|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
That's your perogative. This war is not illegal on any terms, Bush in tune with the constitution acting in good faith, right or wrong (appears to be wrong), got congressional approval to go to war with Iraq. The executive is the commander-in-chief of the military, he has sworn to defend the constitution and America from it's enemies, Iraq was deemed to be a threat by both Republicans and Democrats, and don't go saying the dems were dupped they knew what they were doing and to say otherwise is really pathetic......
<b>.....What crimes against humanity?!?!? Show me them, please, just stop saying they are committing these crimes and tell me what they are actually doing. Tell me how our Supreme Court and Federal district courts are wrong compared to an Oped piece or a news article or possibly a world body that has no authority or sovereignity.....</b>
.......I'm not going to hate on you guys for disagreeing on the policies used in the after fact, I just think you are wrong. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=14 |
Mojo, I intended to respond to the above questions earlier, and I've since posted in this thread, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's new accusations concerning Cheney and his replacement for Scooter Libby....David Addington,
as well as the reports that Cheney made a rare appeal to republican senators on tuesday to exempt the CIA from a new anti-torture legislative provision.
Last week, Bush reacted to a 90 to 9 senate vote that would specifically prohibit torture of detainees, by threatening to veto legislation that contained such a provision.
John McCain responded to Cheney's appeal by threatening to include the anti-torture provision in all future senate bills, until it passes.
You challenged me with <b>"Show me them, please.....just stop saying they are committing these crimes and tell me what they are actually doing."</b>
You ruled out the presentation of news articles of pronouncements of any "world body" as evidence of war crimes or crimes against humanity, on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al.
Your restrictions on what you will "accept" leaves me few choices. I predict that "turning you", will be a gradual process, just as it was with the revelation that there were no Iraqi WMD. I recall that it took a presentation of the Jan. 12, 2005 White House press briefing to influence you to stop posting that WMD had or would be found.
Why would USMC Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former director of the Marine War College, 31 years in the USMC, trusted long time aid to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, lie repeatedly about Cheney and Rumsfeld foreign and war policy "initiatives" and Cheney's and Addington's origination of prisoner abusive directives to the military?
We now have Wilkerson, by the description of his public accusations, calling Cheney a war criminal, at the same time that Cheney repeatedly demands that the senate exempt the CIA from an anti-torture of detainees provision, a day before a WaPo report details discloses the existence of secret CIA prisons in eatern Europe.
As far as attacking Afghanistan...since I trust nothing that the Bush & Co. thugs tell us, I could not support that "campaign". Bush destroyed his own credibility, IMO, before he began his "war on terror":
There was this "statement" by Bush...just five days after 9/11.
There was this, total BS statement, still, available on the white house .gov :
<b>Near the bottom of the page.</b>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...011204-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 4, 2001
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting
Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting
Orange County Convention Center
Orlando, Florida
......... THE PRESIDENT: You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. <b> I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.</b>
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America..............
|
Consider the following, Mojo....
Quote:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...estingday.html
..........There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush didn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The Boston Herald later noted, "Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit - which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit." [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] Bush's recollection has many precise details. Is he simply confused? It's doubly strange why his advisors didn't correct him or - at the very least - stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: "Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida ... and my Chief of Staff – well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane..." [White House, 1/5/02]
Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked - not even once - to explain these statements. His memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that evening. In his speech to the nation that evening, Bush said: "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans." [White House, 9/11/01] It's not known what these emergency plans were, because neither Bush nor anyone in his administration mentioned this immediate response again. Implementing "emergency response plans" seems to completely contradict Bush's "by the way" recollection of a small airplane accident...........
|
And again...the same BS...one month later.......
<b>Near the bottom of the page.</b>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020105-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 5, 2002
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
......Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.
Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, <b>I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."</b>
And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)
Anyway, it was an interesting day..........
|
<b>I posted the following, back on July 5th:</b>
Yeah, Mueller, Bush, et al, have said quite a lot of things that are conflicting, misleading, and inaccurate that I didn't include. In view of their astoundingly inept and inaccurate track record, coupled with their avoidance of accountability and unprecedented obsession for secrecy, I'm urging everyone to keep an open mind accept nothing that they have said, at face value. They have to earn that trust, and they obviously haven't. Have you noticed that the DHS has not changed the "terror color code" warning since shortly before the election last November? With Bush's new "mandate", there was no longer any need to pump the apparatus of fear up a notch to alarm or to distract the sheeple......
