George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. II

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

Maybe in your opinion...but the so-called "neo source" that I cited backed up his argument with clearly cited sources...that's why I posted it. I could've used his sources from CNN and posted the same argument, but why do that when it's already laid out right there in the article?

 

Because neo sources usually have a... relaxed relationship with the truth. So to speak. Oh, and BTW, the CNN is a shoddy sender that's relaying White House propaganda most of the time. Try the New York Times, if you want credible news.

[rccar328]

The Times??? Are you kidding me? Sure, they have a brief moment of okayness every now and then, but the Times has been putting out biased news since the 1840s.

 

And the idea that CNN is some kind of pro-Bush propagand machine is ludicrous...if anything, it's the opposite (that's how it got the nickname of Clinton News Network...).

[SkinWalker]

Another reason to Fire Bush in 2004:

 

George Bush wants to change overtime rules for millions of workers and many of them will lose pay.

 

The Dept. of Labor's new proposal will protect workers who make about $22,000/yr. or less, but remove the rights of workers who make $65,000/yr. or more. It is estimated that approximately 5.5 million hourly workers will lose their right to overtime pay.

 

It's fair to say that protecting the 1.3 million workers who automatically qualify for overtime because they make < $22,000/yr. is good news. But it is easily offset by the 5.5 million that will lose protection.

 

It's just another tip that Bush is looking out for corporate buddies.

 

 

Eisenbrey, R.; Bernstein, J. (26 June 2003).“Eliminating the right to overtime pay: Department of Labor proposal means lower pay, longer hours for millions of workers. Economic Policy Institute.

[ShadowTemplar]

The Times??? Are you kidding me? Sure, they have a brief moment of okayness every now and then, but the Times has been putting out biased news since the 1840s.

 

Curiously, there is a high correlation between what the Times bring and what independent European newspapers and -senders transmit. And, I'd like to add, the papers I'm talking about have their own independent correspondents all over the world, so they're not just relaying what the Times writes. That, and the fact that the Times show their bias in their choice of topics, not in the treatment of those topics, unlike most, if not all, of your sources.

 

And the idea that CNN is some kind of pro-Bush propagand machine is ludicrous...if anything, it's the opposite (that's how it got the nickname of Clinton News Network...).

 

I didn't say that they were 'pro-Bush'. I said that they were 'pro-White-House', regardless of who's in it. My guess is that they are just too lazy to do proper reporting. It's easier to simply buy the crap the current gov. is spouting.

[toms]

a bit like all the murdoch newscorp subsidiaries that will only report news that gets them in good with the governments they are trying to cosy up to.

 

Can't say i've read the NYT, but at least i have heard of it and it has an international reputation for enquiring journalism.

[SkinWalker]

President Bush's Fallacies With Regard to Iraq

 

The President's speech on 5/24 contained two major fallacies that are telling with regard to his credibility and motivations if not his poor leadership.

 

First, Bush stated "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror."

 

Second, he stated that, "the terrorists and Saddam-loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom."

 

These statements presume that all bad people who happen to be Muslim are terrorists. This is a result of the definition of "war on terror" is being used in too loose a manner. The President's view on the insurgency in Iraq makes assumptions about the nature and motivations of the insurgents: that they are terrorists, even Al-Qaeda members themselves, and that their goals are to undermine American influence in the country. While this is undoubtedly true for some, perhaps many, of the insurgents, a failure to consider other possible, and probable, sources of discontent among the Iraqi populace is incompetent. Considering these sources and not acknowledging them to the American public is deceptive.

 

There is much occurring in Iraq that Bush would rather the American public not be aware of or pay much attention to. The Abu Ghraib prison debacle is a shining example of Bush administration incompetence. Seymour Hersh (2004) writes that he interviewed several intelligence officials who had first hand knowledge of Bush administration Special Access Programs (SAP), particularly one that was instituted to carry out extreme methodologies of obtaining information within the Iraq prison system. The move was inspired by the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and it's interrogation methods and even established by it's commander, Major General Geoffrey Miller. One or more CIA officials is quoted as saying the CIA opposed the methodology employed at Abu Grhaib and eventually pulled of the SAP involvement there.

 

Whether Hersh's source is credible or not is certainly debatable, particularly in light of recent scandals with members of press inventing stories for personal gain (New York Times, USA Today, etc.). But it is also seems reasonable that the leadership at Abu Grhaib had to be aware of what was occurring. After all, NCO's were on shifts supervising and answering to platoon leaders and other officers. Indeed, the methods employed by those accused of committing the acts of torture, humiliation and outright masochism against the Iraqi prisoners had to have some example to model on.

 

The fact is that the "terror" in Iraq is being fed by those that want to do harm to America. Whether it's Sunnis, Al-Qaeda, or former Baathists, who initiate or incite the violence is not as significant as the fact that those who ultimately carry out the acts are cabdrivers, brothers-in-laws, and people recruited off the streets. People who are very dissatisfied with American efforts at rebuilding the country's infrastructure or mourning the loss of a child or brother or mother who happened to be collateral damage.

 

Bush's "front line on the war of terror" is war against the very Iraqi people we claimed to be trying to help.

 

 

References

 

Hersh, S. M. (2004, 15/May). The Gray Zone: How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker, p. 42. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040524fa_fact

[SkinWalker]

And yet another reason to Fire Bush!

 

This article outlines the President's psychotic behavior in the Whitehouse as reported by Whitehouse aides to reporter Doug Thompson.

 

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

 

That's one quote from the article. Here's another.

 

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

 

The article, titled Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides, suggests that President Bush's behavior in the Whitehouse is inconsistent and unpredictable. It also suggests that George Tennet was actually fired, but asked to resign by the President. That is the way corporations have been doing it with high-profile employees for decades, so one can imagine that this is a tactic that a President with an MBA (albeit one with a "C" average) might do things.

 

Does the article have empirical qualities. No. Not unless some of the Whitehouse aides that spoke to the reporter agree to come forward and go on the record. The reporter, Doug Thompson, is the publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, an online webzine with a decidedly anti-Bush slant. But he's also a photojournalist. A casual look through his websites didn't reveal anything too extreme... nothing that you would expect from sites like Rense.com and DrudgeReport nonsense.

 

If true, then this could be the straw that breaks the ass' back (the GOP mascot) if it gets any attention with the eclipse of Reagan's passing. Still, caution at accepting the story at face value is warranted, even if this information fits the mental image I've always had of GW Bush.

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

First, Bush stated "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror."

 

Second, he stated that, "the terrorists and Saddam-loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom."

 

These statements presume that all bad people who happen to be Muslim are terrorists.

 

The definition of terrorism as in Webster's New World Dictionary is

1.the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such as a political weapon or policy 2.the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way.

 

First of all, that sounds an awful lot like the things Saddam was doing would be considered terrorism, even if it was primarily towards his own people. So that would make Saddam loyalists terrorists as well.

 

Second, in those quotes, he doesn’t mention anything about Muslims. You inserted the Muslim assumption in your statement. Someone from any religion can be a terrorist and that doesn’t necessarily reflect on their “religion” and what it stands for.

