Posted on 05/05/2006 11:07:16 PM PDT by ckilmer
better yet planted it in a few of the news rooms, it would of gotten more coverage then someplace in the sand.
Believe it or not, The POTUS has absolutely no control over the media unless he declares Martial Law.
Way past my bedtime
Cheers!
Mike
JANUARY 22, 2000 : (THE INDIAN PAPER, THE HINDU REPORTS RADICAL SUNNI TERRORIST GROUP HAS BEEN RISING IN LEBANON NEAR THE SYRIAN BORDER; IT HAS BACKING FROM OSAMA BIN LADEN & HAS AFGHANIS AT ITS CORE) The Hindu 1/22/2000 Kesava Menon "…..If Islamic militancy in Algeria seems to be entering its terminal stage, the militancy in Lebanon appears to be entering into a new and dangerous phase…. However, recently there has risen the new phenomenon of a radical Sunni group which has decided to take on the Lebanese army. Earlier this month, this group which has been training near the Syrian border ambushed a unit of the Lebanese army and 11 soldiers and 30 militants were killed in the fighting. Not many details are known about this new Sunni group but Lebanese newspapers report that it is believed to be part of a loose network of militant groups which have ``Afghanis'' at their core and draw at least a part of their funding from the al Qaeda of Saudi dissident, Osama bin Laden…. Developments in Sudan are at a shaky stage…. It is early days yet but if the Sudanese Government decides to go against the Islamists, if for no other reason than to please the U.S., it would mean that yet another Arab country has turned against the Islamists……The current head of the Islamic radical group which assassinated Anwar Sadat, former Egyptian President, is believed to be yet another militant who has taken refuge in Afghanistan. These are the underlying causes which have restrained these Arab countries from recognising the Taliban. Unofficially, all these Governments also state that they have been taking up the matter with Pakistan but it is probably the necessity of retaining the semblance of Islamic solidarity which prevents them from talking about it more openly…."
--- by Kesava Menon, The Hindu, 1/22/2000 via ALAMO-GIRL'S DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON ; SECTION: BREACH OF TRUST; SUBSECTION: TERROR; Revised 1/8/01
"I wonder why it has never occurred to the left that if the Bush administration was as crooked as they say it is, they would have PLANTED some WMD and claimed to have found saddam's secret stash buried in the desert."
That's a really, really good point. Mind you, some of the tenuous 'hey, see there was WMD stuff in Iraq' posts the well meaning jump around here on FR sometimes don't look too far from that approach. I think people can say many things about the intelligence in the build up to the war, but the one thing I do push back on is that either Bush (or Blair) were dishonest. You act on the best infomation you get. There is nothing more important for a leader than the security of his people. On the info they recieved which they shared with the world, when they made the decision I backed them then. Hindsight is hindsight. When dealing with national security you act on the intel you recieve at the time you recieve it. They made a tough call, they made it in our interests, and now we have to finish the job properly.
Let me put it a different way then. The number one largest donation to the Kerry campaign was Iran through a contact in the US.
Either the people that voted for Kerry are completely oblivious to whom they voted for or they don't want any part of this war.
We cann't win with a divided country like this. Again we will most likely win in Iraq and Afgainistan but if we stop there we lost. Kiss our ass good bye.
Thanks, I've been pondering that for years. If democratic governments engaged in crudely transparent Soviet-style propaganda, the media would immediately denounce it, but they will accept any claims made by any anti-western nutcase.
What do you think terrorists go to Iraq for? The balmy climate? The scintillating conversation?
Salman Pac had long been used as a terrorist training center.
Thousands of Kurds were killed with chemical weapons. That stockpiles were not found, does not mean that, when sanctions ended, that Saddam couldn't start up production again.
The war was begun for the right reasons. US policy, laid down by the Clinton administration, was to remove Saddam. If you had an other way to accomplish that..... tell us.
What do you propose, provide support for his democratic opposition, so that instead of getting his usual 100 percent, he would only get 99.3 percent? with the .7 percent who voted against him being sent to the acid baths and wood chippers, after watching their wives and daughters raped, their sons castrated?
The major pity is that Saddam didn't get shot when he came out of the latrine he was using as a hiding place. Another pity is that Clinton didn't start the war based on Saddam firing on US aircraft, a violation of the cease fire agreement. Then the Repubicans could have supported the war out of patriotism, and the Democrats could have supported the war out of their usual cupidity.
I wouldn't look at that way.
In short, you take these people (idiots) one at at time.
1. Take Saddam out because he's a mass murder and violated 16 UN violations. Otherwise the UN is a false entity.
2. Take out AQ out because they killed 3000 Americans and others.
In other words, let's stop trying to mix points 1 and 2 above and get the job done.
I don't see what the problem is.
I agree with you. But creating law through executive orders has been set in precedence. The congress would have to over rule the president to reverse the order.
["The war was begun for the right reasons. US policy, laid down by the Clinton administration, was to remove Saddam. If you had an other way to accomplish that..... tell us. "]
You (well not you my good friend) waited too long.
Read pre war docs link on top of the main tread page.
Or what? Could he be sued? Is there a law specifically forbidding government interfering (jamming) with mass media? Doesn't the FCC/DOD have authorization? CNN and AP would cry but the Pres still would get adequate face time!
Rather than you tell me to read "something", why don't you summarize it and give me your thoughts?
Yes, since the 30's I think.
It's like the first thing a POTUS signs...
I did summarize. I said, in your descriptions 1 and 2 are related.
Saddam and Al Qaeda had a working relationship.
Here is a simple summary of some of what has been learned
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1625802/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.