Spain Bombings

[Jedi Master Carr]

Anybody else following this? There are about 200 dead and it could go higher. Right now it looks like it might be the work of the ETA (the Basque Seperatists) they have never done anything this ambitious but they have killed over 500 people in the last 15 years or so. So they do have a history of violence.

[ReaperFett]

They also have a history of giving phone call warnings though.



Apparently the UK government is sure it's Al Quaeda but isn't saying anything publicly.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That doesn't mean anything The ETA are radicals and really want to get an independent state and they might be getting more desperate. I heard some reports on CNN saying that the ETA might have went to Al'Quadi for help that seems like a possibility.

[JediBoricua]

Hmmm...all this just 3 days before elections. Imagine how tight security will be for this year's US elections.

This has turned into a major political mess, today spanish newspapers have extensive editorials blaming Aznar, Spain's PM, of hiding proof that the government knew Al-Quaeda had operations in the Iberian Penninsula and that they were planning a major attack soon. They are accusing him of bringing the War on Iraq to Spain.

[Jedieb]

The more the bombings are investigated the more Al-Quadi looks to blame. Hell, it could have been extremists acting on behalf of Al-Quadi. The cooridination of the blasts and the lack of warning are more indicative of Al-Quadi than the ETA.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The dynamite and actual bombing technique is reminisant of ETA, and nor were there any suicide bombers. I would suggest the worst may be true, Al-Quadia helped ETA carry this out, much like Al-Quadia helped JI execute Bali.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I say that is possible, the only thing was done by remote which is different from Al'Quadi, I think you are right Marcus and that thought is scary if they are now helping other terrorist groups.

[Dutchy]

The Spanish minister of Foreign Affairs Acebes declared that they found a videotape in which al-Qaeda claims the attacks. On the tape they say it's a retaliation for Spain's cooperation with the US in the Iraqi war. They threatened with more attacks.

They found the tape near a mosque in Madrid. They still have to check on the autheticity of it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well there was one grouped who claimed responsibility who aren't reliable they say they are with Al'Quadi but they have claimed attacks which they just didn't do (the massive power outages in New York for example) so I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Jedieb]

It seems the bombings tipped the balance and forced the ruling conservative party, which backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq over the overwhelming opposition of the Spanish population, out of office. The Socialist are in.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.blasts.election/index.html

[Darth Viscera]

what the crap. that does not compute. I can't help but get the sinking feeling that this was a great political coup for Al Qaeda. The US will certainly be bombed by Al Qaeda a few days before the presidential election now :(

[Jedi Master Carr]

According to Polls the populist party would have won anyway, the spanish people just didn't support the war which doomed this govt.

[Jedieb]

Pre-election polls had favored the ruling party to win handily.

But on election day voters expressed anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=2&u=/ap/20040314/ap_on_re_eu/spain_elections

It's not a question of whether or not the incoming party wants to fight terroist. They WILL. They're just going to actually LISTEN to the people of Spain. Right now, the people of Spain want those responsible for the bombings to pay. If the government does find that Al-Qaida was responsible, which looks more and more likely, they'll go after them. What you can bet they won't do is go off and support another invasion of a country that DOESN'T have ties to Al-Qaida or pose them a threat. Many of those voters blamed the ruling government for getting them into this situation and you can hardly blame them. I don't like the idea of Al-Qaida being able to effect the outcome of the election. It makes me sick. But those Spanish voters were angry and they laid the blame sqaurely on the shoulders of the government in power.

"I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq," said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, who voted in Barcelona.

I think it's a given that Al-Qaida and other terroists are not done with the U.S. Whether or not they're able to strike before the election is anybody's guess. I don't care who wins, we're going to get hit again, it's only a matter of time. No one should feel secure because of the absence of any attacks since 9/11 or a color code terror alert system. It took terroists TWO attempts to bring down the Twin Towers and they were over 7 years apart. I see no reason to believe the next one won't be a few years away.

