BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 194570 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Obskeptic

Sterling Heights, MI

#186946 Mar 22, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What does all of the above matter, Rogue? Clinton and his ministers and others you mention were in office for 8 years and none of them, specially not Clinton, invaded Iraq. Talk, talk, talk, no invasion, except by your idol GWB. Look at Iraq today. Admit, as bad as it was during Saddam's stewardship, it was heaven compared to today.
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-press-all...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#186947 Mar 22, 2014
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Government employee unions should be illegal,since there is no profit margin to bargain against. Government employee unions are basically stealing money from the taxpayers.
The right to unionize is based upon workers' rights, not profit margins to bargain against. Frank is off-base from the get-go.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#186948 Mar 22, 2014
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
I think if Bush would have said what was really going on he would have had a much better case. And would certainly be looked more favorable upon... hell, if he would have told the truth... there is a strong possibility the GOP would still be running the show. And we would in all probability STILL support the war there.(Because in all reality we should.)
What Bush should have said...(Not afraid of Muslims version)
"The people who attacked America on 9-11 were not part of a nation, but an ideal. In the Middle East, aggressive Muslim factions are present and strong in nearly every country. Some of which they are in complete control of. And they share these ideals. They don't recognize things like boarders in the Middle East, they believe it is all one big Islamic caliphate.
We were attacked by people who view us as the antithesis of what society should be. Our women are empowered, our ideas are unregulated, and we need kneel to no man. We are a threat not only to their ideas, but their god itself. And we can not guarantee we won't be targeted again.
They do it for reward. We have seen it in their manifesto's and video's. This isn't about hate, they consider themselves ordained to do these barbaric acts to inherit paradise in an afterlife. And to them, we are ALL equally worthy targets as our fallen brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers in our trade centers and on those four planes.
We will deny them their caliphate. We are going to set up a free democratic republic right in the middle of it all. And we are going to help them and protect them for as long as it takes. We will also combat any rising Muslim extremist groups in the area to preserve liberty in a place that it will soon surely become extinct."
Why target Iraq?
1. First and most obvious reason Saddam himself. He should have been removed after desert storm. We had decided in 1998 through unanimous vote that it would be our business to remove his regime.
2. There are 4 conditions under which a Country can be told their sovereignty is over.
a. Repeated aggression against neighboring states.
b. Fooling around with the non-proliferation treaties.
c. Harboring gangsters and international terrorist.
d. Genocide.(In which case we are FORCED to act by treaty)
Iraq was guilty of all four, numerous times...(which is what lead to the Iraqi Freedom Act cited in #1)
Need I go on? We had every reason we needed.
It was media theater, administrative incompetence, the military industrial complex not knowing when to close the cookie jar and above all... hiding our intended purpose from the public that has tested our resolve.
I seriously think Bush would be remembered far differently if he would have had the balls to offend religious people.
Good and true points, however, I doubt the proposal would have got off the ground without Condi and others warning about a mushroom cloud.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#186949 Mar 22, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why is Barrack Obama not among the top 50 leaders in this world?
Actually he is among the top 5, obviously as the President of the world's greatest power, Fortune Magazine notwithstanding.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#186950 Mar 22, 2014
Google's employee 16 was on the Fortune to 50 list. What a friggin' joke.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186951 Mar 22, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
Are you serious? Really? Blaming the UN , then the Dutch then the UN for that murderer Slobodan Miloševi&#263; Milosevic's death? How Philip Anschutz of the examiner dismissed the 300,000 deaths as mere hearsay, dwiddling it down to 3,000 and, even those 3,000 deaths were the results of American bombing raids. Suuuuure. Did the F-16s and F-15s also bury those bodies in shallow graves?

Are you telling me that there were no killing fields in the former Yugoslavia? Are you telling me that you are allowing your own country to be pushed around by Russia because Milosevic had contacts with Putin? Is that what your allegiance to your country has come to? To the point of comparing the Iraq fiasco to the successful NATO intervention let by the U.S. on the former Yugoslavia?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#186952 Mar 22, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
The sad little troll cannot write a simple paragraph, or even a sentence.