 

Also, you’re arguing that since he doesn’t include all the possibilities, even the ones that are least likely or less common, he is intentionally being deceptive. If the majority of those being fought in any given location are terrorists, then that would make that location a front on the war on terror, especially if terrorists from other countries/groups are traveling to Iraq to fight the American presence. By not including a list of all the possibilities, that does not automatically mean he was implying anything that became the basis of your assumption. This seems to be more of a “nitpick” at the wording of his speech than anything that Bush has specifically done wrong. It just seems more like you’re looking for something to complain about by reading more into the wording of the speech than was necessarily meant or implied.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The fact is that the "terror" in Iraq is being fed by those that want to do harm to America. Whether it's Sunnis, Al-Qaeda, or former Baathists, who initiate or incite the violence is not as significant as the fact that those who ultimately carry out the acts are cabdrivers, brothers-in-laws, and people recruited off the streets. People who are very dissatisfied with American efforts at rebuilding the country's infrastructure or mourning the loss of a child or brother or mother who happened to be collateral damage.

 

Bush's "front line on the war of terror" is war against the very Iraqi people we claimed to be trying to help.

 

Not everyone who losses a loved one is immediately going to turn around and fight with the opposition. That sounds like it would be more of a rare case. Also, those people who are recruited could very well have been Saddam supporters prior to losing a loved one, in which case they would have been inclined to fight against America already. Losing a loved one, perhaps, just gave them more justification and incentive to become a suicide bomber or whatever the case may be.

 

Besides, under Saddam’s rule, it was very easy for people to lose someone just because they looked left or right while crossing a bridge and Saddam would have them killed. Losing a loved one in an accident is definitely a sad consequence of war, but it was an accident versus losing a loved one because of Saddam’s oppression and lack of compassion.

 

You yourself stated that other terrorist groups are feeding the terror. If Iraq is becoming a conglomeration of sorts for terrorists who want to fight against the US, how does that not make Iraq the front on the war on terror?

 

That doesn’t mean that terrorists and terrorism aren’t being fought elsewhere, just that there is a much larger percentage of fighting occurring in Iraq.

 

America isn’t fighting against those in Iraq who are not fighting them. Those are the people that America is fighting for.

[toms]

Originally posted by Noxrepere

You yourself stated that other terrorist groups are feeding the terror. If Iraq is becoming a conglomeration of sorts for terrorists who want to fight against the US, how does that not make Iraq the front on the war on terror?

 

Well it sure is now! but it was nothing to do with it before the US made it that way.

Even bush is now saying that he never claimed iraq had anything to do with al quaida or 9/11... funny how he seems to have given that impressin to everyone without actually saying it. Anyone would think he was a politician

 

If you are going to take being nasty to whole sections of the population as terrorism, then pretty much every country in the world is guilty of it. Saddam came to power through popular oppinion, he then used ruthless means to supress those who opposed him and to maintain his grip on power.... unfortunately that only makes him like about 60% of the worlds governments...

(off the top of my head: russia, zimbabwe, most of africa, much of the middle east, some of south america and so on..)

 

Think of the effect that 9/11 had on the US population (including the many people who were related to or knew victims). They lost their sympathy for anyone who had views similar to the perpetrators, they wanted revenge, there was a huge increase in anti-muslim racial crime, everyone in the political arena made the most of it by jumping on the bandwagon and trying to show them selves to be more outraged and tougher in response than the others.

Now remember that far more iraqi civilians have been killed by the US in iraq than were killed in 9/11.

Why wouldn't the public opinion, population, relatives and leaders of iraq react in exactly the same way that those in america reacted?

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by toms

Well it sure is now! but it was nothing to do with it before the US made it that way.

 

I don't think Bush was talking in the past tense when he said that, so that means he was talking about current Iraq.

 

 

Originally posted by toms

Even bush is now saying that he never claimed iraq had anything to do with al quaida or 9/11... funny how he seems to have given that impressin to everyone without actually saying it. Anyone would think he was a politician

 

Did Bush give that impression, or did the media imply that he was giving that impression?

 

 

Originally posted by toms

If you are going to take being nasty to whole sections of the population as terrorism, then pretty much every country in the world is guilty of it.

 

Are you saying that all countries are currently doing it, or that all countries have done it at one point in history? (Just trying to clarify.) I'm not even sure if all would be an appropriate word there, but I'm not familiar with the histories of every nation that has ever existed.

 

The word nasty seems like a large understatement to describe the torture and fear that the people of Iraq lived in.

 

I was just pointing out the definition of the word. Are you saying that you don’t define the things that Saddam, and other nations around the world, did/do as terrorism?

 

 

Originally posted by toms

Saddam came to power through popular oppinion, he then used ruthless means to supress those who opposed him and to maintain his grip on power.... unfortunately that only makes him like about 60% of the worlds governments...

(off the top of my head: russia, zimbabwe, most of africa, much of the middle east, some of south america and so on..)

 

Are you saying that that is justification for what he and others have done?

 

 

Originally posted by toms

…there was a huge increase in anti-muslim racial crime…

 

Are you talking about in America or abroad? Either way, that’s more of an extremist attitude that not everyone did/would take. Intelligent and/or logical people know that just because some terrorists happened to be Muslim, not all Muslims are terrorists.

 

 

Originally posted by toms

Now remember that far more iraqi civilians have been killed by the US in iraq than were killed in 9/11.

 

How many Iraqi’s were killed, or even just disabled in some way, under Saddam’s rule?

 

 

Originally posted by toms

…Think of the effect that 9/11 had on the US population (including the many people who were related to or knew victims). They lost their sympathy for anyone who had views similar to the perpetrators, they wanted revenge,…

 

…Why wouldn't the public opinion, population, relatives and leaders of iraq react in exactly the same way that those in america reacted?

 

I don’t know how much sympathy people actually had for terrorists even before 9/11.

 

The terrorists who attacked the US acted the way they did in contempt of America, and intentionally targeted civilians. America, and its allies, in Iraq are fighting to save the people of Iraq and are only intentionally targeting terrorists, Saddam loyalists, etc… (Basically anyone who attacks them.)

 

To my understanding the people of Iraq are glad to be freed from Saddam’s oppression. That’s just not something that you’ll hear about from a news source if they are intentionally holding back that information because they want to give the war a negative outlook and appearance.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Noxrepere

The definition of terrorism as in Webster's New World Dictionary is

1.the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such as a political weapon or policy 2.the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way.

 

First of all, that sounds an awful lot like the things Saddam was doing would be considered terrorism, even if it was primarily towards his own people. So that would make Saddam loyalists terrorists as well.

 

Attempting to define "terrorism" is a very valid point. It's one that the Bush admin (or any administration, for that matter) would do well to trod lightly with. Otherwise, precedents and policies that cannot be lived up to get set. According to Schmid, et al, (1988), there are well over 100 different definitions of terrorism. Indeed, terrorism expert Walter Laqueur (1999) also provides over 100 definitions. He concludes that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” But that quote would also include coercive diplomacy, war, and even barroom brawls. So we're left with the current administration's definition (Bush, 2002) for clarity: “premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents.” But then the defininition of "innocence" or to what degree one is innocent comes up: are the children in an apartment complex adjacent to a military target...?

