U.S. Officials: Al Qaeda Plans Major Assassination

[Guest charlie]

So far NONE of the sources that have been posted to harm Bush have any credibility. You know who does?

Yes they do.

That was a long post Yod and still you avoid the hard things. Why haven't the borders been secure? Don't you find it odd that Pres. Bush and the bin Laden's have so many close business ties? Isn't it ironic that Haliburton is benefiting from this entire situation and our vice-pres. is the former CEO of that company? Don't you think there wouldn't have been a 9/11 in the first place, or any of those other terrorist attacks if the U.S.A. had of maintained a "hands off" approach when it comes to meddling in foreign affairs? Do you think it's right to label terrorists "freedom fighters" when they're perpetrating terrorist acts; is it right to help them?

Bush haters, liberal, liberal media , blah, blah, blah. Why didn't the liberal media splash Neil Bush's name all over the place during the 2000 election if they're so biased to the left? I wondered about that at the time and I was still a Bush supporter then.

I wouldn't defend him if I didn't believe the Bush haters were lying for their own selfish reasons.

I've given you many solid reasons why I don't like Pres. Bush anymore. Which ones do you consider selfish on my part?

You do your best to derail some of these threads Yod but you come up short and you ALWAYs resort to some sort of name-calling. You sound desperate.

Edited August 20, 2004 by charlie

[Steff]

Because I can't remember the loser's name? I'm %100 sure he will lose. Would you like to make a wager on that? If not, then you also realize that he's a loser.

He may not win, but at least he's a credible canidate who actually has solutions for our problems. Solutions that have been proven to work. And again Ad Hominem attacks on a canidate because he's not GWB.

At least my choice for a canidate has a clean record.

You guys have a credibility problem when you attack Bush yet give Kerry a pass.

Kerry Isn't President. And we haven't given him a pass. How many times have we said Kerry isn't the answer either?

He's been terrible fiscally. Mostly because he allows the liberal members of Congress to have their pet programs (Kennedy's Education Bill - The Farm Bill) in an attempt to reach across the aisle.

He's gone back on a promise to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (the capital of Israel) but it's possible that Israel doesn't want him to do that just yet.

He didn't take on the Democrats when they were blocking the judges he had appointed. That happens because he has respect for the law and allows the legal process to take it's course instead of playing politics like the liberal partisans do.

Horrendous fiscally is more like it. Government has grown to 3 times the size of what it was under Clinton. Republicans no longer favor small government, that is obvious. You can't pin his actions on the democrats Yod, he's just as bad as they are fiscally, possibly worse.

As for the judges the Reps did the same thing with Clinton appointees as well lest you forget. That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Do you use that for more than a hatrack, charlie?

Yet again, Ad Hominem attacks because you don't like his opinions.

Don't you think if there was something which could be proven that we wouldn't hear the end of it? We've been treated to a thousand invented scandals since he's been in office and they all bounce off of him. Why? Because they aren't true.

No. Because if they were found to be true by the mainstream media people would be so fed up with the one party choice they have now they'd actually vote for someone who might solve their problems. Ask yourself this: Why did GWB refuse to swear an oath to tell the truth when he testified before the 9/11 commission? Why did he testify in secret? What did he have to hide? An honest president would have testified in public, and swore an oath to tell the truth.

Ronald Reagan testified in public on the Iran-Contra scandal, but as we know Reagan was a better man than GWB is.

Everything else coming from the Bush haters is a lie to mischaracterize why we are fighting them.

That's funny Yod, but it's definitely not true.

We were attacked by global terrorists many times in the past culminating on 9/11 with 3,000 people killed.

How many of those times prior to 9/11 were we on foreign soil? I believe that is 100% (With the exception of the first WTC which was the FBI's fault).

I can't remember a Democratic candidate OR even a nominee who wasnt' a career politician.

So you admit these people don't represent the core of America, well at least that is something. I would remind you that with one exception, Ronald Reagan, we can say the same for all Republicans as well.

[Guest yod]

first of all the "hatrack" comment was a joke..intended to lighten things up a bit. I apologize if it came across any other way. I certainly respect your opinions and intellect Charlie.

I hoped that you guys know me well enough by now to understand that I have absolutley no animosity toward you or anyone here. I like to argue and it' would get boring talking to people who agree with me 100%.

Why haven't the borders been secure?

Extremely valid question!

If we could talk about the "valid" question, you would find that I agree with you much more

Don't you find it odd that Pres. Bush and the bin Laden's have so many close business ties?

no. Why wouldn't the leading power brokers of the world know each other? Why wouldn't the leader of America have ties to the leading energy producers of the world? Why does Osama (the black sheep of the bin laden family) smear everyone in his family? Can you be held accountable for every whacko in your family?

Isn't it ironic that Haliburton is benefiting from this entire situation and our vice-pres. is the former CEO of that company?

No. The risk that they take to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure is enormous! But the deciding factor for who got the contracts probably had much to do with who ready to move the fastest.

Either way, any administration should be able to work with people they know and trust. It's just how business gets done at that level.

It is a good thing that our President and his administration have ties to business in the real world.

Don't you think there wouldn't have been a 9/11 in the first place, or any of those other terrorist attacks if the U.S.A. had of maintained a "hands off" approach when it comes to meddling in foreign affairs?

that seems rather naive of you charlie.