(Except when he does, it blows up in his face.)

Now where did Columbia say that the media is left wing biased?

Hee hee hee.

And delays of ACA deadlines are unconstitutional? That blew up in his face as well.

So now ObMORON simply pastes links as he cannot formulate a rational statement that can stand on its legs (or even has legs.)
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
What does all of the above matter, Rogue? Clinton and his ministers and others you mention were in office for 8 years and none of them, specially not Clinton, invaded Iraq. Talk, talk, talk, no invasion, except by your idol GWB. Look at Iraq today. Admit, as bad as it was during Saddam's stewardship, it was heaven compared to today.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#186953 Mar 22, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Actually he is among the top 5, obviously as the President of the world's greatest power, Fortune Magazine notwithstanding.
I'm reminded of Twain's commentary on lists ranking cities and the importance of being listed:

"After Paris, Jacksonville has come to be known as the City of Love. Not right after Paris, like number two on the list, but surely Jacksonville would be included on such a list, even if it ranked dead last."




“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186954 Mar 22, 2014
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
I think if Bush would have said what was really going on he would have had a much better case. And would certainly be looked more favorable upon... hell, if he would have told the truth... there is a strong possibility the GOP would still be running the show. And we would in all probability STILL support the war there.(Because in all reality we should.)
What Bush should have said...(Not afraid of Muslims version)
"The people who attacked America on 9-11 were not part of a nation, but an ideal. In the Middle East, aggressive Muslim factions are present and strong in nearly every country. Some of which they are in complete control of. And they share these ideals. They don't recognize things like boarders in the Middle East, they believe it is all one big Islamic caliphate.
We were attacked by people who view us as the antithesis of what society should be. Our women are empowered, our ideas are unregulated, and we need kneel to no man. We are a threat not only to their ideas, but their god itself. And we can not guarantee we won't be targeted again.
They do it for reward. We have seen it in their manifesto's and video's. This isn't about hate, they consider themselves ordained to do these barbaric acts to inherit paradise in an afterlife. And to them, we are ALL equally worthy targets as our fallen brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers in our trade centers and on those four planes.
We will deny them their caliphate. We are going to set up a free democratic republic right in the middle of it all. And we are going to help them and protect them for as long as it takes. We will also combat any rising Muslim extremist groups in the area to preserve liberty in a place that it will soon surely become extinct."
Why target Iraq?
1. First and most obvious reason Saddam himself. He should have been removed after desert storm. We had decided in 1998 through unanimous vote that it would be our business to remove his regime.
2. There are 4 conditions under which a Country can be told their sovereignty is over.
a. Repeated aggression against neighboring states.
b. Fooling around with the non-proliferation treaties.
c. Harboring gangsters and international terrorist.
d. Genocide.(In which case we are FORCED to act by treaty)
Iraq was guilty of all four, numerous times...(which is what lead to the Iraqi Freedom Act cited in #1)
Need I go on? We had every reason we needed.
It was media theater, administrative incompetence, the military industrial complex not knowing when to close the cookie jar and above all... hiding our intended purpose from the public that has tested our resolve.
I seriously think Bush would be remembered far differently if he would have had the balls to offend religious people.
If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought you were being Jon Stewart-Colbert-Report-kind-of -sarcastic. Really?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186955 Mar 22, 2014
Here goes, numerically and alpha-wise, your post number 186942 :

From "I think if Bush to Why target Iraq" is falsely premised. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as it harboured not even one of the 18 terrorists, nor was Iraq a fanatical Moslem state. Reminder : Of the 18 terrorists , 16 were Saudi, 1 was Egyptian the last one I don't know. Most had green cards with the pilots trained in...the United States. Invade Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, but ;lest of all Iraq. That Iran buffer, Iraq, is forever lost.

1. "first and foremost"...Remove Saddam. What right did you have to remove a foreign leader? And under what authority again? Your Congress? Poppycock. Had Saddam in any way threatened, attacked the United States?