[JediBoricua]

Like Jedieb said, on wednesday all major polls had the Popular Party winning the election without much trouble. Besides the war, the PP has done a very good job with Spain's economy and has turned the country from one of the poorest in Eastern Europe, to a rising power. So it was expected for them to win, and Aznar had surfed the Iraq wave to his favor (unlike Blair), he was to be remembered as a great PM.

But thursday changed all that. The bombings and what major media outlet are calling a 'government coverup' outraged millions and made them remember the anti-war debate, the hawks in the PP,etc. When you analyze the numbers you see that many left-wing parties (there are over 170 parties in Spain) lost support, thus we can asume that millions moved over to the Socialist to ensure that the PP was ousted.

It will be very interesting how the rest plays out, the Socialist had promised to remove all troops from Iraq and analyze their role on the US led War on Terrorism. This has all the markings of becoming a major political issue in the US and in the UN. The US will probably lose a major ally in Iraq, making it even harder to police the country. The White House is sure to pressure the new government to keep the troops in Iraq, and they will use the bombings as a bargaining point, the US has the resources and the intelligence to capture those responsible and hand them to Spanish law.

Expect major diplomatic moves soon.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The White House is sure to pressure the new government to keep the troops in Iraq, and they will use the bombings as a bargaining point,

Are you kidding? There is no way anyone would think of trying that, not when it's becoming clearer some sort of Al-Quada ally or cell did the bombing. The Spanish people were 90% against the war in Iraq and any involvement, the election loss is a direct result of that disapproval.

No, Spain will be out, the populace have punished the leaders for going into a war with no support. It has been a stark proof that Iraq did NOT make the world safer, but instead, had the opposite effect.

Thank you Mr Howard, I'm quite certain Australia is on the hit list and will be hit sooner than later.

[Jedieb]

Spain has less than 1,500 troops in Iraq. Pulling them out at the end of June shouldn't be too much of a problem and I doubt the U.S. will do much to try to stop the Socialist from removing their troops. Ideally, the U.S. would like to be able to start scaling back our troops once sovereingty gets handed over to the Iraqis.

You may well be next Marcus. I just hope we're both wrong and you guys dodge the bullet.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Thank you Mr Howard, I'm quite certain Australia is on the hit list and will be hit sooner than later.

I've got news for you Marcus, Al Qaeda will bomb Australia regardless of your prime minister or your foreign policies. If they wake up one day and say "bombing downtown Sidney and inflicting 5,000 casualties would serve the greater glory of Allah" then that's what those malevolent bastards are going to do. This war is about killing them before they kill you.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Oh shut up. Al-quada had no damn idea where Australia even was until Howard decided to kiss Bush! YOU are the one who should wake up and see what disaster the Bush foriegn policy is brinign to the world - Found the WMD yet, BTW? Australia was simply NOT a terroist target and would not have been if were not for the regressive and BS policies of my goverment, which, I despise and am ashamed of, for they are the politics of fear, hatred and Wedge.

It is a fact that involvement in a fake war for reasons that do not exist, against a country that was NOT a clear and present danger as the lies of Fox spewed out has put Sydney on the bombers map and I am absoluty furious! I just cant wait to vote out that buttlicking, morally bankrupt creep in the Lodge.

All I can do right now is live life as I do and hope that when Al-quada decide payback is due, I'm not within 10 kms of the event. It's clearly coming. A great big FU to Bush and Howard, thanks for making the world less safe.

Oh, but dont worry, I actually dont fear a terroist strike, because I know how unlike it will be I will die in one. But I know there's going to be one coming and I know it's going to be like Bali or Madrid.

[Darth Viscera]

Yeah, because we all know that 9/11 was Al Qaeda's way of retaliating against us for Operation Iraqi Freedom :rolleyes

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Yeah, because we all know that 9/11 was Al Qaeda's way of retaliating against us for Operation Iraqi Freedom :rolleyes

Oh, nice switch of focus. What a typical Fox News viewpoint


Now, let's see. Bin Laden was gunning for USA for what reason again? Oh yeah, military bases in his homeland. was he after Spain then? No. Had he even heard of Australia? Did he, more to the point, care?