 

Not to worry, Bush clarifies further (in 2003), terrorism is the “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” That last definition, of course, excludes state terrorism, as was the case with Saddam Hussein and a dozen other nefarious world leaders. The problem with including "national" as well as "subnational" groups is that eventually someone will ask why the United States doesn't hold Israel accountable to the same standards? Or why the United States isn't living up to the same standards? The point is, one man's terrorist could very well be another man's freedom fighter. A Kurd is a freedom fighter in Iraq, but across the border into Turkey and he is a terrorist. Like it or not, terrorism is a form of irregular warfare.

 

So by trying to simplify the terrorist question and find a way to incorporate Saddam Hussein into it to provide justification for war is necessarily a good idea. Hussein was a tyrant and a bloody bastard who didn't need to be in charge of a country, but we could definitely have gone about it better. Hell, we could have used that as the reason for invasion instead of the BS about WMD and Al Qaeda and a lot of critics would have been happy.

 

Originally posted by NoxrepereSecond, in those quotes, he doesn’t mention anything about Muslims. You inserted the Muslim assumption in your statement. Someone from any religion can be a terrorist and that doesn’t necessarily reflect on their “religion” and what it stands for.

 

I didn't insert any "assumptions," I simply called a spade a spade. The implication of the Bush administration appears to be that any Muslim upset enough with America to attack American forces in Iraq are terrorists, when, in fact, they may simply be misguided: victims or patriots seeking justice or revenge in the way that they perceive as the correct method. These people aren't exporting their violence, they're maintaining it within the borders of their country and fighting what they perceive as terrorism directed toward them. I think if the truth were known, the actual number of Al Qaeda operatives working in Iraq are low and most of the insurgency is the work of Iraqi nationalists who feel they are doing the right thing. The way to best fight them is via diplomacy: eliminate the pretexts they use for violence. Demonstrate that the injustices they perceive are far less than the good we are doing for the nation. We're doing good things in that country, we just aren't bothering to market it to the Iraqi people.

 

Originally posted by NoxrepereAlso, you’re arguing that since he doesn’t include all the possibilities, even the ones that are least likely or less common, he is intentionally being deceptive. If the majority of those being fought in any given location are terrorists, then that would make that location a front on the war on terror, especially if terrorists from other countries/groups are traveling to Iraq to fight the American presence.

 

It wouldn't be a "front" in the war on terror if we hadn't gone there to begin with. Bush's deception arises there. He is attempting to convince the public that the invasion of Iraq was justified since we are on the receiving end of so many "terrorist" acts, regardless of reasons for the attacks or the chronology of the genesis of the attackers. Bush is basically lying to the American public. Also, why would you not believe that the sources of discontent I mentioned to be the most probable? If Americans were subjected to such injustices, real or perceived, violence would ensue: I point you to the Watts riots or the riots following the Rodney King verdict as example. Those examples must pale in comparison to the frustrations and hardships that the Iraqi people must be facing after a year of occupation.

 

Originally posted by NoxrepereYou yourself stated that other terrorist groups are feeding the terror. If Iraq is becoming a conglomeration of sorts for terrorists who want to fight against the US, how does that not make Iraq the front on the war on terror?

 

If that is the case, then it is a front of American design and we should acknowledge our error; admit our mistake. But to capitalize on the occurrence in order to boost approval ratings is deceptive, dishonest, and amoral.

 

Originally posted by NoxrepereThat doesn’t mean that terrorists and terrorism aren’t being fought elsewhere, just that there is a much larger percentage of fighting occurring in Iraq.

 

The problem is that this is not where we are going to defeat Al Qaeda and reduce our terrorist threat. If anything, the threat of terrorism on our home soil has risen in light of the actions in Iraq. The bombings in Spain would support that statement. Bush's incompetence has done nothing to improve security and everything to threaten Americans. Over 838 American lives have been lost in the "war" in Iraq. That's nearly a full third of what was lost in 9/11 and we aren't even fighting against the 9/11 perpetrators.

 

Originally posted by NoxrepereAmerica isn’t fighting against those in Iraq who are not fighting them. Those are the people that America is fighting for.

 

I think you might try to convince the Iraqi who was forced to hold his mouth open as another Iraqi was forced to masturbate in it in Al Gharaib. One incident like that has a way of negating a lot of good deeds. I will agree, however, that the overall goal of our military servicemen is to help. But I'm not naïve enough to ignore that the Iraqi people perceive an injustice. Real or imagined, the Iraqis our soldiers are fighting are operating in the belief that we mean to do them wrong.

 

Originally posted by toms

…Think of the effect that 9/11 had on the US population (including the many people who were related to or knew victims). They lost their sympathy for anyone who had views similar to the perpetrators, they wanted revenge,…

 

…Why wouldn't the public opinion, population, relatives and leaders of Iraq react in exactly the same way that those in America reacted?

 

Originally posted by NoxrepereI don’t know how much sympathy people actually had for terrorists even before 9/11.

 

I think either you're attempting to distort what toms was saying or you are presenting a very ethnocentric viewpoint. Just because non-Americans hold an anti-American sentiment or have opinions that run contrary to American foreign policy, doesn't imply that they are terroristic. The perpetrators of 9/11 committed a dastardly deed to be sure, but this doesn't mean that their views, perspectives and opinions were incorrect beyond those that included terrorist acts. Terrorism is but the symptom, the root causes are what need to be addressed in order to overcome this detraction to society. As long as the current regime of the United States is in power, I fear that we continue the heightened risk of terrorist attack(s). Our foreign policies are among the causes of terrorism. This doesn't excuse terrorist acts and, indeed, those that perpetrate them or attempt to perpetrate them should be dealt with harshly. But steps need to be taken to eliminate the pretexts that terrorists use to justify their actions.

 

References:

 

Bush, George W. (September, 2002). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The Whitehouse, p.5

 

Bush, George W. (September, 2003). National Strategy For Combating Terrorism. The Whitehouse, p.1

 

 

Laqueur, Walter (1999) The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, Oxford University Press, New York: p. 6.

 

Schmid, A., Jongman, A., et al (1988) Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ: pp. 5-6.

 

[toms]

no one said that the people of iraq aren't glad to be free of saddam. And it is reported a lot on many news sources... (fox tv? ).

I have no idea how you can claim the media is misportraying the good of the war when the US media has abbandoned almost all pretense at neutrality and gone way more rightwing than it ever was.

---

But there is a difference between being glad to be free of saddam, and being happy with the situation when you have no hospitals, power, etc... I'm sure a lot of the countries that the russians freed from the nazis were happy to be free from the nazis, didn't mean they were that happy with the russians being around though.

 

Iraq was an artifically created country (mainly by us brits) which took no account for religious or ethnic boundaries. As a result the inhabitants basically form a number of groups who hate each other. Saddam was feared enough to keep everyone in line, now he is gone all the old grudges are coming up. Luckily the US is managing to prevent all the groups fighting each other by annoying every one of them and getting them to unite against the US.

---

As for support for terrorism... i wasn't implying that the US did support terrorism before, merely that anyone who now holds any views similar to the terrorists (even if they choose to air those views peacefully) (and which includes almost ALL the middle east) has now been tarred with the "terrorist supporter" brush.

 

But since you mentioned it, the USA provided most of the funding for the IRA. The US government has supported and trained terrorist organisations all over the world (Bin Laden, Saddam, Iran, Israel, South America, etc..). Of course, that was all "over there" and the US had never really suffered from terrorism within its own borders (unlike the rest of the world that has been dealing with it for years). One attack on the US though and suddenly terrorism is worldwide threat number one!!!!!! sheesh.