Quote:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../update13.html
April 19, 2002: FBI Director Mueller states: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot." He also claims that the attackers used "extraordinary secrecy" and "investigators have found no computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that may have been used by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using hundreds of pay phones and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards." [FBI speech transcript, 4/19/02, Los Angeles Times, 4/22/02, he repeats the quote the next month, Senate Judiciary Statement, 5/8/02] However, before 9/11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate that al-Qaeda is "embracing the opportunities offered by recent leaps in information technology," [CIA, 03/21/00], the FBI broke the al-Qaeda computer encryption before February 2001 (see February 13, 2001) [UPI, 2/13/01], witnesses report seeing the hijackers use computers for e-mail at public libraries in Florida and Maine [Sun-Sentinel, 9/16/01, Boston Herald, 10/5/01], in October 2001 there were many reports that hundreds of e-mails discussing the 9/11 plot had been found (see October 2001 (B)), Moussaoui's laptop was found to contain important information, etc... Look also at an MSNBC article about al-Qaeda using computers. [MSNBC, 4/19/02]
May 20-24, 2002: The Bush administration issues a remarkable series of terror warnings that many believe are politically motivated. Vice President Cheney warns it is "not a matter of if, but when" al-Qaeda will next attack the US. [CNN, 5/20/02] Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge says the same thing. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says terrorists will "inevitably" obtain weapons of mass destruction. FBI Director Mueller says more suicide bombings are "inevitable." [Washington Post, 5/22/02] Authorities also issue separate warnings that al-Qaeda terrorists might target apartment buildings nationwide, banks, rail and transit systems, the Statue of Liberty, and the Brooklyn Bridge. USA Today titles an article, "Some Question Motives Behind Series of Alerts." [USA Today, 5/24/02] David Martin, CBS's national security correspondent, says, "Right now they're putting out all these warnings to change the subject from what was known prior to September 11 to what is known now." [Washington Post, 5/27/02] Remarkably, even White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says the alerts were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week" (see May 15, 2002 and May 21, 2002). [Washington Times, 5/22/02] Time notes, "Though uncorroborated and vague, the terror alerts were a political godsend for an Administration trying to fend off a bruising bipartisan inquiry into its handling of the terrorist chatter last summer. After the wave of warnings, the Democratic clamor for an investigation into the government's mistakes subsided." [Time, 5/27/02]
June 18, 2002: FBI Director Mueller testifies before the Congressional 9/11 inquiry; his testimony is made public in September 2002. [AP, 9/26/02] He claims that with the possible exception of Zacarias Moussaoui, "To this day we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot and we have found nothing they did while in the United States that triggered a specific response about them." [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02] The Congressional 9/11 inquiry will later conclude near the end of 2002 that some hijackers had contact inside the US with individuals known to the FBI, and the hijackers "were not as isolated during their time in the United States as has been previously suggested." [Los Angeles Times, 12/12/02] Mueller also claims, "There were no slip-ups. Discipline never broke down. They gave no hint to those around them what they were about." [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02] This statement overlooks some facts, such as the FAA's investigation into Hani Hanjour (see January 2001), Atta's strange visit to the Department of Agriculture (see Late April-Mid-May 2000), or what should have been an FAA investigation into Atta (see December 26, 2000).
|
Mueller appears to contradict quite a few news reports that appeared before
his April, 19, 2002 speech.
Quote:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../update13.html
October 2001 (B): Reports this month indicate that many hijacker e-mails have been recovered. USA Today reports many unencrypted e-mails coordinating the 9/11 plans written by the hijackers in internet cafes have been recovered by investigators. [USA Today, 10/1/01] FBI sources say "hundreds of e-mails linked to the hijackers in English, Arabic and Urdu" have been recovered, with some messages including "operational details" of the attack. [Washington Post, 10/4/01] "A senior FBI official says investigators have obtained hundreds of e-mails in English and Arabic, reflecting discussions of the planned Sept. 11 hijackings." [Wall Street Journal, 10/16/01] However, in April 2002, FBI Director Mueller says no documentation of the 9/11 plot has been found (see April 19, 2002). By September 2002, the Chicago Tribune reports, "Of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of e-mails sent and received by the hijackers from public Internet terminals, none is known to have been recovered." [Chicago Tribune, 9/5/02]
July 11, 2002: It is reported that the FBI believes there are approximately 5,000 al-Qaeda agents inside the US. In early 2003, FBI Director Mueller reduces the estimate to "several hundred." The New York Times then says that even suggesting over 100 is probably an exaggeration made for political reasons. [New York Times, 2/16/03]
|
<b>The following, in Rice's words, now describes the Bush admin., itself</B>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030123-1.html
"Why We Know Iraq is Lying" A Column by Dr. Condoleezza Rice
By Condoleezza Rice
Originally appeared in the New York Times on January 23, 2003
.....Many questions remain about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and arsenal and it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers. It is failing in spectacular fashion. By both its actions and its inactions, Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, <b>but that it is a nation with something to hide.</b> Iraq is still treating inspections as a game.<b> It should know that time is running out........</b>
|
There is too much on the record, spewed by these thugs, that contradicts what we know to be true. In the face of this information, your stance appears unreasonable, and with the shift in Bush's poll numbers, on the fringe.
They seem to lie, even about things that don't seem to require lying.
You seem to support and appologize for them, even in instances where it would not erode your core beliefs to act in your own best interest by questioning what they are telling you.
I have no idea if it was legal or legitimate to attack Afghanistan after 9/11. Just like Fitzgerald's analogy of Libby "throwing sand in the umpire's face", so he could not "see the play", these thugs have not allowed you or I to see "the play" either. How can we know what is actually justified, they are not being "up front" with us....from at least the morning of 9/11 through today!
Last edited by host; 11-05-2005 at 12:02 PM..
|