Going into Afghanistan, a known hotbed of Al-Quada activty was justified. Operation bomb Iraq flat was not. Where are the WMD? Where was the clear and present danger? Didnt Bush say bombign Iraq would make the world safer? Or was the Rumsfield? Or was that Blair and Howard?

There is a terroism conference in Aust right now where jsut about every 'expert' is there. and you know what they are all saying?

Go on. have a guess.

And have a guess which scrawny Aussie runt is denying like crazy, even as chickens come home to roost.

[Darth Viscera]

What sort of utter madness is this? Afghanistan was justified, so you don't mind Australia being suicide bombed in retaliation for Operation Enduring Freedom, but Iraq was unjustified, so you're afraid of being suicide bombed in retaliation for Operation Iraqi Freedom?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Iraq was unjustified because the only reason was to get rid of Saddam but if that is their policy now what about the other dictators in the world? You got Burma (to me the worst regime in the world), North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Lybia, the Congo and lets not forget China (the people there have about as much freedom as those in Iraq did and the Chinesse have killed 50x more people than Saddam has). I personally don't think that should be the policy of the U.S. Mostly going to war with these countries would be costly and China would end in a Nuclear war that would devistate lives and kill more people than WW1 and WW 2 combined. Now if you want to say we can ignore countries that can cause war like that we still aren't doing anything about the easy countries like Burma, the Sudan and the Congo those places we could role over and we are basically ignoring them, IMO.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
What sort of utter madness is this? Afghanistan was justified, so you don't mind Australia being suicide bombed in retaliation for Operation Enduring Freedom, but Iraq was unjustified, so you're afraid of being suicide bombed in retaliation for Operation Iraqi Freedom?


What part of Iraq's justification has fallen flat on face dont you understand?

[JediBoricua]

What I meant about the White House using the bombings as a bargain point, and obviously this wont be made in public appearances, was that Spain needs the kind of intel. that only the US can offer. The new administration has to pursue the terrorists, and for that they need money, intel and human resources.

And don't get confused here, the vast majority of spanish were against the war, yet they were going to reelect the government. The polls before thursday clearly show, that although the Popular Party was going to loose some points, they would remain in power and hold the majority in Parliament. This was, mainly, a reaction to the good economic record of Aznar's policies. Once again, it's the economy stupid. It could be the contrary in the US, where the majority still favors the Iraq War, yet the economy is a major issue that could cost the election to the President.

But by having this attacks three days before the election, and the way the administration handled the situation, claiming it was ETA while the proof clearly showed Al Qaeda, reopened closed wounds and 8% more went to the polls than in 2000. The PP was accused of insensibility and dishonesty, because they tried to directly capitalize from the attacks by blaming ETA, thus ndirectly blaming the socialist whose affiliates had made a 'peace agreement' with the vasque terrorists weeks before.

Taking all this into consideration one could make a strong cause saying the terrorists greatly influenced the election. Which is why nothing will happen in the US before the election because that would only prompt Bush's reelection, IMO.


About the 1,500 spanish troops in Iraq, their leaving will not be a serious logistic problem, but it will be a major blow to the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration.

[Jedieb]

The incoming President heated up the anti -Bush rhetoric again today. It looks like he's going to pull those troops out of there.

"I want to create an alliance against violence and all kinds of terrorism," he said. "I don't want to create my own war."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html


What part of Iraq's justification has fallen flat on face dont you understand?
Quick recap:
War in Afghanistan = Good
Taliban=Al Qaida = 9/11
War in Iraq = "Flat on face"
Saddam not responsible for 9/11
Saddam not conncected to Al Qaida
Saddak didn't have WMD

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
What part of Iraq's justification has fallen flat on face dont you understand?

Is your retort in any way relevant to my preceding post, or did you just want to go back and beat the dead horse again?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Is your retort in any way relevant to my preceding post, or did you just want to go back and beat the dead horse again?

Why yes it, was. Take your Fox blinkers off and read between the lines.