[toms]

A bill to modify the USA PATRIOT Act that would have blocked part of the legislation's provisions that allow for the investigation of people's reading habits was defeated by a 210-210 vote in the U.S House of Representives. The House leaders kept the roll call open for 23 minutes past the 15 minute deadline to persuade 10 Representatives to change votes. According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"

 

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/09/1145225.shtml?tid=103&tid=123&tid=158&tid=99

 

just think, if in the 70s you would have told a repuublican voter that a superpower could tap phones without warrants, arrest and hold people without trial, monitor people's book reading habits and so on they would have assumed that you were talking about communist russia....

[darth_kuat]

Why did Bush remove James Bath from his military records? Maybe this is why:James Reynolds Bath was a former director of BCCI, and part owner of Arbusto Energy. Arbusto was formed by George W. Bush, with whom Bath served as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Like Bush, Bath was suspended from flying status in 1972 for failing to accomplish his annual medical examination.

 

Bath got his start in real estate in 1973 by forming a partnership with Lloyd Bentsen's son, Lan Bentsen. The company was named Bath Bentsen Interests.

 

It has been reported that in 1976 George H. W. Bush recruited Bath into the CIA, a claim that Bath denied in 1991 in an article published in Time magazine.

 

In 1976 Bath purchased the Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of Salem bin Laden, a Saudi sheik.[1] (http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/images/documents/salem-bath-trust-agreement.jpg) In 1990, a Saudi banker named Khalid bin Mahfouz procured a loan of $1.4 million for Bath, allowing him to buy a stake in the airport. When bin Laden died in 1988, his interest in the airfield passed to Mahfouz.

 

In 1978, Bath became a Director of the Main Bank, based in Houston, Texas. His fellow investors were John Connally; Saudi financier Ghaith R. Pharaon; and Mahfouz.

 

Bath founded Southwest Airport Services to manage the Houston Gulf Airport, and to provide military fueling services at Ellington Field. He also served as president of the Skyway Aircraft Leasing company, registered in the Cayman Islands. The company acted as a supplier of large passenger and air cargo jets. At one point, it leased a $10 million Gulfstream II jet to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., which is controlled by Zayed ibn Sultan Al-Nahayan, Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. Bath's partners in Skyway and his other companies are unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Bath

[ShadowTemplar]

Oh, a thread I've been neglecting for some time... Curiously this seems to be the fate of the 'sticky' threads: When you can't see how recently it was updated, people think it hasn't been... But anyways:

 

From one of Skin's links:

 

Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror.

 

[...]

 

“The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want.’”

 

Holy crap! This isn't happening. Please tell me that this isn't happening.

 

The definition of terrorism as in Webster's New World Dictionary [...] sounds an awful lot like the things Saddam was doing would be considered terrorism, even if it was primarily towards his own people. So that would make Saddam loyalists terrorists as well.

 

Patently false. You can support a terrorist without actually being one yourself. Also, the people who attack American soldiers in Iraq are not 'terrorists'. 'Insurgents' would be a better word. Y'see the dictionary definition forgot the crucial words 'towards civilians'.

 

Second, in those quotes, he doesn’t mention anything about Muslims. You inserted the Muslim assumption in your statement.

 

But you won't find dubya waging war on the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, even though they are responsible for far more terrorism against Americans than the Al Qaida.

 

Also, you’re arguing that since he doesn’t include all the possibilities, even the ones that are least likely or less common, he is intentionally being deceptive.

 

No, he's arguing that if you leave out the more probable causes, you are being deceptive.

 

It just seems more like you’re looking for something to complain about by reading more into the wording of the speech than was necessarily meant or implied.

 

What you fail to consider here is that this is not the first time dubya does this. In fact, it is something of a rutine in the West Wing.

 

Losing a loved one in an accident is definitely a sad consequence of war, but it was an accident versus losing a loved one because of Saddam’s oppression and lack of compassion.

 

When you loose a loved one to a missile, you don't bloody care wether it was an accident. Besides, there's no law of nature prohibiting a person from being anti-Hussein and anti-US-occupation at the same time.

 

You yourself stated that other terrorist groups are feeding the terror. If Iraq is becoming a conglomeration of sorts for terrorists who want to fight against the US, how does that not make Iraq the front on the war on terror?

 

That doesn’t mean that terrorists and terrorism aren’t being fought elsewhere, just that there is a much larger percentage of fighting occurring in Iraq.

 

Because of the invasion, mein Freund. Because of the invasion. Can you say 'Deception by Omission'?

 

Think of the effect that 9/11 had on the US population (including the many people who were related to or knew victims). They lost their sympathy for anyone who had views similar to the perpetrators, they wanted revenge, there was a huge increase in anti-muslim racial crime, everyone in the political arena made the most of it by jumping on the bandwagon and trying to show them selves to be more outraged and tougher in response than the others.

Now remember that far more iraqi civilians have been killed by the US in iraq than were killed in 9/11.

 

And consider the fact that there was already a considerable anti-West sentiment in Iraq in the first place.

 

Did Bush give that impression, or did the media imply that he was giving that impression?

 

Did dubya do anything to correct the assumption?

 

How many Iraqi’s were killed, or even just disabled in some way, under Saddam’s rule?

 

Doesn't matter... there still is no law of nature saying that you can't be against both Hussein and the US occupation at the same time.

 

To my understanding the people of Iraq are glad to be freed from Saddam’s oppression.

 

And pissed off that they have American Kakhi walking around all over the place.

 

That’s just not something that you’ll hear about from a news source if they are intentionally holding back that information because they want to give the war a negative outlook and appearance.

 

Oh yeah, and Fux News is the only TV station in the whole wide world that isn't part of the conspiracy... Get real.

 

We're doing good things in that country, we just aren't bothering to market it to the Iraqi people.

 

Oh yes you are... Unfortunately the US has always been extremely bad at making propaganda. And unfortunatly, some Americans seem to think that the US is extraordinarily good at making propaganda.

 

But there is a difference between being glad to be free of saddam, and being happy with the situation when you have no hospitals, power, etc... I'm sure a lot of the countries that the russians freed from the nazis were happy to be free from the nazis, didn't mean they were that happy with the russians being around though.

 

Excellent point.

 

Of course, that was all "over there" and the US had never really suffered from terrorism within its own borders (unlike the rest of the world that has been dealing with it for years). One attack on the US though and suddenly terrorism is worldwide threat number one!!!!!! sheesh.

 

Wrong. The US has been the target of internal terrorism for a long time... But those terrorists are either isolated nutters or rightwing fanatics. The former do not mandate a war, the latter are the primary voter base of the GOP.

[El Sitherino]

[SkinWalker]

Update on Bush's Guard Sevice: New Evidence of Preferential Treatment

 

Bush's squadron commander Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian describes pressure from his superiors to give Bush a satisfactory performance rating despite Bush's failure to attend drills and failure to take a flight physical "as ordered."

 

Killian died in 1984. His memos were first obtained by CBS News and afterward also released by the White House.

