I was misled

Mark Hickey wrote:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that supports
their contention that he tried to make it.

From a letter to the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore

~~~~~~~~

March 18, 2003


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President


Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on
information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I
determine that:


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other
peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH

~~~~~~~


--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Well, we buried our men, and the Turks buried theirs,
Then we started all over again."

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:31:01 -0500, Kevan Smith
wrote in message
:

I think we should just get out, let the Iraqis settle things their
own way and provide legitimate reparations payments and humanitarian aid
administered by a third party like the U.N.

I'm confident that is Shrub's masterplan - he can't afford to have
body bags coming home during the election campaign. The result will
almost certainly be a period of anarchy.

I believe there should be a plan to get blue berets in there as soon
as possible, but even that will take time, as the level of violence is
still too high. You need peace before you can have peacekeepers.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

This is NOT off topic. The topic is "Misled" and is more pertinent
to our well being than to acquiesce in an organized dismantling of our
democratic government and our nation's standing in world affairs.
Talking about bicycles is appropriate, but it loses significance in
the shadow of the deep moral depression into which our country is
sinking to dictatorship in spite of the guise of representative
government.

Jobst, I was in the lead when this war went down in terms of condemning
the action. I really wonder why you didn't say something then.

It seems to me that you missed the anvil and are simply reacting to
a lot of this secondhand Michael Moore crap.

Either you have the guts to stand up with the curtain and call the
foul or you are just posturing for history.

The fact is that we are killing terrorists, Iraq is a magnet for
them and it is a killing zone. Regardless of how you feel about the
war in general, the military forces of the United States are doing
their job with efficiency.

The same is true in Afghanistan.

This is not the optimal war, but it is the war we are in.

The war we have to deal with, that is.


--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

wrote:

Mark Hickey writes:

That's how he got us into the war and can't and won't get out even
though the rest of civilized nations urge that course.

Funny, he's doing precisely what he said he'd do all along. He
never said it would be quick or easy.

What would be quick or easy? Why is our military in Iraq? What is
the purpose of this disaster to that country's, national, financial,
and human losses? I can see it takes time but what is this time doing
for any of the problems of the USA or Iraq?

50 million Afghanis and Iraqis no longer living under despotic
dictators. Terrorists no longer using Afghanistan and Iraq as
hospitable training grounds, nor are they receiving state support. A
tremendously dangerous and aggressive leader who had previously
attacked two neighboring country, and who could have disrupted the
world oil supply - gone.

This is the main thread of the current administration, to not
accept information that goes against their vision... Iraqis will
welcome us with open arms, etc.

The rank and file Iraqis (and Afghanis) are very glad that we took
out their despotic leadership. And it's no surprise they'd like us
to leave as soon as things are "stable" (that's a relative term in
the middle east). I'm sure the folks in Japan and Germany felt the
same way, though it took much, much, much longer to get them sorted
out.

Ohhh, lend me your rose colored glasses. From whom did you hear that
the rank and file (sounds military to me) people of either country is
glad for our military intervention.

From every poll taken in Iraq. They would obviously prefer it if we
leave as soon as possible - but most of them were (not sure about the
latest polls) certain that "as soon as possible" was still in the near
future.

Afghanistan is practically back
where it was before our adventure there except that different folks
are in charge. Opium market is in full swing and only a couple of
principal cities are even slightly under civilian control. Let's not
even talk about Iraq, where we have unleashed terror attacks from all
sides on people who used to go about their daily lives in a far more
secure and peaceful land, albeit under a dictator who spent time going
after opponents rather than the entire population that is being
terrorized now.

Has it occurred to you that the very reason the terrorists are so
active before the turnover to the Iraqi interim government is because
they realize the danger (to them...) of what's happening. With an
open society that allows "real education", and provides the potential
for prosperity, their power diminishes to nothing. You have to be
able to convince someone that he has no future if you want him to
strap explosives around his chest and blow up a bus.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Zoot Katz wrote:

Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:55:31 -0700,
, through brown lipstick,
Mark Hickey regurgitated:

Oh and you might wanna check up on that "jobless
recovery" claim... there have been 1.4 million jobs since August

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indi...ushjobloss.htm

What's your point? Even that site admits that the jobs are coming
back...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

wrote:

Mark Hickey writes:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that
supports their contention that he tried to make it.

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which everything in
a statement can be true yet it conveys a false concept to the
observer. Why do you think there is so much contention over the
apparent link between 911 and Iraq.

Because there's a political agenda to do so among those who want to
discredit Bush, basically.

The two were so often juxtaposed
that the linkage was established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of the record
that is being done on this.

The media reports the "linkage" by the White House, even though it
never happened. Do you think maybe THAT has something to do with the
opinion of the average American?

P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money and power
was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the white house believed what
needed to be done was to secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis
from our country.

I guess we should have announced to the world that we were going to
fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal family??! Like it
or not, they're about the closest thing we have to allies in the
region, and it would have been a huge mistake to forcibly detain
them - heck, the ACLU woulda gone nuts over that option! ;-)

Why do you use the term "the closest thing we have to allies"? Is it
because, as others have stated, we have no allies, only paid up
shills.

Which, in the middle east, is "the closest thing we have to allies".
Hey, I've got an idea - why not try to establish a couple democracies
in the region!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Richard Brockie wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that supports
their contention that he tried to make it.

Er, how about here?

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play...ines/8154.html

Comedy Central? The "evidence" being Bush's statement that "when it
comes to terrorism, you can't distinguish between Saddam and Al
Qaeda"??? Wait... that means Saddam is linked to the USS Cole. To
the problems in Northern Ireland, and to the guy who torched a bunch
of SUVs in Arizona too, right?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Keith Willoughby wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that supports
their contention that he tried to make it.

From a letter to the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore

snip preamble

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other
peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Probably better to hone up on reading comprehension, or to possibly
just re-read the above a couple times until the language is clear.

The above is a perfect example of how some come to faulty conclusions.

To paraphrase...

1) Iraq's a big problem
2) going after Iraq is legal and has plenty of precedent

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:37:33 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote in message :

50 million Afghanis and Iraqis no longer living under despotic
dictators.

Some tens of thousands of them not living at all, in fact...

ducks

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote in message :

there's a political agenda to do so among those who want to
discredit Bush, basically.

There is no conspiracy to discredit Bush. There doesn't need to be -
he does it so well himself :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University