[Darth Viscera]

Oh, enough of the allegations that I've been thoroughly indoctrinated by Fox news. I haven't watched that in 6 months. My opinions are my own, I'll have you know.

And besides, I established in my original post that you're of the opinion that the Iraq war was unjustified. You don't have to keep repeating it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/15/19179/9758

Interesting article - terrorists caused the vote to swing, or was it public anger at being lied to?

[Darth Viscera]

The same way that there are long-standing laws against electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place on election day, there should be laws prohibiting terror attacks from taking place within 1 week of an election day, with the consequence that if an attack does take place that the election be delayed for a period of 2 weeks. Democracies should not be vulnerable to such direct manipulation of the voting process by terrorists.

[Dutchy]

It's nice to see Darth Viscera has run totally out of arguments. :)

[Darth Viscera]

no, that's just something I was thinking about in regards to Spain that I felt I needed to share. It's likely that the U.S. will be bombed a few days ahead of the november elections, and if so, our reaction will be quite different from that of the Spanish.

[Jedieb]

Why yes it, was. Take your Fox blinkers off and read between the lines.
:lol

[Syren Wyssholt]

(I apologize that this will most likely stray from the main topic)

First, let me understand something: Um, wasn't Operation Iraqi Freedom after the terrorist attack of 9-11?

I've sat here reading through this thread, nodding at some good points made and shaking my head at others. Such as Marcus stating that Australia is going to become (or already is) a target for a terrorist attack. So what's your point, exactly? Terrorists don't need political reasoning for their attacks - they simply do it. To strike terror into the hearts of their victims. Yup, Australia just might be the next target - just as China might be, Russia might be, the Ukraine, Canada, France, the Bahamas, Antarctica, etc etc.

Hussein has had over twelve years to comply with NATO - he fiddle-farted around and failed to comply. Personally, I'm damn glad that the US has a President who has enough balls to go after the Hussein's/Bin Laden's of the World. NAtO sure as hell didn't do a damn thing. After reading and hearing everything there had been stated about NATO, the history of NATO with Hussein, etc - NATO is a joke.

I'm sure I'm going to take a lot of ripping for fully supporting Bush and the war, but oh well.

Had 9-11 occured in another nation - Australia, for example - I am willing to bet that the peoples native to that country would be singing a whole different tune about this entire situation.

On a personal note: I am an American. I am proud to be an American. Sure, our country has many faults but our country has many good things that many other nations do no have. No matter what America does or says, we are going to be shat upon. Why? Because its human nature, I guess. I give Tony Blair much more respect than I ever had for the man in the past for standing up to the British people and announcing that his country would stand by the US throughout this entire war. That took a lot of guts, considering he very well could have lost his job and much more.

I was on my way to work when news of the bombings in Madrid were announced. I feel for those people. No one - and I mean no one on earth should ever have to suffer from terrorist attacks, wars, etc.

The Middle East has always been "at war" with someone. Either their neighboring nations, their own countrymen or other nations around the world. (Or so it seems its always been that way since the dawn of man). IMO, they always will be at war.

It's a pity. It truly is. I don't think there is a way to end terrorism. Sad to say, but its how I see it. The Middle East doesn't like the US policies. Ok so what. Stick to your side of the planet and we'll stick to ours. Neither nation has the right to try forcing their views on each other. But to sit there and take innocent human lives all in the name of ... what? 'Allah'?

Screw Allah. Sorry, but no "Supreme Being" and no "God" that I would want to believe in would be smiling down upon me if I were to go around killing others in their name. IMO, money is not the root of all evil - religion is. (No, I am not atheist, I am not a satanist and I follow no religion. Please remember I am stating personal opinion.)

And the wise-crack made about being 'brainwashed' by FOX news: There is not one person on the face of the planet whose opinions are NOT swayed by the media. Media is just one of the larger pieces in this chess game we call life. Unfortunately, its also the most influencial.

Anyways, I just had to get those things stated. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone so please don't take anything I said in that way.

[Marcus Telcontar]

So what's your point, exactly?