2. "There are 4 conditions under which a Country can be told their sovereignty is over." Told by who, under whose authority?

a) "Repeated aggression against neighbouring states", you say. Really? Aggression against Iran was encouraged following Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq where and when he embraced Saddam. That was just a few years before Saddam became the U.S.'s devil incarnate. Well well. And, a war fought by both Irak and Iran with U.S.-supplied weapons, ahhh, elle est bien belle. And, the final coup de grâce upon these evil Iranians as Saddam launches gas attacks (guesses are good as to where the gas came from - er, Rumsfeld?). Anyhow, repeated aggression you say? Yes, against Kuwait, that bastion of democracy, of human rights, of equality for women and foreign workers who are treated one level above slavery. The UN, the US and the coalition liberated Kuwait for one and one reason only : BIG OIL. Like Irak later, it failed, as these countries showed no gratitude, business as usual.

b) "Fooling around with the non-proliferation treaties." What? Everyone, including yourself, have said there were no WMDs. The only possible and feasible way the Iraqis could obtain nuclear weapons was dashed when the Israelis bombed their reactor years before. Why this "non proliferation" thing?

c) "Harboring gangsters and international terrorist." Again,pardon? What gangsters, what terrorists? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Either himself or by association. Saddam tolerated no Al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Hezbollah, on his territory. Not because he was a nice guy, nooo, he was a tyrant S.O.B., but solely because he tolerated no one who could even be a remote threat to his power.

d) "Genocide.(In which case we are FORCED to act by treaty)" What? To act by treaty? Again, what treaty? And, should you want to be do-gooders, and stop genocide, when will you attack Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, which fuels Al Qaeda and Taliban, the Congo, Rwanda (why not draft an Iraq-like treaty and save those 1 million Rwandans? Too busy in Iraq?), Zimbabwe, North Korea, Myanmar, China, another bastion of democracy, Russia for having invaded Crimea, etc. What're we waiting for?

"Need I go on?", you asked. "We had every reason we needed." Not so. You had not ONE single reason. Not one.

No way Bush would be remembered differently, because he would have lost both wars either way Afghanistan and Iraq). Those wars, unfunded, partly brought on that terrible recession, GWB and his cohorts were too busy with those wars to look after the economy and they did cost over $2.5 trillion and still counting. Iraq was a mess, a tragedy, based on fabrications and lies which truth could not fix - it was a bad idea from the start.

