I guess it just means that the anti-woddies will just have to eat............. 
Posted on 07/30/2003 12:22:42 PM PDT by presidio9
Recently, I decided to go back through my website and reread some of the statements I have written and links to articles I have posted. 2003 has been such a tumultuous year already ... Now we have the publicized revelations that the Bush administration exaggerated evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and falsely implied that there were strong connections between al Qaeda and Iraq. Looking back, however, it is clear that these facts were known even before the war... but the media did not emphasize the story until it was already too late.
For example, on March 26th we quoted from a New York Times article of March 23rd that stated that analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have “felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq confirm to Bush Administration policies,” including pressure to “emphasize links between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.”
In that same statement, it said, “This revelation comes on the heels of a recent disclosure that President Bush’s public assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium was based in part on forged documents – documents about which C.I.A. officials were always suspicious. Bush has yet to retract his public statement, nor does he seem to feel the need to defend his use of faulty information.” What nobody seems to be mentioning right now is that we knew that Bush’s 16-word statement in the State of the Union address was false before the war even started ... but Bush was allowed to get away with it as the momentum towards war grew.
Now that Saddam’s regime has been toppled and we have yet to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the Democrats and the media have finally begun to fully investigate and publicize these false claims and to ask the tough questions. Now that we have destroyed Iraq, now that we are stuck rebuilding a country and spending tens of billions of taxpayer money and now that we must break it to soldiers who were told “the road home goes through Baghdad” that they cannot go home, that they must stay in Iraq and continue fighting a guerilla war ... now we are questioning what brought us there in the first place.
That questioning should lead us directly to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, one of the closest people to the president. She has changed her story about the forged uranium documents so many times it ought to be a joke ... except it’s not funny. On July 8th, Rice said, “no one in our circles knew there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery” and on July 11th, Rice said the CIA “cleared the speech in its entirety” and that if “Tenet, the CIA director, had any misgivings, he never shared them with the White House.” Just several days later, on July 23rd, Rice’s top aide, Stephen Hadley, said he received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet warning him that evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa was not reliable. One memo was also directed to Rice, who claimed not to have fully read these important intelligence documents.
And now, with the September 11th report finally declassified, we are beginning to get a clearer picture about the Bush administration’s failure to heed the warnings of the impending terrorist attack. According to the 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets and hijack U.S. planes” (Reuters, 7/24/03). ABC News recently reported, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden’s terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” Specifically, on August 6th President Bush received an 11 ½ page report on al Qaeda that cited the possibility of plane hijackings.
The 9/11 report concludes that although the intelligence community did not have the “time, place and specific nature” of the 9/11 attacks, it had “amassed a great deal of valuable intelligence regarding Osama bin Laden and his terrorist activities” and that this information could have been used to “discern the bigger picture successfully” and potentially prevent the attacks. For more, please read the following statement I wrote in the Fall of 2002 about the Bush administration’s homeland security failures:
November, 2002 Homeland Security Failures
While we are all rooting for President Bush to win the War on Terrorism, it is important that we know the facts about the homeland and national security debate. The assertion that Democrats are not committed to homeland and national security is ludicrous and is a perfect example of the ability of the Republican spin machine to distort the issues. In fact, a little history is in order: Before September 11th, Bush’s advisors did not pay enough attention to the possibility of a large-scale terrorist attack. Bush’s National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has said she could have never predicted such an attack, despite warnings of the French, Israeli and American intelligence communities. On August 6th, 2001, the CIA sent Bush a memo warning of possible al Qaeda plane hijackings. So why was there no increase in airport security, including reinforced bullet-proofed cockpits? At the time of the presidential transition, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, made it very clear to Ms. Rice that her greatest concern should be Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorism network. If that terrorism threat had remained a high level of priority in all levels of government, could these attacks have been prevented? We may never be able to answer that question. The purpose is not to assign blame but simply to point out that Republican leaders have not proved themselves to be more effective protectors of Homeland Security, as they would have the American people believe.
Seven months before the terrorist attacks, the Bush administration ignored a detailed report co-authored by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairing the United States Commission on National Security, that warned of possible terrorist attacks, including “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.” The report outlined a detailed blueprint for how to make America safer that included, among other suggestions, a plan for the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency. The Bush administration disregarded the report, despite momentum from Congress to implement the plan. On May 5, 2001, the White House announced it would instead form its own committee, headed by Dick Cheney, to look into security concerns and produce a report in October of that year.
On September 10th, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected the FBI’s request for a $58 million increase for their counterterrorism budget to pay for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. He did that despite the fact, discovered later by a Congressional investigation, that the FBI had only one analyst monitoring al Qaeda! In that same budget, Ashcroft proposed cutting $65 million for state and local counterterrorism grants. In lists of priorities issued from the Justice Department between May 10th and August 9th, 2001, and analyzed by The New York Times, counterterrorism was never once mentioned as a priority. Like the other intelligence agencies, the FBI had a severe shortage of Arabic translators before September 11th – a clear indication that the Justice Department did not take the terrorist threat seriously.
When President Bush first proposed the idea of a homeland security coordinator, the Democrats countered at that time with a proposal calling for a full Department of Homeland Security. In fact, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman proposed a bill back in October, 2001 to create a Department of Homeland Security that would have given homeland security advisor Tom Ridge cabinet-level status. At that time, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, in a statement summarized in The New York Times, explained what a “disruptive, politically impossible government reorganization would be required if Congress gave Mr. Ridge cabinet status and tried to create a new homeland security agency that would subsume current departments.” Now the Republicans have the gall to accuse the Democrats of delaying implementation of the very idea that the Democrats proposed over a year ago and the Republicans opposed at that time.
Just a few months ago, Bush cancelled $5.1 billion approved by the Congress for emergency homeland security spending. This money would have gone to nuclear security improvements, port protection, airport security, the Secret Service to combat electronic crimes, law enforcement resources for state and local governments, FBI counterterrorism efforts and information technology enhancement, urban reserve and rescue teams, cybersecurity improvements to protect our economy, food and water security, border security, dam and reservoir security and the Customs Service to increase inspections, among other areas of homeland security spending.
The Republicans initially tried to block an investigation into events leading up to September 11th and the preparation of government agencies for that large- scale attack. This major event in American history deserves clear and independent research so that we can understand what happened in order to prevent such a disaster from occurring again. This bill was passed only after enormous pressure from the victims’ families.
What this brief timeline shows us is how important it is right now, with the Republicans controlling the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to have a strong, independent press to ask the serious questions and do sophisticated analysis of the issues. We know the Republicans will try to spin everything to their advantage – but the American people deserve the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Oh please don't tell me that the guru of illegal drugs says that pot leads to the use of harder more addictive drugs.
Next thing you will tell me is that the Ozz man can't be believed because he fried his brains on those illegal drugs that some folks want to legalize.
Sorry man, it's true. The Ozzman himself says that Jack started doing hard core drugs because of pot.
Next thing you will tell me is that the Ozz man can't be believed because he fried his brains on those illegal drugs that some folks want to legalize.
Now why would they say something like that? That blows all of their arguments for legalization out of the water.
I guess it just means that the anti-woddies will just have to eat.............
If that was the case why didn't they accept Sudan's offer to turn over Bin Laden to the US?
Like a lot of people, BS is clutching at straws to justify her hatred of Bush.
Regards,
Heck...her nose and DD cups do that without the need for any paying customers.
I love it! It means just exactly that you DO think for yourself...But I already knew that...
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.