Same point I always make, Pinky. Bush has completely and utterly eroded the sympathy and world union gained after 11/9. They created and entered a fake war for fake reasons that can not be justified. The world, due to the boofhead policies of Bush and co is not a safer place and nor are terrorist truly being stopped.

If you were not in america, you WILL have a totally different POV. Mainly, Bush is a boofhead, Iraq was not justified and the war on terror is going very badly - and the world i NOT a safer place because Boofhead and co throw their weight around and branish nice shiney guns.

I am very prud Aussie and I for one will welcome our new Get Our Troops Out Of Iraq Because The War Was Built On A Lie Overlords when elctions come around this year. Mark Latham, our I hope soon to be Prime Minister is right, Howard and co are a conga line of suckholes and Boofhead is the most dangerous President ever. I love his straight talk!

[Syren Wyssholt]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Same point I always make, Pinky. Bush has completely and utterly eroded the sympathy and world union gained after 11/9. They created and entered a fake war for fake reasons that can not be justified. The world, due to the boofhead policies of Bush and co is not a safer place and nor are terrorist truly being stopped.

If you were not in america, you WILL have a totally different POV. Mainly, Bush is a boofhead, Iraq was not justified and the war on terror is going very badly - and the world i NOT a safer place because Boofhead and co throw their weight around and branish nice shiney guns.


Ok Brain :), I see that you don't really have a point -

First of all, BUSH hasn't completely and utterly eroded the sympathy and world union gained after 9-11 - that sounds like FOX News talk to me :) People, as a whole race, have been de-sensitized long before this war was ever entered into.

Fake war??? Sorry, but I don't think those who are living each and every night with missles and bombs going off overhead will call it a "fake war". IMO, and in the opinions of numerous others -this war is very justified. Just because it wasn't 3,000 Aussies that were slaughtered on 9-11 doesn't mean it isn't justified. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al-Queda, terrorists, etc are in fact clear and present dangers to the WORLD.

As stated before, NATO gave Hussein over 12 years to provide proof that he/the country did NOT have WMD's in their possession, the ability to create WMD's and to comply with numerous other terms. Hussein failed on all accounts.

Second of all, why does Bush and the policies of the US bother you so much, Marcus? It's not like you even live here in the US and you're not a registered American voter, so what truly gives you the right to bash my country and its policies? I suppose when you migrate to the US, become a US citizen and a registered US voter, you can gripe all you want about US policies and politicians ;) Just how do our policies affect you in Aussie-land?

What has Australia done to help stop terrorism? What has Australia done to help make the world a safer place? According to the news we 'bumpkins' here over in the US - nothing.

Contrary to what you stated, if I lived in another country, I'd be busting my lil white butt to get to America! No, my view would not be any different than what it is now. I am damn grateful that I live in a country where I don't have to show a passport just to cross the border to visit another state; where I don't have to teach my children how to properly wear a gas mask and hold them as they cry in terror when missles and bombs are going off over our heads. I'm grateful I live in a country where there are men and women who are willing to die for our rights and our freedom and I'm damn proud that I have a US Constitutional right to voice my opinion!

Terrorism cannot be stopped - ever. Plain and simple folks. There will always be terrorists. Now, you can decide to live your life in fear of what may or may not ever happen to your or your country during the span of your years here on earth or you can decide to live your life to the fullest, be happy and thank whatever God it is that you might pray too that you are not living the lives that so many others are.

Personally, I choose to be happy, live my life to the fullest and I don't worry one bit of what could happen. That's a waste of time and energy.

(A curious question - I understand that England (?) doesn't allow guns into their country. Is Australia the same way?)

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

Yes they are, with the exception of small caliber rimfire long guns and shotguns, and even those you have to essentially be a farmer to get them.

I won't inject my obvious social commentary on that one though.

Also, can you please disassociate 9-11 from Iraq. Despite what the Bush administration wants to tell us, they really aren't related.

