "memo" below to destroy George Bush. That he figures he can get away with it, proves just how dumb (or diabolical) he figures the typical DemocRAT voter is.
Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.
The Rockefeller memo
November 6, 2003
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040415160628/http://www.hillnews.com/news/110603/memo.aspx
© 2003 The Hill 733 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 1140 Washington, DC 20005 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax
*
Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties (MSM Alert)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698065/posts
*
This report is beyond bogus. Zarqawi was welcomed into Iraq and treated at an elite, Baghdad hospital reserved for Baathist party elites under Saddam from wounds suffered in Afghanistan. He then went on to co-found the Al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al Islam with one of Saddam's top intelligence officials. Ansar was located in a portion of northeastern Iraq not under the control of the Kurds as the deceptive information claiming to debunk this information claims. Indeed, Saddam used Ansar to combat anti-Saddam Kurdish forces.
Also, there is LEGIONS of information available to show Saddam worked with Al Qaeda, which even the 9-11 Commission confirmed, not the least of which are the documents from Saddam own's intelligence files showing Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together. The Senate committee never had those documents.
The Senate Intel. Committee was sloppy or purposely negligient in concluding no ties to Saddam and AL Qaeda. The evidence is beyond compelling. The Senate claiming otherwise is perpetuating one of the Big Lies of many Big Lies told by the left about Saddam and Iraq.
Here's a link to a posting rife with evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda working together. Scroll down into the comments for much, much more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335971/posts
Also, Stephen F. Hayes book "The Connection" is a compelling narrative of the substantial evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda's ties. .. [SNIP]
Thanks Howlin, will do just that.
||"
