|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
....So isn't it a waste of time to attempt to convince the other person that you're right, regardless of what "side" you're arguing for? Perhaps we'd make a lot more progress if we stopped wondering how we're supposed to relate to Bush supporters, or how we can get those with more liberal leanings to see the light, and instead accepted that we will, in many ways, never understand each other. Instead, we could focus on learning how to live with those we don't understand and finding ways to compromise, rather than making futile attempts to completely change someone's mind.
Some food for thought. Discuss.
|
I have to disagree, because the facts that occasionally come out, know no right or left.
This is the best way that I can think of as to why I "keep going" on this forum. If I didn't participate here, I wouldn't be motivated to have put all of this where I can retrieve it from memory, and put it up for others to consider.
I offer the opportunity, and I already gathered it up, so I know what I know, because of it. The examples below, speak volumes, they are damned tough to argue with. I know that anyone who still looks favorably upon the people quoted below, are "reality challenged". I don't suspect it....because of this "material", I know it. I don't need to be right. The information, in their own words, tells me I was right before they finally were cornered into making the admissions displayed below.
This "stuff" comes out all too infrequently, but it is truth, as close to unspun truth as is ever available. It cuts like a circular saw through mountains of "spin" and un or mis informed opnion. It is what it is....
Nothing to do with OP click to show
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040810-8.html
August 10, 2004
....MR. McCLELLAN: There typically tend to be a few. So you'll be there to cover it.
Q Are you satisfied with Senator Kerry's explanation that he would have voted for the war?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you, I think it is an intriguing new nuance. First, the Senator voted for the war in Iraq. Then during the Democratic primary, he switches positions and declares he is the anti-war candidate. Then, just yesterday, with less than 90 days to go before the election, the Senator now says -- or now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq.
So, you know, I think we appreciate him finally clearing things up with less than 90 days before the election to go. This is after all this time, and after months of questioning the President's motives, the Senator now agrees with the President that knowing what we know now, it was right to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power -- even though we haven't found the stockpiles of weapons that we all believed were there.
Q That's not what he said. He said he would have voted to give the President the authority.
MR. McCLELLAN: He said, I'll answer the President's question directly: yes. And so now he has finally come up and cleared things up with a new nuance, with less than 90 days to go before the election and he now agrees that it was the right decision to go into Iraq.
Q That's not what he said, though.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, knowing what we know now, that it was the right decision to go into Iraq....
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006
Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- <h3>who had relations with Zarqawi.</h3>
(Watch him deliver the "Zarqawi" lie in a 2 minute video, here:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bus...-08-21-062.wmv )
Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. .......
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.
Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.
MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that.
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......
........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......
.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......
<h5>Cheney was saying it, even though this was reported, just two days before:</h5>
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2410591
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....
.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."......
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
<h3>Sept. 15, 2006</h3>
......<H3>MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda.</h3> A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, <h3>and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq</h3>. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <h3>I never said there was an operational relationship.....</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...626B8B4F9F8%7D
Text of President Bush's weekly radio address
By MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:55 AM ET <h2>Jul 28, 2007</h2>
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I visited with troops at Charleston Air Force Base. These fine men and women are serving courageously to protect our country against dangerous enemies. The terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again. To stop them, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals need the best possible information about who the terrorists are, where they are, and what they are planning.
One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- <h3>also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it.
Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country. Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.</h3> As a result, our Nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>October 26, 2001</h2>
Multi-front Operation, 2001 Video & Timeline President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill
Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation
The East Room
... The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced. We've seen the enemy, and the murder of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people. They recognize no barrier of morality. They have no conscience. The terrorists cannot be reasoned with. Witness the recent anthrax attacks through our Postal Service.
Our country is grateful for the courage the Postal Service has shown during these difficult times. We mourn the loss of the lives of Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen; postal workers who died in the line of duty. And our prayers go to their loved ones.
I want to assure postal workers that our government is testing more than 200 postal facilities along the entire Eastern corridor that may have been impacted. And we will move quickly to treat and protect workers where positive exposures are found.
But one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated, and they must be brought to justice. (Applause.) And that is the purpose of this legislation. Since the 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.
We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict. We may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement officials, under the most trying conditions. They are serving this country with excellence, and often with bravery.
They deserve our full support and every means of help that we can provide. We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.
For example, this legislation gives law enforcement officials better tools to put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money-laundering. Secondly, it gives intelligence operations and criminal operations the chance to operate not on separate tracks, but to share vital information so necessary to disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs.
As of today, we're changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. <h3>The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.
As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.</h3> Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants.
Law enforcement agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate, even when they're after the same suspect. Under this new law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. ......
....... It is now my honor to sign into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
END 10:57 A.M. EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20011027.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>October 27, 2001</h3>
Radio Address of the President to the Nation
.....The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.
<h3>When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. </h3> It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike....
..... Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity.
Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. <h3>But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. </h3> Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.
In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.......
...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists.
<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2> And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.
Thank you for listening.
END
...and what is this....40 months later....could it be????
<h2>The Flop:</h2>
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006...t-he-says.html
....<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2>
And I can assure all Americans that
these important new statutes will be
enforced to the full. Thank you for
listening.
Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." <h3>Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>December 19, 2005</h2>
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room
......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.
The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. <h3>You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</h3>
And for some reason which I cannot begin to fathom, <h2>the press simply ignores all of his previous statements to the contrary.</h2>
...and seven months later, still....no, not more
<h2> Flop ?????</h2>
Mr. President....I thought that you boasted that the surveillance technology "gap" had been fixed....you took credit for fixing it....<b>59 months before you said this:</b>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060907-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 7, 2006
President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror
Cobb Galleria Centre
Atlanta, Georgia
......Last year, details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court. That challenge was recently upheld by a federal district judge in Michigan. My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling. We are appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful. Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program. The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress. <b>So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.</b> (Applause.)
When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. <h3>Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account.......</h3>
|
Last edited by Cynthetiq; 04-19-2008 at 01:53 PM..
Reason: used HIDE function to clear up the overflow
|