[Darth Viscera]

Hear hear @ Syren

[Jedieb]

More utter madness!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Clarke and others will be testifying later this week to the 9/11 panel. And before we start dismissing Clarke as a Clinton holdover with a grudge there's this to consider;


Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorrism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.
This is a foreign policy expert who's worked under 3 different REPUBLICAN administrations. Now, if only the President would cancel a few more trips to the rodeo he might be able to spare the 9/11 panel more than an hour.:rolleyes

[Syren Wyssholt]

_____

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

_____

I have to agree. Yet another disgruntled politician is going to go around spewing whatever he can in order to attempt to make himself look like an angel.


Bunch of people in the Washington circle get together and decide "Well, we need to ruin the rep of so and so in order to prevent re-election. And though I sat quiet during the entire 9-11 situation, its now that I will come out and not accept any part of it as being my responsibility. Lets blame someone else."

Funny thing, this "responsibility" - No one is "responsible" for anything unless it proves to be a good. It's all fingerpointing at everyone else. Reminds me of a bunch of school-age kids in the playground. One kid hurts another and when the kid tattles, the one who did the harm denies it all then goes on to blame his action on someone else or another factor.

So of course, the media (Such a nasty word - media) - will print only portions of what was truly said so that the public opinions are swayed. :)

Truth is muddled so deeply between the pages that its lost and no one cares. Somewhere in the middle of all the whosaidwhats, lies the truth. No one cares what the truth is about what was 'really' said in the conversations. These people involved are going to take it out of context, twist it so that it works for their own personal agendas, and go with it. I bet if one were to investigate far enough back, they just might find a connection between the two. Oh and yes, I did read the part that stated "There was no connection ever." But I notice how they also failed to print just how far back into that investigation they truly went.

_______________

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

________________________

Probably deserve some blame??? Hello McFly! Why didn't he just say "I deserve blame, too." Nah, can't openly admit that you just screwed up. Must leave a shadow of doubt in the minds of the herd of sheep we call the public. Notice how Clarke attempts to justify it by stating "But ...." Turning the blame and the focus of attention away from himself and pointing it to Rice and the Bush Cabinet.

If this guy was supposed to be like a "Czar on Terrorism" and he's so damn good that he's lasted through three presidencies, why didn't he pull some of that DC clout he no doubtly has and get it acted upon?

Why doesn't the media report the conversations that have taken place between people like Hussein, Bin Laden, Al-Queda and whomever it is that they discuss things with? Don't tell me they can't get any to report. Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, and Oprah sure seem to be able to find those who cannot be found to interview them. Can't tell me that atleast portions of conversations can't be found either.

(What do we have satellites for besides a million cable channels that we don't need?)

Elections are coming up. Time for the usual political dirt slinging to begin. Seriously, I'd like to see an election go off without the hash being thrown. Every election turns into (or begins) with the childish antics of three-year olds. "- Oh-yeah-my-daddy-can-beat-up-your-daddy" crap.

I have yet to hear one politician focus on the issues, propose actual solutions and not lie to the public. Instead, they are so worried over their opponents, that they have to resort to pointing out where others have failed in order to make themselves look big.

Please. Get them all serious psychiatric help or atleast into counselling. Its no wonder people can't get along.

[Morgan Evanar]

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Come on Clarke isn't doing this for that reason, the man was hired by Regean I say he isn't biased. I think the man is right honestly.

[JediBoricua]

I will pick his book sometime next week, I will comment on it then.

But knowing partisan politics and the way key governments posts shuffle with administration change, I would take very seriously the words of a top governmnet official who succesfully worked with Reagan and Clinton.

These are the two most polarizing presidents in the last fifty years (liberals hate Reagan, conservatives despise Clinton) and he rode that storm succesfully. I would not dismisse his claim as easily.

And Syren, you can mumble all that patriotic speech as much as you like, and I do understand your feelings, if my country were attacked I'm not sure I would react. But, as patriotic as you feel you cannot make me believe that after a year of full control in Iraq and the capture of all major officers including Saddam, that the US has not been able to show the world hard proof of WMD's or any ties with Al-Quaeda and 9/11. Let's face it, either it was a fake war, or as naively as it sounds, the whole operation was based on a 'hunch'.