 

[align=center]The Squadron Commander: Bush's "failure to perform"[/align]

 

New evidence emerged Feb. 8 that Bush had received favored treatment during this period. In four memos obtained by CBS News, Bush's former squadron commander in Houston describes Bush's desire to "get out of coming to drill," Bush's refusal to take a flight physical "as ordered," and subsequent pressure from an Air National Guard official to give Bush favorable performance ratings despite his leaving the squadron with a "critical" pilot vacancy and failing to perform to standards required of pilots.

The author of the memos was then-Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, who died in 1984. CBS didn't say how it had obtained the documents. The White House later released copies of the same memos.

 

 

The Killian memos:

 

May 4, 1972: In a memo addressed to Bush, Killian says "you are ordered to report" by May 14 "to conduct annual physical examination (flight)" in accordance with regulations. Bush never showed up for that exam.

 

May 19, 1972: Five days after failing to report for the physical, Killian wrote a memo regarding a telephone call Bush made to him. "Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November. . . . We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed before his date. Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in flight status. . . . I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment" (This is an apparent reference to the Guard's investment in Bush's flight training, and Bush's signed commitment to attend drills and to serve a full six years in the Guard). Killian said he told Bush he would need a written document accepting Bush into an Alabama unit before he would approve a transfer, and added, "think he's also talking to someone upstairs." (emphasis added).

 

August 1, 1972: "On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to jfailure to perform to the USAF/TexANG (US Air Force/Texas Air National Guard) standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as required. . . Officer (Bush) has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical. . . . I also suggested that we fill this critical billet with a more seasoned pilot from the list of Vietnam pilots that have rotated." (emphasis added).

 

August 18, 1973: (a year later) Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard and a supporter of the Bush family, is applying pressure to "sugar coat" the annual evaluation of Bush. "Staudt has obviously pressured (Bobby) Hodges (Killian's immediate superior in the Houston Guard unit) more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. (Lt. Col. William D.) Harris (another of Bush's supervisors) gave me a message today (regarding Bush's annual evaluation) Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it: Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. . . . I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees." Bush's annual evaluation, signed by Harris and Killian, says "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. " It is dated May 2, though this new memo suggests that it was actually written later and the date was falsified to dress up Bush's file as he was preparing to leave the Guard to attend graduate school. Killian was clearly not happy with the situation: he wrote the subject of the memo was "CYA," military slang for "cover your ass." (emphasis added).

 

The White House response to these memos came from White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, as quoted by CBS:

 

[align=center]Bartlett: At every step of the way, President Bush was meeting his requirement. Granted permission to meet his requirement. And that's why President Bush was honorably discharged.[/align]

 

Supporting Documents

 

Killian Memo May 4, 1972 (.pdf)

 

Killian Memo May 19, 1972 (.pdf)

 

Killian Memo August 1, 1972 (.pdf)

 

Killian Memo August 18, 1973 (.pdf)

 

 

[align=center]Fire the Liar.[/align]

[El Sitherino]

I thought I'd come in, post a funny comic.

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Hussein was a tyrant and a bloody bastard who didn't need to be in charge of a country…

…we could have used that as the reason for invasion instead of the BS about WMD and Al Qaeda and a lot of critics would have been happy.

 

The point wasn’t really to get into an argument about what constitutes terrorism; I was just pointing out his many attacks against his own people. No matter how you define it, I think Saddam would still be considered to have terrorized the people of Iraq. Why? You don’t consider that a form of terrorism?

 

Also, there were four reasons for the war, one of which was liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, and yet people still protest the war. Another reason for war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat; a preemptive strike. Another was his weapons programs, which included weapons that he currently possessed, weapons that he sought after, and weapons that he was prepared to be able to construct whenever he wanted to. And I believe the fourth reason was because of the support and aid he was lending to terrorist groups.

 

Here are some links providing information for why the Iraq war was legal.

 

Link 1

Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9

 

No matter what, there would be people who wouldn’t be happy. People who want to complain will find something to complain about. Regardless.

 

 

 

Here’s a look into some of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:

 

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Link 11 Link 12 Link 13 Link 14 Link 15 Link 16 Link 17 Link 18 Link 19 Link 20 Link 21 Link 22 Link 23 Link 24 Link 25 Link 26 Link 27 Link 28 Link 29 Link 30 Link 31

 

I noticed some discussion that was brought up regarding issues in other countries where atrocities are being committed, and comparing the importance of those issues with Iraq. If you believe that the crimes being committed in those countries are justifiable reasons for war, then you would have to also hold Iraq to those same standards.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I didn't insert any "assumptions," I simply called a spade a spade. The implication of the Bush administration appears to be that any Muslim upset enough with America to attack American forces in Iraq are terrorists, when, in fact, they may simply be misguided: victims or patriots seeking justice or revenge in the way that they perceive as the correct method. These people aren't exporting their violence, they're maintaining it within the borders of their country and fighting what they perceive as terrorism directed toward them. I think if the truth were known, the actual number of Al Qaeda operatives working in Iraq are low and most of the insurgency is the work of Iraqi nationalists who feel they are doing the right thing. The way to best fight them is via diplomacy: eliminate the pretexts they use for violence. Demonstrate that the injustices they perceive are far less than the good we are doing for the nation. We're doing good things in that country, we just aren't bothering to market it to the Iraqi people.

 

I still think you’re reading too deeply into it by complaining about the wording that he used and any implications that might have been implied. That may be your interpretation, but it isn’t necessarily what he meant. Your perceived implication isn’t necessarily their established intention.

 

I think there are a lot of Iraqi people who know the good that is being done over there. They are on the receiving end of it. They see it first hand. The rest of the people in the world are the ones that it’s not being “marketed” to. They can only get the news second hand. If they aren’t shown the truth, they won’t know it.

 

I see what you’re saying about the Iraqi’s, but if the troops are not fighting against the general populace, then the Iraqi’s have no reason to fight back. I think they know that. If these Iraqi citizens are coming from areas that were loyal to Saddam before the war, then they could be Saddam loyalists who are fighting when they are given the opportunity.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

It wouldn't be a "front" in the war on terror if we hadn't gone there to begin with. Bush's deception arises there. He is attempting to convince the public that the invasion of Iraq was justified since we are on the receiving end of so many "terrorist" acts, regardless of reasons for the attacks or the chronology of the genesis of the attackers. Bush is basically lying to the American public. Also, why would you not believe that the sources of discontent I mentioned to be the most probable? If Americans were subjected to such injustices, real or perceived, violence would ensue: I point you to the Watts riots or the riots following the Rodney King verdict as example. Those examples must pale in comparison to the frustrations and hardships that the Iraqi people must be facing after a year of occupation.

 

Again, I think you may be misinterpreting his intentions and presuming deceptions. If insurgents and terrorists from other places are coming into the country to fight the troops then there is a front on the war on terror. That wouldn’t be a lie. Granted some don’t want to see Iraq turned into a democracy, which becomes their motivation, but others that are terrorist groups are going to Iraq to fight would be inclined to fight against Americans anyways. It’s only the location of the fighting that is different.

 

I’m reluctant to consider the sources of discontent that you mentioned the most probable, because they don’t really have motivation to fight against there liberators if the violence and aggression is not directed towards them. They are being freed from an oppressive regime, and see the good things that are being accomplished in their country amidst the fighting. I’ve heard of the growing support over there for the troops and, as a result, I’m reluctant to believe that a large portion of the populace that is not being attacked feels threatened by violence that’s not directed towards them. That seems like you are underestimating their intelligence, to distinguish between the two. I think they lived under Saddam’s oppression long enough to distinguish the difference between violence directed towards them and violence directed towards their oppressors.