No way Iraq and Afghanistan can be justified, lies or truth. Just like Vietnam. No way one single American or coalition military person died for a good reason. They died in vain, along with 100s of 1000s of Iraqis, and that is to cry for.
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#186956 Mar 23, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
Here goes, numerically and alpha-wise, your post number 186942 :
From "I think if Bush to Why target Iraq" is falsely premised. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as it harboured not even one of the 18 terrorists, nor was Iraq a fanatical Moslem state. Reminder : Of the 18 terrorists , 16 were Saudi, 1 was Egyptian the last one I don't know. Most had green cards with the pilots trained in...the United States. Invade Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, but ;lest of all Iraq. That Iran buffer, Iraq, is forever lost.
1. "first and foremost"...Remove Saddam. What right did you have to remove a foreign leader? And under what authority again? Your Congress? Poppycock. Had Saddam in any way threatened, attacked the United States?
2. "There are 4 conditions under which a Country can be told their sovereignty is over." Told by who, under whose authority?
a) "Repeated aggression against neighbouring states", you say. Really? Aggression against Iran was encouraged following Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq where and when he embraced Saddam. That was just a few years before Saddam became the U.S.'s devil incarnate. Well well. And, a war fought by both Irak and Iran with U.S.-supplied weapons, ahhh, elle est bien belle. And, the final coup de grâce upon these evil Iranians as Saddam launches gas attacks (guesses are good as to where the gas came from - er, Rumsfeld?). Anyhow, repeated aggression you say? Yes, against Kuwait, that bastion of democracy, of human rights, of equality for women and foreign workers who are treated one level above slavery. The UN, the US and the coalition liberated Kuwait for one and one reason only : BIG OIL. Like Irak later, it failed, as these countries showed no gratitude, business as usual.
b) "Fooling around with the non-proliferation treaties." What? Everyone, including yourself, have said there were no WMDs. The only possible and feasible way the Iraqis could obtain nuclear weapons was dashed when the Israelis bombed their reactor years before. Why this "non proliferation" thing?
c) "Harboring gangsters and international terrorist." Again,pardon? What gangsters, what terrorists? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Either himself or by association. Saddam tolerated no Al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Hezbollah, on his territory. Not because he was a nice guy, nooo, he was a tyrant S.O.B., but solely because he tolerated no one who could even be a remote threat to his power.
d) "Genocide.(In which case we are FORCED to act by treaty)" What? To act by treaty? Again, what treaty? And, should you want to be do-gooders, and stop genocide, when will you attack Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, which fuels Al Qaeda and Taliban, the Congo, Rwanda (why not draft an Iraq-like treaty and save those 1 million Rwandans? Too busy in Iraq?), Zimbabwe, North Korea, Myanmar, China, another bastion of democracy, Russia for having invaded Crimea, etc. What're we waiting for?
"Need I go on?", you asked. "We had every reason we needed." Not so. You had not ONE single reason. Not one.
No way Bush would be remembered differently, because he would have lost both wars either way Afghanistan and Iraq). Those wars, unfunded, partly brought on that terrible recession, GWB and his cohorts were too busy with those wars to look after the economy and they did cost over $2.5 trillion and still counting. Iraq was a mess, a tragedy, based on fabrications and lies which truth could not fix - it was a bad idea from the start.
No way Iraq and Afghanistan can be justified, lies or truth. Just like Vietnam. No way one single American or coalition military person died for a good reason. They died in vain, along with 100s of 1000s of Iraqis, and that is to cry for.
100% factual and Zero% false.

Excellent Jacques.
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#186958 Mar 23, 2014
A Spy Speaks Out
Former Top CIA Official Tyler Drumheller On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims /
http://tinyurl.com/rle4x / April 23, 2006
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
Tyler Drumheller CIA Ret.

(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60m...

----------

Diplomat's Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies behind Iraq War
December 15, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ye8w94
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr. Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr. Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr. Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

It shows Mr. Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbors or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr. Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr. Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1215-...
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#186959 Mar 23, 2014
Excerpts from "Jawbreaker" by CIA Ret. Gary Berntsen
Evidence the war on terror is a lie from former CIA Station Chief
http://tinyurl.com/6a7s34 / July 23, 2008
Jawbreaker II was the name of the 2001 operation to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Below are excerpts from this book which I found most enlightening. I made it easy for you; you don’t have to read the whole book.

Mr. Berntsen was the CIA station chief in East Afghanistan in 2001 and is an impeccable source. I believe these excerpts are some of the strongest evidence we have for the idea that the war on terror is a lie. Berntsen asks why he wasn’t given the resources to destroy al Qaeda and bin Laden. Why was Berntsen relieved in the middle of operations at Tora Bora? I believe the answers to these questions are simple and grotesque. If we had destroyed al-Qaeda in December 2001, the war on terror would have come to a premature end. There would have been no further rationalization for the occupation of Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, or an attack on Iran. No further rationalization for the real goal – empire. The war on terror is merely cover for imperial war.

These ideas are painful for people, but they’re the truth we must force them to confront if we’re to reverse our aggression and preempt further aggression.
Questions:
Why did we allow al Qaeda and bin Laden to escape Tora Bora?
Why have we not destroyed them in the last six years?
Why are we still occupying Afghanistan?
Why did we attack Iraq that had no connection to al-Qaeda or international terror?
Why was the occupation of Iraq so utterly incompetent?
Why did the Pentagon recently sign ten year contracts to provide support services in Iraq?
Why did the Administration want the “status of forces agreement” to allow American troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely?
Why is the Administration lobbying for an attack on Iran?
Answer:
The Big Truth: The “war on terror” is a lie, only justice in American foreign policy will end terror. Corrupt dollar politics have led to corrupt dollar diplomacy and unjust war. America is now a corrupt, aggressor nation fighting a “war for empire” in a gross contravention of American ideals. God bless America and Iran; God damn the empire.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.ph...