With Clarke now we have two executive officers whose testimony clearly show an 'obsession' with Iraq on the part of Bush' White House.

[Jedieb]

I picked up the book yesterday. it's a very compelling and indepth look at what was happening in the White House on Sept. 11th. This is going to be a nasty political week. You don't have to get too far into the book to see why Clarke's charges are so damaging. We're talking about the individual who was running the situation room in the White House for goodness sake during the attacks.


Probably deserve some blame??? Hello McFly! Why didn't he just say "I deserve blame, too." Nah, can't openly admit that you just screwed up. Must leave a shadow of doubt in the minds of the herd of sheep we call the public. Notice how Clarke attempts to justify it by stating "But ...." Turning the blame and the focus of attention away from himself and pointing it to Rice and the Bush Cabinet.

Clarke was trying to get a cabinet level meeting on Al-Qaida for MONTHS and was largely ignored. He didn't get his meeting until Sept. 5th. As for meeting with the President, that didn't happen until AFTER 9/11.


Why doesn't the media report the conversations that have taken place between people like Hussein, Bin Laden, Al-Queda and whomever it is that they discuss things with?
Uh, maybe because they DIDN'T occur? Again, Clarke and other terrorist expert would look at the President and Rumsfield dumfoundedly whenever they brought up Iraq and 9/11. There simply wasn't any intelligence to show Saddam was behind 9/11. But the President made them go back and look and then someone else in the adminstration made them go back and look a SECOND time. I guess they should have called Oprah. :lol

[Syren Wyssholt]

(Just a quick post)

____

But knowing partisan politics and the way key governments posts shuffle with administration change, I would take very seriously the words of a top governmnet official who succesfully worked with Reagan and Clinton.

____

That's kind of scary considering Clinton disregards National Security.




When you've had over 12 years to hide any and all evidence, do you truly think you'd leave it laying around where it can be easily found?

____
Clarke was trying to get a cabinet level meeting on Al-Qaida for MONTHS and was largely ignored. He didn't get his meeting until Sept. 5th. As for meeting with the President, that didn't happen until AFTER 9/11.
___

And you cannot tell me that Clarke still couldn't use any of his clout on Capitol Hill to force a cabinet level meeting. You don't get to be a "Czar on Terrorism" and not make any formidable contacts along the way.

If there's no way for him to create or possess WMD's, then why not just comply with NATO and say "Hey, sure thing dudes. Come on over, check everything out and let me know if there's anything else I can do for you."

( :) I think they should have called Oprah too )

The term fake war implies to me that no one gets hurt. Sorry, over 3000 innocent people were killed on 9-11 and more during this whole 'fake war'. (I didn't state that Saddam was behind 9-11.)

And you cannot tell me that Hussein, Bin Laden and Al-Queda never had conversations with whomever it is they sit around planning this crap with. (My post that refers to this infers that the three talk to each other, my mistake as that's not what I meant to say).

On a personal note - I still support this war and the Pres for doing what he's done.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

On a moderation note, Syren you set off the swear filter in your first post, please edit to a more appropriate word and the warning on this thread will be lifted. :)

[Jedieb]

That's kind of scary considering Clinton disregards National Security.
Are you kidding? The Clinton adminstration uncovered the Bush Sr. assasination plot, bombed Iraq itelligence and as a result we had no Iraqi sponsered terroists attacks against the U.S. until guess when? The current war in Iraq. The reason part of L.A. International isn't a smoking crater is because a truck load of explosives were stopped at the Canadian border, again, under Clinton's watch. After the Cole, there was retaliation, after the embassy bombings, there was retaliation. Bottom line, NYC got turned into a terror zone under Dubya's watch, not Clinton's.


And you cannot tell me that Clarke still couldn't use any of his clout on Capitol Hill to force a cabinet level meeting. You don't get to be a "Czar on Terrorism" and not make any formidable contacts along the way.
He was DEMOTED. His requests for that cabinet level meeting are well documented. And for what it's worth, one of Rummy's quotes today was that Clarke was "out of the loop." He tried to get that meeting but it kept getting put off, period. He wasn't being listened to as much as he should have.