 

There isn’t overwhelming evidence or anything to support what you’re saying about sources of discontent. That’s more of a speculation on your part. I’m not saying that it’s impossible that some over there have responded in a manner similar to your claims, but it would be presumptuous to assume such a view was the most likely and doubt the Iraqis understanding of the intentions of their liberators.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

If that is the case, then it is a front of American design and we should acknowledge our error; admit our mistake. But to capitalize on the occurrence in order to boost approval ratings is deceptive, dishonest, and amoral.

 

If the truth is that it is a front on the war on terror, he should be able to say it without it being considered a low, dishonest attempt at increasing approval ratings. If progress is being made and things are being accomplished he should be able to mention them, as should all presidents in any area of improvement.

 

 

You accuse him of being a liar, but when you believe he’s telling the truth, you say it’s a dishonest attempt to gain support.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The problem is that this is not where we are going to defeat Al Qaeda and reduce our terrorist threat. If anything, the threat of terrorism on our home soil has risen in light of the actions in Iraq. The bombings in Spain would support that statement. Bush's incompetence has done nothing to improve security and everything to threaten Americans. Over 838 American lives have been lost in the "war" in Iraq. That's nearly a full third of what was lost in 9/11 and we aren't even fighting against the 9/11 perpetrators.

 

Effort is still going towards Al Qaeda. They are just making accomplishments in Iraq at the same time. You seem to be saying that since Al Qaeda wasn’t centered in Iraq, that it isn’t a worthwhile cause to be there. Al Qaeda is not the only threat. To only go after Al Qaeda would be narrow minded and short sighted.

 

This article here mentions the war on terror’s effect on al Qaeda:

War On Terrorism/Effects On al Qaeda

 

The threat of terrorist attacks on American soil can rise simply by going after any terrorist group. Not retaliating in any way can likewise cause an increase in terrorist attacks. If the terrorists perceive no threat to themselves for their attacks then they would be more likely to consider that an open opportunity to attack more.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I will agree, however, that the overall goal of our military servicemen is to help. But I'm not naïve enough to ignore that the Iraqi people perceive an injustice. Real or imagined, the Iraqis our soldiers are fighting are operating in the belief that we mean to do them wrong.

 

While I certainly don’t approve of what was done there, everything that was done there wasn’t directed towards the innocent Iraqi populace. Also, when comparing the humiliating and degrading things done there now to captured soldiers/fighters, to the truly atrocious and malicious things Saddam spent years doing to his own innocent people they don’t quite stack up equally. Again, I’m not saying that I agree with what they did there; it seems extremely unnecessary and detrimental, but I think that there is no question as to which was the worse crime of the two.

 

The Iraqis that are fighting against the soldiers would be correct in believing that the soldiers plan to do them wrong; it is war after all. However, the troops are not directing violence towards the innocent people of Iraq, those are the people that the troops are fighting for, and they have no reason to believe that there is any aggression intentionally directed towards them. They are grateful for their liberation and should recognize accidents and collateral damage for what they are: unfortunate side effects of war.

 

The incidents of Al Gharaib have the potential to negate good deeds, if it isn’t made clear that that was an isolated incident. The good things that are being done elsewhere all over the country can testify to the overall good intentions, and again the innocent Iraqis are seeing it all first hand.

 

 

I’ve said it before but I think it merits repeating, that many service men and women return from service over in Iraq and express their frustrations at the media for their negative portrayal of the war, and not reporting on all of the accomplishments.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I think either you're attempting to distort what toms was saying or you are presenting a very ethnocentric viewpoint. Just because non-Americans hold an anti-American sentiment or have opinions that run contrary to American foreign policy, doesn't imply that they are terroristic. The perpetrators of 9/11 committed a dastardly deed to be sure, but this doesn't mean that their views, perspectives and opinions were incorrect beyond those that included terrorist acts. Terrorism is but the symptom, the root causes are what need to be addressed in order to overcome this detraction to society. As long as the current regime of the United States is in power, I fear that we continue the heightened risk of terrorist attack(s). Our foreign policies are among the causes of terrorism. This doesn't excuse terrorist acts and, indeed, those that perpetrate them or attempt to perpetrate them should be dealt with harshly. But steps need to be taken to eliminate the pretexts that terrorists use to justify their actions.

 

I wasn’t implying any superiority at all. I was referring to the fact that Al Qaeda had attacked America several times before, including a previous bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993, bombings at an American embassy, etc…

 

I was saying that Americans had just cause to dislike Al Qaeda prior to the events of 9/11, as they also have reason to dislike other terrorist groups as well.

 

My initial response was directed towards America’s views towards other terrorists. Upon rereading toms’s post, if he was talking about America having dissenting views towards Muslims and Islam, that’s obviously a different topic. While some Americans may have adopted that perspective, it would be presumptuous to assume that the reason for going to war was based, even partially, on the nationality and religious tendencies of Iraq. Troops were also sent to Afghanistan to fight terrorism. It’s a war on terrorism, and those who support it.

 

The pretexts that are used to justify attacks on America include their dislike of America’s freedoms and the freedoms and higher status of women. It’s not going to be possible to eliminate everything that they dislike about America, without America conforming to their standards for society. Diplomacy is always an option, but both sides have to be willing to cooperate in order for it to be effective. They won’t stop until everyone is totally submissive to their will. Remember that they came over to America and attacked, not because they were being oppressed unjustly, but because they dislike American society.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The point is, one man's terrorist could very well be another man's freedom fighter.

 

Again, whose freedoms are al Qaeda, the Saddam loyalists, the insurgents in Iraq, etc… fighting for? They certainly aren’t fighting for the freedom of their own people. They are fighting for power and control. They want societies to be submissive to them and as a result, democracy is their obvious enemy. I’m not sure who, if anyone at all, you were defending there, but the term “freedom fighter” does not apply to this situation.

 

[i merely condensed the links section of the post in order to shorten the overall lenght of the thread. All links are intact -- SkinWalker[/color]

[toms]

Fleischer (Oct 24, 2001):[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that…there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns.

 

Bush (June 6, 2002): As Governor (Tom) Ridge has worked with all levels of government to prepare a national strategy, and as we have learned more about the plans and capabilities of the terrorist network, we have concluded that our government must be reorganized to deal more effectively with the new threats of the 21st century. So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.

 

just kidding.

 

World 'wants Kerry as president'

 

A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush.

 

Kerry scored best with traditional US allies

 

Only Filipino, Polish and Nigerian respondents clearly backed Mr Bush.

 

Most said Mr Bush's foreign policy had made them feel worse about the US since his election in 2000.

 

Meanwhile, a new survey of American and European public attitudes also suggested there had been a dramatic leap in the latter's criticism of US foreign policy.

 

More than three-quarters of Europeans surveyed in 10 countries by the German Marshall Fund of the US said they disapproved of President Bush's international actions, 20% more than two years ago.

 

The survey also showed sharp differences in how governments should respond to potential threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

 

More than 80% of Americans thought war could achieve justice - more than twice the proportion of Europeans.

