Back it up with facts. Still living in AZ for the time being.Very interesting responses from those who don't dare to use their real names when writing their opinions. I must admit that I'm surprised.
When I first wrote letters to the editor that were anti-Bush (years ago), friends used to ask me "how do you dare to criticize Bush?" and "Aren't you afraid they'll 'get' you?"
Millions of innocent Americans have been put on Bush's "terrorist" and "no-fly" and dozens of other Bush lists, but I still dare to speak my mind. It's the American way. Don't let them frighten you into submission.
And soon those lists will be history, trashed by President Barack Obama and a patriotic team that puts our country first and Bush/Cheney/McSame/bin Laden, et al LAST.
Unafraid in Nu`uanu
#106 Sep 3, 2008
#107 Sep 23, 2008
If she is such a joke, why are the DEMS still in such panic, eh?
#108 Sep 23, 2008
My but we ARE smug, eh?
How do YOU know what intelligence President Bush was given?
Do YOU have a security clearance?
Have you EVER been read into ANY compartmented security program?
What's that, I can' t quite hear you.
#109 Sep 23, 2008
Awww... So what do you have showing otherwise? A little more intelligent thinking and much less mouth on your part would help you go a long way.
"June 9, 2003
Institute for Science and International Security
Despite the Bush Administration's assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned U.S. assertions on WMD presence in Iraq. Now, some in the U.S. Congress question whether or not the intelligence agencies manipulated intelligence to gain support for the war in Iraq. However, the White House insists that U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD were fairly presented. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to conceal its actions "clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them."1
The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4
French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6
After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections.
Other experts said that the evidence is not sufficient enough to prove that Iraq has WMDs. However, what Secretary of State Powell did prove was that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs."
#110 Sep 23, 2008
1996 - Clinton refused to sanction an Iraqi air strike because he was too busy watching golf - and missed an opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden
#111 Sep 23, 2008
Please elaborate about the legality of the event and why we should have killed him then.
If it's a non-issue and we should have just killed him, just let me know that too.
#112 Sep 23, 2008
The golf event was legal, and no killing Clinton was not the correct solution.
On the other hand, killing someone that was involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, such as Obama, sounds to me like it was a pretty good idea for someone that was responsible for the safety and welfare of our nation and its citizens.
#113 Sep 23, 2008
So why was it halted?
#114 Sep 23, 2008
Why was what halted?
#115 Sep 23, 2008
I guess I missed it. Clinton refused to kill Bin Ladin because he was watching golf. Ok. It wasn't halted.
Since: Sep 08
#116 Sep 23, 2008
Clinton is the only president to have had a chance at Bin Laden.
Well, THAT'S news.
Add your comments below
|Do you approve of Gilbert Keith-Agaran as State...||Aug '14||J. Eagle||1|
|Pukalani Music Selection (Sep '12)||Aug '14||Musikologist||9|
|Review: Aloha Gold Buyers LLC||Aug '14||Marcus Leighman||1|
|Hawaii governor seeks to prime budget pump (Dec '07)||Aug '14||Yellow Cab Driver||13|
|How we saved a bundle on a car in Maui by renti...||Jun '14||elmar winkler||1|
|Review: Vishnevska, Nina MD - Nina Vishnevska MD (Mar '10)||Jun '14||cat||5|
|Rudeness (Mar '14)||May '14||Ron Brinkhurst||2|
Find what you want!
Search Kihei Forum Now