And you cannot tell me that Hussein, Bin Laden and Al-Queda never had conversations with whomever it is they sit around planning this crap with.
Ya know, if Hussein and Bin Laden ever did have conversations they'd go along the lines of this;
Bin Laden: "I hope you die."
Hussien: "Right back at you."

Just because they both hated the U.S. doesn't mean they didn't hate each other. Bin Laden has nothing but contempt for the current government in Saudi Arabia and you know he wasn't too thrilled with Hussein's either.

And a quick update on why O'Neil, Kay, and Clarke have made the last couple of months tough ones for Bush.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4635293

[imported_Eve]

Does anyone here think getting Saddam out of Iraq was a bad idea?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Not me.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It wasn't a bad thing but the problem is the reasons for going to war were not true. Also I have problems taking out countries with evil leaders there are several out there now with North Korea being the best example. To me Kim Jung is more nuts than Saddam, his people are starving to death, and he has nukes. We have more of a reason to do something against them. And what have we done? Had a few talks that have gone nowhere, and North Korea is still building more nukes which they could sell to the highest bidder or use to threaten Northern Asia. At least Clinton did something about North Korea, Bush has done squat, IMO and the situation is only going to get worse up there.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Eve
Does anyone here think getting Saddam out of Iraq was a bad idea? The timing was less than desireable.

Kicking Sadam out good. Kicking Sadam out when it was done? Bad.

[JediBoricua]

The timing was less than desireable.

Agreed.

Also the way it was done. By going at it solo (ok, ok with the Coaliton of the 'willing') now the US has a huge problem on it's hand, and with a mounting deficit a huge economic anchor that is holding the economy from moving foward.

[Jedieb]

Clarke's book is an interesting history on how we arrived at our present day War on Terror. From the late 60's to today, he chronicles his career in government. One of the topics he covers is the Gulf War. In retrospect, that should have been the time to cripple Saddam. If coalition forces had gone ahead and destroyed his Republican Guard then Saddam may well have been SOL. He certainly wouldn't have had the capacity to slaughter the Kurds the way he did. He could also have been weak enough to have been overthrown. Although we have no idea who or what would have taken his place. But he still was no where near the threat that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida ended up being.

Here's another thing to consider. We left Saddam in power, which meant we couldn't pull out of Saudi Arabia as we had promised the King we would. This led to Bi Laden speaking out more and more against the Saudi monarchy thus leading to his expulsion in 94. He was already involved in the first WTC attack in 93, but getting his expulsion from SA only made him more determined and deadly.

The Bush attack dogs have been out in full force the last couple of days. But I get the feeling that some independents and swing voters may not be buying all of it. This is yet another person who's spoken out against the administration and been slammed by them. Here's one of my favorites;


"Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."
– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

The truth is Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11.

Then Cheney goes on OxyContinBaugh to fire some barbs and he comes out with this gem, which I earlier attributed to Rummy;

"Well, he [Clarke] wasn't – he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." – Vice President Dick Cheney
But Cheney should have checked with the White HOuse because they had a press release a few days earlier which stated the following; "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." – White House Press Release, 3/21/04

This is just a bad week for the Bush camp. They should be grateful this is happening now and not in September or October. They've got time to recover. But for a campaign centered around Bush being a wartime president and touting his job of fighting terror, this week's 9/11 testimony, Clarke's book, and the constant defensive attacks they've had to put out against Clarke, don't fit their campaign image very well.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
Agreed.

Also the way it was done. By going at it solo (ok, ok with the Coaliton of the 'willing') now the US has a huge problem on it's hand, and with a mounting deficit a huge economic anchor that is holding the economy from moving foward.

10 years of peace would be nice to stabilise our economy, but I think old Yoosamma bin-layden has different plans for us :( as far as wars go, this one is on a pretty tight budget, though. Imagine, if we were spending the same percentage of money on bio-engineering non-explosive arabs as we spent on World War 2, we would be spending 16.93 trillion dollars a year, when we only make ~11.3.