 

"Only one in five want to see Bush re-elected," said Steven Kull, the director of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

 

"Though he is not as well known, Kerry would win handily if the people of the world were to elect the US president."

 

POLL RESULTS (KERRY-BUSH)

Norway: 74%-7%

Germany: 74%-10%

France: 64%-5%

Italy: 58%-14%

Spain: 45%-7%

UK: 47%-16%

Canada: 61%-16%

Mexico: 38%-18%

Brazil: 57%-14%

China: 52%-12%

Japan: 43%-32%

Indonesia: 57%-34%

India: 34%-33%

-----------------------------

Philippines: 32%-57%

Nigeria: 33%-27%

Poland: 26%-31%

Thailand: 30%-33%

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm

 

Not that americans seem to care what the rest of the world thinks...

[toms]

Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1303064,00.html

 

Rumsfeld's dirty war on terror:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1303078,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1303290,00.html

 

US troops face new torture claims:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1304042,00.html

 

On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians. G2 columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured in the attack, describes the scene of carnage - and reveals just how lucky he was to walk away

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1303827,00.html

 

George Jr sent out of Texas by father as a 'drunken liability'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1296350,00.html (not that stuff from back in the vietnam era is very relevant

 

On Sunday the former lieutenant governor of Texas Ben Barnes will admit on the CBS primetime news programme 60 Minutes that he pulled strings to enrol Mr Bush in a unit of the Texas National Guard known as the Champagne Unit, because it had so many sons of prominent Texas politicians and businessmen.

 

Is anyone reading this thread? can anyone see it up here?

[El Sitherino]

we're reading, we can see it. We see all.

[toms]

Argh!!! the eye! the eye!!! *runs*

 

/ps its a bit quiet in here isn't it?

[SkinWalker]

Bush's Flip-Flops

 

This is the list of Bush "flip-flops" that seems to be making the rounds of discussion boards. If you Google "25 bush flip-flops," you'll see what I mean. It appears to have originated from American Progress Action Fund, and if you click that link, they actually have a few more added at the bottom. I fixed a link with number 19, since the story at the Baltimore Sun was no longer available. But if you click on it, you have to register for a free account, unless you already have one with a "Tribune" network paper. I already did.

 

The sources appear to check out. I left the links with the citations as reference instead of doing my traditional MLA style citations at the end.

 

1. Social Security Surplus

 

[bBush Pledges Not To Touch Social Security Surplus[/b] "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010303.html

 

Bush Spends Social Security Surplus The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

 

2. Patient's Right to Sue

 

Governor Bush Vetoes Patients' Right To Sue "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [salon, 2/7/01]http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/07/patients/index.html

 

Candidate Bush Praises Texas Patients' Right To Sue "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate_101700.asp

 

President Bush's Administration Argues Against Right To Sue "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50163-2004Apr4?language=printer

 

3. Tobacco Buyout

 

Bush Supports Current Tobacco Farmers' Quota System "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30108-2004May15.html

 

Bush Administration Will Support Federal Buyout Of Tobacco Quotas "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/2004/06/18/news/local/8952852.htm

 

4. North Korea

 

Bush Will Not Offer Nuclear North Korea Incentives To Disarm "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021115-8.html

 

Bush Administration Offers North Korea Incentives To Disarm" Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040623-6.html

 

5. Abortion

 

Bush Supports A Woman's Right To Choose "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000703&s=corn

 

Bush Opposes A Woman's Right To Choose "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

 

6. OPEC

 

Bush Promises To Force OPEC To Lower Prices "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]http://www.cnn.com/transcriptS/0001/26/se.02.html

 

Bush Refuses To Lobby OPEC Leaders With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8332331.htm?ERIGHTS=6206631409609135731miami::juddleg@yahoo.com&KRD_RM=9ppqsvptqyrwysxvprxvpppppp|Judd|Y

 

7. Iraq Funding

 

Bush Spokesman Denies Need For Additional Funds For The Rest Of 2004 "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040202-4.html

 

Bush Requests Additional Funds For Iraq For 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040505-8.html

 

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

 

Bush Spokesman Says Rice Won't Testify As 'A Matter Of Principle' "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040309-5.html#1

 

Bush Orders Rice To Testify: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040330-7.html

 

9. Science

 

Bush Pledges To Issue Regulations Based On Science"I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00] http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000001393

 

Bush Administration Regulations Ignore Science "60 leading scientists, including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents, issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04] http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

 

10. Ahmed Chalabi

 

Bush Invites Chalabi To State Of The Union Address President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-5.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031127-1.html

 

Bush Military Assists In Raid Of Chalabi's House "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42328-2004May20?language=printer

 

11. Department of Homeland Security

 

Bush Opposes The Department Of Homeland Security "So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020319-7.html#12

 

Bush Supports The Department Of Homeland Security "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020606-8.html

 

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

Bush Says We Found The Weapons Of Mass Destruction "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

 

Bush Says We Haven't Found Weapons Of Mass Destruction "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04] http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=28200

 

13. Free Trade

 

Bush Supports Free Trade "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020323-13.html

 

Bush Supports Restrictions On Trade "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A31768-2003Sep18&notFound=true

 

14. Osama Bin Laden

 

 

 

Bush Wants Osama Dead Or Alive "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010917.html

 

Bush Doesn't Care About Osama "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

 

15. The Environment

 

Bush Supports Mandatory Caps On Carbon Dioxide "[if elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00] http://www.pollutionengineering.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,6649,112373,00.html

 

Bush Opposes Mandatory Caps On Carbon Dioxide "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush010313.html

 

16. WMD Commission

 

Bush Resists An Outside Investigation On WMD Intelligence Failure "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04] http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/jan04/203405.asp

 

 

 

Bush Supports An Outside Investigation On WMD Intelligence Failure "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040206-3.html

 

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

 

Bush Opposes Creation Of Independent 9/11 Commission "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

 

Bush Supports Creation Of Independent 9/11 Commission "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront020920.html

 

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

 

Bush Opposes Time Extension For 9/11 Commission "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28025-2004Jan18?language=printer

 

Bush Supports Time Extension For 9/11 Commission "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/911.commission/index.html

 

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

 

Bush Limits Testimony In Front Of 9/11 Commission To One Hour "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B14F739580C758EDDAB0894DC404482

 

Bush Sets No Time limit For Testimony "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/conventions/rnc/chi-0403100275mar10,1,4143608.story

 

20. Gay Marriage

 

Bush Says Gay Marriage Is A State Issue "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00] http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

 

Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04] http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_atrios_archive.html

 

21. Nation Building

 

Bush Opposes Nation Building "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html

 

Bush Supports Nation Building "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

 

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

 

Bush Says It Is Impossible To Distinguish Between Al Qaeda And Saddam "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

 

Bush Says Saddam Had No Role In Al Qaeda Plot "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25571-2003Sep17?language=printer

 

23. U.N. Resolution

 

Bush Vows To Have A Un Vote No Matter What. "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

 

Bush Withdraws Request For Vote "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03] http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html

 

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

 

Bush Opposes Summits. "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02] http://slate.msn.com/id/2064471

 

Bush Supports Summits "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?ex=1080104400&en=35e360062225d97e&ei=5070

 

25. Campaign Finance

 

Bush Opposes Mccain-Feingold "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

 

Bush Signs Mccain-Feingold Into Law "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

[SkinWalker]

All quotes are from Noxrepere unless otherwise noted

 

No matter how you define it, I think Saddam would still be considered to have terrorized the people of Iraq. Why? You don’t consider that a form of terrorism?