=========

Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs
&fe ature=related

Powell Says US Should Not Have Invaded Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con 'crazies' row
12 September 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/83u3by
A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'fucking crazies' during the build-up to war in Iraq.
Powell's extraordinary outburst is alleged to have taken place during a telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The two became close friends during the intense negotiations in the summer of 2002 to build an international coalition for intervention via the United Nations. The 'crazies' are said to be Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/12/I...

--------

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice Tell The Truth About Iraq
July and August 2001 before 9/11/01 Iraq was no threat
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186960 Mar 23, 2014
"There is simply no better way to move large numbers of people from city-center to city-center than on high-speed rail"

-Congressman Bill Shuster (R - Pa)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186961 Mar 23, 2014
Pdamerica org wrote:
A Spy Speaks Out
Former Top CIA Official Tyler Drumheller On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims /
http://tinyurl.com/rle4x / April 23, 2006
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
Tyler Drumheller CIA Ret.
(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.
He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60m...
----------
Diplomat's Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies behind Iraq War
December 15, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ye8w94
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr. Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr. Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
.
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.
It shows Mr. Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbors or the UK or the US," he added.
Mr. Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a .
Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.
More evidence that the "proof" on WsMD was fabricated. Irrefutable evidence.

After all of the above,(and Rogue will only be able to read 2 lines max before his eyes fog up), expect a post from him asking you to PROVE that GWB and his cohorts lied. Also, Rogue will tell you that many democrats like Hillary Clinton voted in favour of war. They did indeed. Why? They believed the well-crafted lies, were hornswoggled, period. Rogue will repeat the incredible made-up phantasm that Russia, France and Germany backed the Iraq invasion. At least 12 times he's repeated it. Oh hum.

sorry. too many characters, had to cut your post a bit.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186962 Mar 23, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
"There is simply no better way to move large numbers of people from city-center to city-center than on high-speed rail"
-Congressman Bill Shuster (R - Pa)
Europeans have known that since the end of WWII and have acted on it. Yes, they have gridlock in and out of cities, but imagine what it would be like if they hadn't developed rapid trains like the French TGV.. Why can't we, in the U.S. and Canada, do that?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186963 Mar 23, 2014
Top of the morning, Jacques.
Top of the morning.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186964 Mar 23, 2014
Pdamerica org wrote:
Excerpts from "Jawbreaker" by CIA Ret. Gary Berntsen
Evidence the war on terror is a lie from former CIA Station Chief
http://tinyurl.com/6a7s34 / July 23, 2008
Jawbreaker II was the name of the 2001 operation to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Below are excerpts from this book which I found most enlightening. I made it easy for you; you don’t have to read the whole book.
Mr. Berntsen was the CIA station chief in East Afghanistan in 2001 and is an impeccable source. I believe these excerpts are some of the strongest evidence we have for the idea that the war on terror is a lie. Berntsen asks why he wasn’t given the resources to destroy al Qaeda and bin Laden. Why was Berntsen relieved in the middle of operations at Tora Bora? I believe the answers to these questions are simple and grotesque. If we had destroyed al-Qaeda in December 2001, the war on terror would have come to a premature end. There would have been no further rationalization for the occupation of Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, or an attack on Iran. No further rationalization for the real goal – empire. The war on terror is merely cover for imperial war.
These ideas are painful for people, but they’re the truth we must force them to confront if we’re to reverse our aggression and preempt further aggression.
Questions:
Why did we allow al Qaeda and bin Laden to escape Tora Bora?
Why have we not destroyed them in the last six years?
Why are we still occupying Afghanistan?
Why did we attack Iraq that had no connection to al-Qaeda or international terror?
Why was the occupation of Iraq so utterly incompetent?
Why did the Pentagon recently sign ten year contracts to provide support services in Iraq?
Why did the Administration want the “status of forces agreement” to allow American troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely?
Why is the Administration lobbying for an attack on Iran?
Answer:
The Big Truth: The “war on terror” is a lie, only justice in American foreign policy will end terror. Corrupt dollar politics have led to corrupt dollar diplomacy and unjust war. America is now a corrupt, aggressor nation fighting a “war for empire” in a gross contravention of American ideals. God bless America and Iran; God damn the empire.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.ph...
=========
Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2ZTLmOoPzjsXX&feature=rel ated
Powell Says US Should Not Have Invaded Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con 'crazies' row
12 September 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/83u3by
A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'fucking crazies' during the build-up to war in Iraq.
Powell's extraordinary outburst is alleged to have taken place during a telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The two became close friends during the intense negotiations in the summer of 2002 to build an international coalition for intervention via the United Nations. The 'crazies' are said to be Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/12/I...
--------