1) it is impossible for the world's lone superpower to avoid any influence in the world.

2) Osama's hatred of us and Israel is based on the teachings of a Saudi cleric (Wahabi) who wrote much of his theology 100 years ago.

Do you think it's right to label terrorists "freedom fighters" when they're perpetrating terrorist acts; is it right to help them?

nope....a terrorist is a terrorist. They are defined by the willingness to murder civilians, women, and children.

Why didn't the liberal media splash Neil Bush's name all over the place during the 2000 election if they're so biased to the left? I wondered about that at the time and I was still a Bush supporter then.

I don't even remember what it was that neil Bush was accused of. I am certain, however, that if there was really something there we would still be hearing about it.

QUOTE 

I wouldn't defend him if I didn't believe the Bush haters were lying for their own selfish reasons.

I've given you many solid reasons why I don't like Pres. Bush anymore. Which ones do you consider selfish on my part?

you misunderstand what I said. I have not, would not, accuse you of being selfish, charlie.

But I thinkyou have been influenced to think the way you do by folks who ARE intentionally misleading you for their own selfish reasons.

Look...that happens on all sides to one extent or another. The BIG difference is that we are in a dangerous position under threat of national destruction now.

so when the Democratic party or the Greens or the Libertarians try to make the prosecution of the war on terrorism into ANYTHING ELSE, it weakens the resolve of all AMericans.

Don't you think it is dangerous that ONE THIRD of Americans don't believe we are in any danger? They have been duped into thinking ANY response to the threat of terroism is a politically motivated and carefully calculated move to re-elect Bush?

that's just whack!

If we were to follow their advice we would all go back to sleep

Gee...isn't that already happening?? :sleep:

[Guest charlie]

Yod, I think you're not seeing the forrest for the trees.

I'm not in the mood to continue round and round with you. You've basically admitted that YES Bush has ties to the bin Ladens, YES Cheney's company is benefitting from the war. In the past you've said that you think the sources of this information are bogus; now I see that you yourself realize these "ties" are legit, but are attempting to put a "happy face" on them. The world doesn't work that way Yod.

I would expect us to have influence in the world being a superpower. I would hope that we did things in an honorable and fair way that would make us a beacon of freedom and a country to be respected. That's how our country was viewed in the not so distant past.

I've spent my life as a republican. I've watched 'certain' things come to pass within this party that I don't like but I did try to paint a happy picture myself....for a while. I'm not gonna do that anymore; it's wrong and it conflicts with my principles.

You know what I've noticed since I've stopped supporting the republican party and Pres. Bush; the liberal media isn't nearly as liberal as I had thought it was. They let a lot of stuff go by that I just do not understand. Neil Bush is a crook. He's a crook that got out of going to prision back during the S & L debacle of the 1980s while others who'd done less, went to the pen. If the "liberal" media was really out to get Pres. Bush they'd have mentioned Neil, over, and over in 2000....but they didn't. They also have let the Bush family, Bin Laden family connection slide by. Yes, it was mentioned but that's it. These two things alone tell me that the "liberal media" is either not as anti-Bush as a "liberal media" would be OR whoever owns and controls the "liberal media" has a "gag order" on some of these topics for whatever reason.

Don't you think it is dangerous that ONE THIRD of Americans don't believe we are in any danger? They have been duped into thinking ANY response to the threat of terroism is a politically motivated and carefully calculated move to re-elect Bush?

I agree that this mentality is dangerous. We're in more danger imo than anyone realizes; however, a lot of the "duping" that has been going on has been done by our President and his cronies, along with some others of course. A few elite have been "duping" us for quite a long period of time now I think.

[Guest yod]

I'm not in the mood to continue round and round with you. You've basically admitted that YES Bush has ties to the bin Ladens, YES Cheney's company is benefitting from the war. In the past you've said that you think the sources of this information are bogus; now I see that you yourself realize these "ties" are legit, but are attempting to put a "happy face" on them. The world doesn't work that way Yod.

????

Not sure what you are talking about. I have never denied that there was some level of connection there!?!??

I was reading an article on the American Airlines magazine the other day where they were interviewing an ex-soldier who started a security company and went to Iraq to find work. He and his partner made about 40 million dollars last year guarding various sites around Iraq. They were NOT the cheapest bidders for their contracts...sometimes bidding 4 times over what other security companies were bidding...but they were the company who could start the fastest.

Time is extremely important factor when you are in a war zone. My guess is that Halliburton was just ready to go faster than the other 4 or 5 companies in the world who could possibly be considered for that job.

I'm not here to defend Halliburton or Cheney or Bush. I just get tired of the constant insinuation of evil intent without credible evidence. It is JUST AS LIKELY that Halliburton got the job because they were the best company for it. Yet that possibility is ignored by the Bush haters.

Here's a shocker for you. I admit that it's possible that their suspicions are true!

Halliburton certainly must have had an inside track to making a bid...but that isn't what the Bush haters are saying. Oh no...they want us to believe that Cheney and Bush plotted the 9/11 attacks so we could invade Iraq and Afghanistan and steal their oil. It's just stupid rhetoric.

These sources you trust are nothing but editorial opinions being presented as factual reports and too many people can't tell the difference apparently.

So that junk is a waste of my time just like I don't care to get editorial opinions of Israel from Al Jazeera. The obvious hatred clouds their judgement too much to be trusted.