 

Argumentum ad misericordiam wrapped in a Straw man. I consider street gangs firing automatic weapons into homes of toddlers because there's another teen living there that disrespected someone in their crew a form of terrorism. Don't you?

 

Also, there were four reasons for the war, one of which was liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny,

 

Why the Iraqi's and not the Somalians? Or the Zimbabweans? The reason is simple, that wasn't a reason but a post hoc justification.

 

Another reason for war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat; a preemptive strike.

 

Saddam was far from "becoming a greater threat." According to a recent issue of Foreign Policy, sanctions and containment were working (Lopez & Cartwright, 2004). The "United Nations sanctions that began in August 1990 were the longest running, most comprehensive, and most controversial in the history of the world body. [...] the Iraqi military that confronted [u.S. troops] had, in the previous twelve years, been decimated by the strategy of containment that the Bush administration had called a failure in order to justify war in the first place."

 

Lopez and Cartwright go on to demonstrate the validity of their conclusions that the Bush administration did things right the first two years in office.

 

Another was his weapons programs, which included weapons that he currently possessed, weapons that he sought after, and weapons that he was prepared to be able to construct whenever he wanted to.

 

Right. See Lopez & Cartwright again (2004). See Ritter (2003 – referenced in some of my other posts). See the evening news. What you won't see is evidence of possession or manufacture of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That's because the UN sanctions were working as were the inspections teams.

 

And I believe the fourth reason was because of the support and aid he was lending to terrorist groups.

 

George W. Bush: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11 (Milbank, 9/17/03)." Colin Powell: "I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorist who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime. We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al-Qaida and the Saddam Hussein regime and those have been pursued and looked at, but I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein, that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11 (Russert, 9/12/04)"

 

President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said (Russert, 9/14/03) that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection.

 

Here are some links providing information for why the Iraq war was legal.

 

And here is only one link that dispels them all: Kofi Annan says War in Iraq Illegal.

 

No matter what, there would be people who wouldn’t be happy. People who want to complain will find something to complain about. Regardless.

 

And people who blindly trust their government will find ways to justify even the most heinous actions.

 

 

Here’s a look into some of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:

 

I don't think anyone has questioned the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. Their irrelevant and I'm already aware of perhaps more than even you realize. But the more atrocious of Saddam's actions did occur prior to Desert Storm. But even considering the tyrannical actions of Hussein, both before and after 1991, that alone isn't justification enough to ignore the UN Security Council and invade a sovereign nation. Indeed, that only serves to demonstrate to the world that we view the world unfairly since we allow the same or similar atrocities to continue or occur in other regions of the world without even public condemnation.

 

I noticed some discussion that was brought up regarding issues in other countries where atrocities are being committed, and comparing the importance of those issues with Iraq. If you believe that the crimes being committed in those countries are justifiable reasons for war, then you would have to also hold Iraq to those same standards.

 

I think you miss the point. The point is, why would a government invade one country based on its human rights violations, none of which included actual accounts of genocide, yet ignore other nations where similar or more serious human rights violations are occurring, including genocide (or accusations of genocide)? The reason: those other nations have precious little to offer us. As a side note, I'm a bit surprised that the U.S. hasn't yet been involved in the problems at Darfour, Sudan, since Sudan does have petroleum resources. But then, the U.S. military is a bit impotent to do anything for other nations at the moment with the commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

If insurgents and terrorists from other places are coming into the country to fight the troops then there is a front on the war on terror. That wouldn’t be a lie.

 

Then that implies precognition on the part of the U.S. President and his administration. Is he consulting oracles or is god speaking to him. Both alone would be grounds for firing, since we don't need such superstition in the White House. But what I think is really happening is that the administration is capitalizing on the violence and insurgency that they blundered at actually predicting. They failed to heed the warnings of experts and laymen who cautioned that defeating the military would be followed by guerrilla warfare in the streets. I even predicted as much in one of the many threads we had in this forum just prior to the invasion.

 

Now, we use our failure as proof that we that we were right in invading a sovereign nation. The reality is that this is proof of our failure not a justification for action. The invasion was initiated with too few troops and little planning for the chaos that followed. The borders were left fluid and porous, which wouldn't have occurred had we not decided to "go it alone." Don't give me the garbage about the "coalition" that was built, because the so-called coalition consisted of banana republics and gratuitous, yet insufficient, compliments of troops from countries that simply wanted to remain on the good side of the world's most powerful nation. No offense 'Jais & ShadowT.

 

Had an actual coalition existed of genuinely interested nations, particularly those of the region (Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the other nations of the Arabian Peninsula; perhaps even Iran), then the borders could have been secured very efficiently. The insurgents wouldn't have been able to enter and the ones that were already there would have been cut of logistically from outside Iraq and would likely have given up their fight. Moreover, 1000 + U.S. troops wouldn't have made the ultimate sacrifice and several thousand more wouldn't have been seriously injured. It's not just Bush that needs to be fired, it's the entire administration. Voting him out is the way to do it.

 

It’s only the location of the fighting that is different.

 

And it's the opportunity to do it that is different as well. There weren't, after all, daily attacks on American servicemen that ended in daily deaths anywhere else in the world.

 

If the truth is that it is a front on the war on terror, he should be able to say it without it being considered a low, dishonest attempt at increasing approval ratings. If progress is being made and things are being accomplished he should be able to mention them, as should all presidents in any area of improvement.

 

But progress is not being made. The nation is not ready for elections. The security isn't there and the war is going very badly. We ****ed up. If the administration admitted as much, and then said they're fighting a front in the war on terror, even though we created it, then that would be different. But the administration is appears to want the voting public in the U.S. to think that this failure of planning is justification for being there. You cannot spin a ****-up into a positive thing.

 

You accuse him of being a liar, but when you believe he’s telling the truth, you say it’s a dishonest attempt to gain support.

 

When one spins facts to represent a deception, it’s a lie.

 

Effort is still going towards Al Qaeda. They are just making accomplishments in Iraq at the same time. You seem to be saying that since Al Qaeda wasn’t centered in Iraq, that it isn’t a worthwhile cause to be there. Al Qaeda is not the only threat. To only go after Al Qaeda would be narrow minded and short sighted.

 

That's poppycock. You're creating a straw man. I'm saying that by dedicating hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars on an unnecessary invasion of a sovereign nation, the Bush administration has abandoned its responsibility to the American people and ignored the security and safety of our nation. The terrorist threat in Afghanistan is being largely ignored when compared to the efforts in Iraq. Bin Laden should have been a priority, not a secondary mission. To focus on Al Qaeda (not "only go after" as your straw man argument suggests) would have demonstrated to the world and our enemies that our resolve was sincere and the good will that existed would still have been intact if not strengthened.

 

References:

 

Milbank, Dana. (9/18/03). Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link The Washington Post

 

Russert, Tim (9/14/03). Interview with Dick Cheney. NBC's Meet the Press.

 

Russert, Tim (9/12/04). Interview with Colin Powell. NBC's Meet the Press.