From above : "A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'fucking crazies' during the build-up to war in Iraq.
Powell's extraordinary outburst..."

That a soft-spoken man like Powell would utter such words just shows the unchecked insanity of it all.

However, I can't figure why he delivered that speech at the UN & backed the Iraq invasion. He knew, is why I don't think he was misled..Bullied by big-tome hawks who would profit from it? No doubt.
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#186965 Mar 23, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
More evidence that the "proof" on WsMD was fabricated. Irrefutable evidence.
After all of the above,(and Rogue will only be able to read 2 lines max before his eyes fog up), expect a post from him asking you to PROVE that GWB and his cohorts lied. Also, Rogue will tell you that many democrats like Hillary Clinton voted in favour of war. They did indeed. Why? They believed the well-crafted lies, were hornswoggled, period. Rogue will repeat the incredible made-up phantasm that Russia, France and Germany backed the Iraq invasion. At least 12 times he's repeated it. Oh hum.
sorry. too many characters, had to cut your post a bit.
It is sad how Rogue can continue to believe the lies about WMD in Iraq when so many career CIA Chiefs came out publicly against Bush and Cheney.

Also 4 Star Marine General Anthony Zinni who testified in the Senate just two months before the Iraq invasion said under oath that Iraq was no threat and the years of Sanctions and No Fly Zones worked and Saddam was contained in a box.

----------

General Anthony Zinni, USMC,(Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004

I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true.

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there.

The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."
http://www.juancole.com/2004/05/zinni-on-what...
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#186966 Mar 23, 2014
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC,(Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 /
The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles, the infamous "Gucci Guerillas" from London. We bought into their intelligence reports. To the credit of the CIA, they didn't buy into it, so I guess the Defense Department created its own boutique intelligence agency to vet them. And we ended up with a group that fed us bad information. That led us to believe that we would be welcomed with flowers in the streets; that led us to believe that this would be a cakewalk.

When I testified before Congress in 1998, after a grilling from Senator McCain and all those wonderful senators supported the Iraqi Liberation Act, and I told them that these guys are not credible and they are going to lead us into something they we will regret. At that time, they were pushing a plan that Central Command would supply air support and special forces, and we would put it into Iraq, and they would pied piper their way up to Baghdad and the whole place would fall apart. This plan was created by two senate staffers and a retired General. I happened to be the commander of central command, nobody bothered to ask me about how my troops would be used. And they were a little bit upset about me being upset about this.
These exiles did not have credibility inside the country or in the region. Not only did they not have credibility, it was clear that the information they were providing us many times was not correct and accurate. We believed in them. We also brought them in with us and deemed them into the governing council and the reception by Iraqis has been, to say the least, has not been great.
http://www.juancole.com/2004/05/zinni-on-what...

----------

Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD, Retired
http://tinyurl.com/p4j93 Apr. 09, 2006
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war.

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.

But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.

I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...

-------

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Kevin 1,263,877
Word (Dec '08) 3 hr Red_Forman 5,382
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr Red_Forman 6,257
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Go Blue Forever 100,299
how many people think louis farrakhan is an idiot (Mar '11) 4 hr reality is a crutch 8
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr ritedownthemiddle 54,358
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 10 hr VeganTiger 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages