So what do you guys think of the Bush Administrations OVERALL perfomance so far? What is your opinion on how Bush has handled Education? The Economy? 9-11 and the after-effects? Big-Business scams? The threat of terroist action from Iraq? The "war on drugs"?

I know there are some people here that like Bush, and some that hate him, and some that are just inbetween. I will voice my view of it soon, I just have to get all my facts together so I won't make myself look like an idiot.

oh man , looks like this one could get nasty! :)

Im with you , i need to go gather some facts so i will also not look like a jackass. :D

It would take me many hours to even begin to explain all the mistakes he has made. I'll summarize some of his biggest.

1) Tax cut- It's a ploy to get gullible people's votes. Yes, u get a few hundred dollars back. But where did that money come from? The government has to cut back on programs because of the tax cut. While the average person is receiving a few hundred dollars, the top 1% is receiving a much larger portion.

2) Taking a 5 trillion $ surplus and turning it into a 5 trillion dollar deficit. It's almost as if Bush didn't realize that that money has to be paid back.

3) The war. I'm extremely suprised more people aren't pissed off about what he pulled. He lied to the American people. Tricked us into getting involved in a war under false pretenses, hoping that the American people would follow along unthinkingly. So far the majority have. Why attack Iraq now? Why would Osama and Hussein work together? (despite what many of us americans believe, the world doesn't revolve around us. Just because both of them despise the US doesn't mean they are great buddies themselves. Infact, if you read up on it at ALL, you would find they actually despise eachother.) Where did the supposed "weapons of mass destruction" go? These are all questions that should be asked, and Bush should answer, instead of rambling, utterly incoherently. I strongly support the troops, they have no say concerning whether or not they would be called into action, it's not their fault that their commander & chief is a bundling fool.

I would continue, but my eye is becoming irratated and my vision is becoming blurry. Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

3) The war. I'm extremely suprised more people aren't pissed off about what he pulled. He lied to the American people. Tricked us into getting involved in a war under false pretenses, hoping that the American people would follow along unthinkingly. So far the majority have. Why attack Iraq now? Why would Osama and Hussein work together? (despite what many of us americans believe, the world doesn't revolve around us. Just because both of them despise the US doesn't mean they are great buddies themselves. Infact, if you read up on it at ALL, you would find they actually despise eachother.) Where did the supposed "weapons of mass descruction" go? These are all questions that should be asked, and Bush should answer, instead of rambling, utterly incoherently. I strongly support the troops, they have no say concerning whether or not they would be called into action, it's not their fault that their commander & chief is a bundling fool.

Actually, Bush wasn't aware of the misinformation. He was told by other members of his Admin. (Cheney) that Iraq did indeed harbor WMD's and that they were an immediate threat. Which we now know is false. We can't really blame the President for that. He thought that what we were doing is right. Which really, we are. I feel that liberating Iraq was a great idea, but that we should have gotten more support (foreign/U.N.) before we left. We were simply put, completely unprepared for what now lies before us. And Bush tried to get help from the U.N. as well as the go-ahead, but was given neither.

The deal with this year's tax cut, was that the idea was that if the rich were given a larger tax cut, then they would be more inclined to use that extra money and spend, and supposedly that was intended to create a "trickle-down effect", which would boost big business, would boost production, and thus create more jobs, all improving the economy. At first I was very skeptical of this, I thought it was a HUGE mistake. But now the economy seems to be improving...

Click here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/997861.asp

The economy roared ahead at an astounding 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in nearly two decades and a much stronger performance than previously thought. It raises hope that a long spell of lackluster business activity is finally over.

I'm not implying that this is all thanks to the tax cut (moreso that, added with the many super-low short-term interest rates, all of which has boosted spending), but you can honestly see that there has been great improvement. On the other hand, it doesn't erase the multi-trillion-dollar deficit that was created from the first wave of tax-cuts.

"Actually, Bush wasn't aware of the misinformation. He was told by other members of his Admin. (Cheney) that Iraq did indeed harbor WMD's and that they were an immediate threat. Which we now know is false. We can't really blame the President for that. He thought that what we were doing is right. Which really, we are. I feel that liberating Iraq was a great idea, but that we should have gotten more support (foreign/U.N.) before we left. We were simply put, completely unprepared for what now lies before us. And Bush tried to get help from the U.N. as well as the go-ahead, but was given neither. "

The question was how do we think Dubya's administration is doing. If Cheney was the one that fucked up, he's still in the administration, my point stands. I am completely against the war, but yes, I agree that since the country (and by country, I mean Bush) decided to go to war, we should have gotten more support first.

"The deal with this year's tax cut, was that the idea was that if the rich were given a larger tax cut, then they would be more inclined to use that extra money and spend, and supposedly that was intended to create a "trickle-down effect", which would boost big business, would boost production, and thus create more jobs, all improving the economy. At first I was very skeptical of this, I thought it was a HUGE mistake. But now the economy seems to be improving... "
Yes, I am aware of the theory. The "trickle-down effect" was done during the depression to try to stimulate economic growth. It didn't work then, and it's not working now. Saying the tax cut is working because the economy is improving is akin to saying "Evanesence's success must have been caused by me, since I really got into their music right before they hit it big-time" see the logic flaw there?
The economy has not been doing very well at all. Before 9/11 the economy was doing quite well, afterwards it has been in a recession. It was only a matter of time before we got out of it. However, we aren't out of it yet. (My college fund being an example of how the economy needs to improve alot more before it reaches where it was before 9/11 :( )


"I'm not implying that this is all thanks to the tax cut (moreso that, added with the many super-low short-term interest rates, all of which has boosted spending), but you can honestly see that there has been great improvement."
I actually missed this little part when I read it before...whoops :( oh well. I'd just like to reilliterate that the tax-cuts most likely didn't help the economy much, if at all.

"On the other hand, it doesn't erase the multi-trillion-dollar deficit that was created from the first wave of tax-cuts."
Exactly

1) Tax cut- It's a ploy to get gullible people's votes. Yes, u get a few hundred dollars back. But where did that money come from? The government has to cut back on programs because of the tax cut. While the average person is receiving a few hundred dollars, the top 1% is receiving a much larger portion.



Considering the tax break is based on the percentage of tax you pay, of course the top 1% get more back because they paid more in taxes. Its not fair that just because they earn more money that they shouldn't get the same breaks everybody else does.

It would take me many hours to even begin to explain all the mistakes he has made. I'll summarize some of his biggest.

1) Tax cut- It's a ploy to get gullible people's votes. Yes, u get a few hundred dollars back. But where did that money come from? The government has to cut back on programs because of the tax cut. While the average person is receiving a few hundred dollars, the top 1% is receiving a much larger portion.

Wrong, the money came from me. If you people hate the tax-cut so much, give it back! Oh yeah, you dont pay taxes. Granted I dont pay a whole lot, but I am reasonably well informed of my parents economic standing.

And BTW, do you realize that only once in the last 40 years have we had an actual cut in spending on a program? That was the cut defense took under Clinton. Every other time you hear about how a program had a cut, all that really meant was the agency didnt get as much as it asked for.

2) Taking a 5 trillion $ surplus and turning it into a 5 trillion dollar deficit. It's almost as if Bush didn't realize that that money has to be paid back.

I could be way off, but you seem as if you might be of the liberal persuasion. Shouldnt you be happy that Bush is following Keynsian economics just like FDR did?

3) The war. I'm extremely suprised more people aren't pissed off about what he pulled. He lied to the American people. Tricked us into getting involved in a war under false pretenses, hoping that the American people would follow along unthinkingly.

Given the fact that that is simply an accusation without proof, I will defer to the fact that it seems as if it was more of a mistake in the intellegence community. Honestly, if you were president and some one put intelligence data on your desk that indicated all the things that Bush supposedly went to war on, it would be gross negligence of duty to do nothing. And obviously there was something, or why did ranking democratic Senators go along with the war after being given documents that we do not have access to?

So far the majority have. Why attack Iraq now? Why would Osama and Hussein work together? (despite what many of us americans believe, the world doesn't revolve around us. Just because both of them despise the US doesn't mean they are great buddies themselves. Infact, if you read up on it at ALL, you would find they actually despise eachother.)

Obviously you have never heard of the age-old concept of two enemies uniting for a common purpose. I am not saying that Saddam and Bin Laden are co-conspirators but there are certainly some interesting facts and "coincidences" that cast some suspicion, although we cannot yet prove it.

Where did the supposed "weapons of mass destruction" go? These are all questions that should be asked, and Bush should answer, instead of rambling, utterly incoherently. I strongly support the troops, they have no say concerning whether or not they would be called into action, it's not their fault that their commander & chief is a bundling fool.

Ah yes, because making attacks on the person is always a way of bolstering arguments. And last I heard, that was a very common question and one that I believe shall be answered in time.

"Wrong, the money came from me. If you people hate the tax-cut so much, give it back! Oh yeah, you dont pay taxes. Granted I dont pay a whole lot, but I am reasonably well informed of my parents economic standing.

And BTW, do you realize that only once in the last 40 years have we had an actual cut in spending on a program? That was the cut defense took under Clinton. Every other time you hear about how a program had a cut, all that really meant was the agency didnt get as much as it asked for. "

I'm not sure about no programs getting cuts. Does that count programs that are completely gotten rid of? Plus, because of inflation, if a program receives the same amount each year it is really losing monetary value.


Amy's Immortal wrote:
2) Taking a 5 trillion $ surplus and turning it into a 5 trillion dollar deficit. It's almost as if Bush didn't realize that that money has to be paid back.


"I could be way off, but you seem as if you might be of the liberal persuasion. Shouldnt you be happy that Bush is following Keynsian economics just like FDR did?"
During a depression it was a good idea. It didn't even work so well then. Why do it again? Oh yea, Bush is in that top 1%, that explains it. We are in a recession, big difference between recessions and depressions. Bush passed the tax-cut to win ignorant voters over to his side. When was the last time a president has actually raised taxes? (I really don't know, someone tell me) I'm willing to bet he did it his second term. Why? because the public is ignorant and doesn't understand that raising taxes HELPS long term. The US has become too short sighted. I forget the exact figure of the national debt, but it's well into the trillions. The interest on the national debt costs BILLIONS of dollars. Interest....as in, each year the government spends BILLIONS without even begining to pay off. When are we going to pay it off?
Right now each household in the U.S. "owes" $50,000 dollars. Or maybe it was each person. I forget, but it's pretty damn insane.

Amy's Immortal wrote:
3) The war. I'm extremely suprised more people aren't pissed off about what he pulled. He lied to the American people. Tricked us into getting involved in a war under false pretenses, hoping that the American people would follow along unthinkingly.


"Given the fact that that is simply an accusation without proof, I will defer to the fact that it seems as if it was more of a mistake in the intellegence community. Honestly, if you were president and some one put intelligence data on your desk that indicated all the things that Bush supposedly went to war on, it would be gross negligence of duty to do nothing. And obviously there was something, or why did ranking democratic Senators go along with the war after being given documents that we do not have access to?"

Even if it was just a mistake in the intelligence community (which I doubt.) then it should DEFINITELY have been checked and rechecked before going to war.

Amy's Immortal wrote:
So far the majority have. Why attack Iraq now? Why would Osama and Hussein work together? (despite what many of us americans believe, the world doesn't revolve around us. Just because both of them despise the US doesn't mean they are great buddies themselves. Infact, if you read up on it at ALL, you would find they actually despise eachother.)


"Obviously you have never heard of the age-old concept of two enemies uniting for a common purpose. I am not saying that Saddam and Bin Laden are co-conspirators but there are certainly some interesting facts and "coincidences" that cast some suspicion, although we cannot yet prove it."

Yes, I have heard of the concept. However, we are on the other side of the world, they are right next to eachother. Who would you fight? the guy you hate who u can easily get your hands on? or the guy you hate that is halfway around the world?
Oh, and since you seem to want proof of everything, I'll toss this back atya. There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the two of them worked together. NONE. It's obvious Bush used that as a ploy to sway people to his side by trying to link Saddam to 9/11.

Amy's Immortal wrote:
Where did the supposed "weapons of mass destruction" go? These are all questions that should be asked, and Bush should answer, instead of rambling, utterly incoherently. I strongly support the troops, they have no say concerning whether or not they would be called into action, it's not their fault that their commander & chief is a bundling fool.


"Ah yes, because making attacks on the person is always a way of bolstering arguments. And last I heard, that was a very common question and one that I believe shall be answered in time."

Yes, a very common question. From the media. The U.S. citizens should be asking it. Demanding it!

During a depression it was a good idea. It didn't even work so well then. Why do it again? Oh yea, Bush is in that top 1%, that explains it.

It seems as though you either dont understand statistics, or you are just regurgitating what someone told you. Here is a link you should read. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
Ill break it down to this.
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50% pay 3.97%
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

From this you should realize that even the most marginal tax-cut to the top 5%= large percentage of the total cut. Even if the bottom 50% were to stop paying taxes, that still wouldnt even matter much compared to if you gave the top 50% even 5% tax-cut.


We are in a recession, big difference between recessions and depressions. Bush passed the tax-cut to win ignorant voters over to his side. When was the last time a president has actually raised taxes? (I really don't know, someone tell me)

Try the last president. He gave us the largest tax increase in our nation's history.

Even if it was just a mistake in the intelligence community (which I doubt.) then it should DEFINITELY have been checked and rechecked before going to war.

Who does the checking?

Yes, I have heard of the concept. However, we are on the other side of the world, they are right next to eachother. Who would you fight? the guy you hate who u can easily get your hands on? or the guy you hate that is halfway around the world?

Well then why was there a September 11? It would have been much easier to crash into Saddam's palace. And when was the last time you heard Al Qaeda and Saddam fighting?

and since you seem to want proof of everything, I'll toss this back atya. There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the two of them worked together. NONE. It's obvious Bush used that as a ploy to sway people to his side by trying to link Saddam to 9/11.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

I was too lazy to find others but I know there are more. Im tired and am know going to bed.

BTW, the quote button is your friend. :mrgreen:

During a depression it was a good idea. It didn't even work so well then. Why do it again? Oh yea, Bush is in that top 1%, that explains it.

It seems as though you either dont understand statistics, or you are just regurgitating what someone told you. Here is a link you should read. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
Ill break it down to this.
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50% pay 3.97%
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

From this you should realize that even the most marginal tax-cut to the top 5%= large percentage of the total cut. Even if the bottom 50% were to stop paying taxes, that still wouldnt even matter much compared to if you gave the top 50% even 5% tax-cut.


We are in a recession, big difference between recessions and depressions. Bush passed the tax-cut to win ignorant voters over to his side. When was the last time a president has actually raised taxes? (I really don't know, someone tell me)

Try the last president. He gave us the largest tax increase in our nation's history.

Even if it was just a mistake in the intelligence community (which I doubt.) then it should DEFINITELY have been checked and rechecked before going to war.

Who does the checking?

Yes, I have heard of the concept. However, we are on the other side of the world, they are right next to eachother. Who would you fight? the guy you hate who u can easily get your hands on? or the guy you hate that is halfway around the world?

Well then why was there a September 11? It would have been much easier to crash into Saddam's palace. And when was the last time you heard Al Qaeda and Saddam fighting?

and since you seem to want proof of everything, I'll toss this back atya. There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the two of them worked together. NONE. It's obvious Bush used that as a ploy to sway people to his side by trying to link Saddam to 9/11.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

I was too lazy to find others but I know there are more. Im tired and am know going to bed.

BTW, the quote button is your friend. :mrgreen:

i would just like to commend MQ for actually taking the time to work thru all those quotes. i lost patience and stopped reading the post b/c of the confusion...

Yes, I have heard of the concept. However, we are on the other side of the world, they are right next to eachother. Who would you fight? the guy you hate who u can easily get your hands on? or the guy you hate that is halfway around the world?

Well then why was there a September 11?

Totally, utterly, and completely :owned:
Also, MQ said this earlier, but you haven't stopped, so I'll say it again.
5.)Absolutely no personal attacks! To resort to name calling insults all who post here and destroys all of your credibility.
That's not just for the debaters... it includes the people you're discussing.

5.)Absolutely no personal attacks! To resort to name calling insults all who post here and destroys all of your credibility.
That's not just for the debaters... it includes the people you're discussing.

well, i'm not one to interpret my own words, expecially since they're really the words of MQ, but i'm not so sure we should say that. i mean, it's not like he's the brightest dumbass in the box. and anything short of calling him a political genius, which he isn't, could be considered an attack. i'm all for being civil to other debaters, but if you're debating the intelligence of a given person, someone's got to argue the neg.

I think he's a dumbass. Plain and simple.

he's dumb, he's an asshole (i think that words too weak, but i'll use it anyway) and he started a war just to finish what his daddy started. words can't describe how much i hate him. twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted twisted

He needs to stop hiding behind hes daddys coat tails. Enough said.

well, i'm not one to interpret my own words, expecially since they're really the words of MQ, but i'm not so sure we should say that. i mean, it's not like he's the brightest dumbass in the box. and anything short of calling him a political genius, which he isn't, could be considered an attack. i'm all for being civil to other debaters, but if you're debating the intelligence of a given person, someone's got to argue the neg.

Granted, but resorting to such tactics weaken your overall arguement, and if you look at the three people who posted after you (Lauren, nightwish, buffyfan) you'll notice that they all did exactly that, and nothing else. No facts, only opinions and broad bashing statements. I thought this was a debate.

To the three of you who brought nothing but insults to the table, I have this to say.
In memory of Enthashyt... prove it. ;)

Well, when I wrote the rules, I was thinking about flaming other people for their beliefs. I wasnt really talking about namecalling people such as the president as he is not a member of the board. I will say, however, that namecalling as part of your argument is a major fallacy and weakens your entire argument. Since I see several people are new posting in the debate forum, I think they should take the time to read this site. :arrow: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

It is a very helpful site and one which I knew about when I first started posting here.

Here is another one. :arrow: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

It seems as though you either dont understand statistics, or you are just regurgitating what someone told you. Here is a link you should read. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
Ill break it down to this.
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50% pay 3.97%
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

From this you should realize that even the most marginal tax-cut to the top 5%= large percentage of the total cut. Even if the bottom 50% were to stop paying taxes, that still wouldnt even matter much compared to if you gave the top 50% even 5% tax-cut.

The problem is standard of living. The bottom portion of the population don't have huge amounts of expendable income. They are LIVING on that money. The top 1% has so much more than they need to live off of. This is why they are taxed more. Going by that chart you showed me, and from what u said, it wouldn't be a big deal if the bottom 50% stopped paying taxes. Why not do that instead of the tax-cut they passed?


Amy's Immortal wrote:
We are in a recession, big difference between recessions and depressions. Bush passed the tax-cut to win ignorant voters over to his side. When was the last time a president has actually raised taxes? (I really don't know, someone tell me)


Try the last president. He gave us the largest tax increase in our nation's history.

Then I applaud Clinton for doing what was needed. btw, do u know which term he passed the tax increase? I bet it was his second since it's impossible to run for a 3rd term he had no reason to suck up.

Amy's Immortal wrote:
Even if it was just a mistake in the intelligence community (which I doubt.) then it should DEFINITELY have been checked and rechecked before going to war.


Who does the checking?
The intelligence community. One of my friend's fathers is in the NSA and he is one of the smartest people I know. He said something I think is very true. He said this right after 9/11 when everyone was complaining that the NSA didn't do their job. "When we do our jobs right, no one knows about it. It's only when we miss something that we are in the public eye. This hasn't happened much, so obivously we have been doing a pretty good job."
I believe that.

Amy's Immortal wrote:
Yes, I have heard of the concept. However, we are on the other side of the world, they are right next to eachother. Who would you fight? the guy you hate who u can easily get your hands on? or the guy you hate that is halfway around the world?


Well then why was there a September 11? It would have been much easier to crash into Saddam's palace. And when was the last time you heard Al Qaeda and Saddam fighting?
How often did we hear about what was going on in Iraq or Afganistan before 9/11? Not often. Saddam wouldn't allow Al Qaeda in Iraq because he hates Osama.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

I was too lazy to find others but I know there are more. Im tired and am know going to bed.

One last thing. I'm sure you know this, but there are statistics all over the internet. You could find statistics to support anything you want to say. There are conflicting statistics.
The information u just showed us was found AFTER WE INVADED. Who's to say we didn't plant it? I wouldn't put it past Bush to do something like that. The major objective we set out to accomplish has chanced multiple times. Why are we fighting in Iraq? It began as "to protect ourselves from their WoMD before they can use them against us or our allies." now that we can't find any WoMD we are making up new reasons that before were just secondary objectives. Like "liberate the oppressed Iraqi people." I won't even go into that though. If you actually believe we went to war in Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then u are an extremely gullible individual and President Bush thanks you I'm sure.

btw. Here is an interesting statistic I heard on the news awhile ago.

The number of violent deaths in Baghdad before the war was an average of 17 a month. After the US led invasion it has skyrocketed to 673 (I believe that was the correct number. It may have been 663, but you get the gist) This figure doesn't even include U.S. soldiers killed. These are JUST Iraqis. More stable and less violent with Saddam gone? I think not. [/quote]

Amy's Immortal wrote:
Yes, I have heard of the concept. However, we are on the other side of the world, they are right next to eachother. Who would you fight? the guy you hate who u can easily get your hands on? or the guy you hate that is halfway around the world?


Well then why was there a September 11?


Totally, utterly, and completely owned


Only if you don't wait for my response.

Saddam forced Al Qaeda out of Iraqi. He despises Osama. I don't understand either of ur logic here. Osama and Al Qaeda were in Afganistan after having had their elements in Iraq kicked out, they had no (or very little) influence in Iraq. Take a look at a world map. Afganistan and Iraq don't share a border.

btw. Thank you MutantQuasar for telling me bout the quote button. I'm new to this board and haven't been to any boards set up this way. But is it really that difficult to read things with with " " around them instead? I went back and read my post and didn't think it was that difficult to figure out. Anyway, thanks, I'll use the quote option now :)

btw. Thank you MutantQuasar for telling me bout the quote button.

while we're showing you stuff, check out the edit button. it saves you from having to make 3 consecutive posts when you could just add something to the last one you made. it's a lot less annoying for everyone else that way, too.

Saddam forced Al Qaeda out of Iraqi. He despises Osama.
In memory of Enthashyt: Can you prove that?
It's entirely possible Saddam was trying to save his own ass by saying "NO... he's not my friend, I hate him, pleasedon'tshootmeplease"
So... prove it, please.

Take a look at a world map. Afganistan and Iraq don't share a border.
That's a horribly weak point.
Neither does the US & England, but we work together all the time.
For that matter, we only have borders with one real ally. The rest of them are across the ocean. I guess that means we can't cooperate with them, can we?
US Diplomat: I'm sorry, Germany, we can't help you because we don't share a border.
Seriously. Did you think before you wrote this out, or are you copying this from somewhere else?

The problem is standard of living. The bottom portion of the population don't have huge amounts of expendable income. They are LIVING on that money. The top 1% has so much more than they need to live off of. This is why they are taxed more. Going by that chart you showed me, and from what u said, it wouldn't be a big deal if the bottom 50% stopped paying taxes. Why not do that instead of the tax-cut they passed?

The bottom 50% were already paying less than 4% of the total tax burden before the Bush tax cut. The tax cut expanded deductibles and thresholds, effectively broadening the number of people who wouldn't pay any tax.

As to the rich paying more taxes, do you know that those other income brackets also encompass small business? So, they are paying unfair tax rates, taxes that could go toward paying more employees (and thus expanding the economy and creating jobs).

Besides, you need to understand the definition of the term rich. Democrats call all of these tax cuts for the rich. Under their definition (based on what income thresholds THEY are talking about) my family is considered rich. We're actually in the hated top 10%. However, I drive a 10 year old car and we rent a house. We have 20K in student loans and two children to feed. I could use any more of my money I can get. And the tax cut WILL help me. I'll probably end up paying $2K less in taxes for 2003. Are you going to tell me I shouldn't get it?


Then I applaud Clinton for doing what was needed. btw, do u know which term he passed the tax increase? I bet it was his second since it's impossible to run for a 3rd term he had no reason to suck up.

You applaud Clinton for campaigning for a middle class tax cut, only to pass the largest tax increase in history? He did that the very first year he was in office. The economy kept going in SPITE of the tax increase, not because of it.

The information u just showed us was found AFTER WE INVADED. Who's to say we didn't plant it?

You're kidding, right?

I wouldn't put it past Bush to do something like that.

Based on what?

The number of violent deaths in Baghdad before the war was an average of 17 a month. After the US led invasion it has skyrocketed to 673 (I believe that was the correct number.

From where do these 'statistics' come from? From Saddam? If that's the case, what about the hundreds of thousands of bodies in the mass graves we keep uncovering? Do they not count?

We're actually in the hated top 10%. However, I drive a 10 year old car and we rent a house. We have 20K in student loans and two children to feed.


what he fails to mention is that the "10" year old car is a $175000 deLorean that he bought directly from the set of BTtF. the "house" he rents is actually a 12th century castle in wales. the 20k in student loans he owes are left over from his top notch education at yale where he mostly drank lots of booze and had sex with cheap whores. and this "feeding" his kids business? what he really means to say is he's "feeding" their cocaine habits...

thanks for the input, richy. :rolleyes:

Excuse me?? CHEAP whores????

Excuse me?? CHEAP whores????

ok, sorry. "frugal" whores...

ok, sorry. "frugal" whores...

I prefer the term 'fiscally affordable' whores.

I propose a new rule.. Dev... let me know what you think.

6.) If you attempt to introduce something without first backing it up, or citing your statistics, etc, we have the right to laugh at you and not take you seriously.
*cough*Amy's Immortal*cough*

I think it would make the debates a lot smoother if people would refrain from making points that they could not prove, or at the very least, demonstrate precendent for.

So what do you guys think of the Bush Administrations OVERALL perfomance so far?
Well, let me summarize it by telling all of you a little story. On television Monday night, the local news showed a video clip (http://stream.liquidcompass.net/9news/newmedia/SelectSpeed2.asp?id=4375) of our commander in chief dressed in an army jacket addressing the men an women at Fort Carson. Immediately, a strong wave of irritation, discontent, and general contempt came over me such that I had to change the channel. I didn't vote for him last time and so, no, I won't be voting for him next year either.

I'm a little disappointed in the democrats so far, and I really don't expect Bush to loose in 2004 (absent some national calamity). I'll probably make a "protest" vote for the libertarian candidate.

Amy's Immortal wrote:
Take a look at a world map. Afganistan and Iraq don't share a border.

That's a horribly weak point.
Neither does the US & England, but we work together all the time.
For that matter, we only have borders with one real ally. The rest of them are across the ocean. I guess that means we can't cooperate with them, can we?
US Diplomat: I'm sorry, Germany, we can't help you because we don't share a border.
Seriously. Did you think before you wrote this out, or are you copying this from somewhere else?

The source of that statistic was channel 7 news.

That's a horribly weak point.
Neither does the US & England, but we work together all the time.
For that matter, we only have borders with one real ally. The rest of them are across the ocean. I guess that means we can't cooperate with them, can we?
US Diplomat: I'm sorry, Germany, we can't help you because we don't share a border.
Seriously. Did you think before you wrote this out, or are you copying this from somewhere else?

I was not saying they couldn't cooperate. What I was saying that they are far away from eachother. Hussein has no reason to attack them. He couldn't easily get his soldiers over there to fight them. Al Qaeda would have to send terrorests through several nations to get to Iraq for them to attack Iraq. My point is that they can't very well fight eachother. It would be nearly as difficult as attacking the U.S. and they couldn't possibly draw as much support for their attacks against eachother as they could for their attacks against us.

I'm sorry I haven't been explaining everyone of the issues in length, I just assume you have some knowledge of it and have some sort of reasoning ability.

So what do you guys think of the Bush Administrations OVERALL perfomance so far?
Well, let me summarize it by telling all of you a little story. On television Monday night, the local news showed a video clip (http://stream.liquidcompass.net/9news/newmedia/SelectSpeed2.asp?id=4375) of our commander in chief dressed in an army jacket addressing the men an women at Fort Carson. Immediately, a strong wave of irritation, discontent, and general contempt came over me such that I had to change the channel. I didn't vote for him last time and so, no, I won't be voting for him next year either.

I'm a little disappointed in the democrats so far, and I really don't expect Bush to loose in 2004 (absent some national calamity). I'll probably make a "protest" vote for the libertarian candidate.

You never explained why you had a "strong wave of irration, discontent, and general contempt" towards the president, so why dont you clarify what you mean , and dont just do a drive by on our pres. :)

Granted, but resorting to such tactics weaken your overall arguement, and if you look at the three people who posted after you (Lauren, nightwish, buffyfan) you'll notice that they all did exactly that, and nothing else. No facts, only opinions and broad bashing statements. I thought this was a debate.

To the three of you who brought nothing but insults to the table, I have this to say.
In memory of Enthashyt... prove it. ;)

Well...I think he's a dumbass because half the time it's like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And "That man tried to kill my daddy" WTF???? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/verkleidung/costumed-smiley-005.gif

i think "dubbya" ( :rolleyes: ) is doing his job to the best of his abilities with the options and information he has. he's a good man who sticks to his guns, no matter what those damn opinion polls (that don't mean crap, btw) say. a lot of what is really going on is not told to the american people because en mass, we couldn't handle it. the individual is intelligent, but the mob is stupid. i don't agree with some of his choices, but i respect him for doing what he has done in the long run for many things, even when he's had a lot to deal with during his term as president. i don't think Al Gore could have done as well given the circumstances.

...so why dont you clarify what you mean , and dont just do a drive by on our pres. :)
1. I don't think that a preemptive war was the best solution for the Iraq issue.
2. Pentagon Manages War Coverage By Limiting Coffin Pictures (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1030-12.htm)
3. I'm not a Republican
4. and see here (http://insidedenver.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2435959,00.html).
http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb214.gif

I think he's a dumbass. Plain and simple.

that about sums it up.
i would go into specific reasons but i have a headache and bush is not worth my time to type out all of the mistakes he has made and why i don't like him.

i will vote for ANYONE who is not bush in the 2004 election.

i think "dubbya" ( :rolleyes: ) is doing his job to the best of his abilities with the options and information he has. he's a good man who sticks to his guns, no matter what those damn opinion polls (that don't mean crap, btw) say. a lot of what is really going on is not told to the american people because en mass, we couldn't handle it. the individual is intelligent, but the mob is stupid. i don't agree with some of his choices, but i respect him for doing what he has done in the long run for many things, even when he's had a lot to deal with during his term as president. i don't think Al Gore could have done as well given the circumstances.

well said blueorchid, Bush is doing the best to his ability and he is sticking to his guns.

And I really dont see Al gore as a post 9/11 pres. And for that matter , I dont see any of the 9 dems that could lead this fight against terrorism

i will vote for ANYONE who is not bush in the 2004 election.

So...if Al Sharpton had the Democratic nomination, you would vote for him?

Oh and for the record, I'm not all that much of a Bush fan. He's kinds of an in-between for me. He's done/said some things I agree with, and some that I do not. I'm just waiting to see how these next several months to decide between him or Clark.

To everyone that is not satisfied with the current administration: Vote him out. If you don't vote, than you can have no say. It's like everyone has something to say, but about half of all legal voters actually do vote. And if you do like Bush, then vote to keep him in.

But seriously people, you NEED to learn about these candidates. Our last election (2000) was ridiculously close. Presidential elections shouldn't be that close. When that happens, it means that we don't know what we want. Half of us want Bush, and half of us want Gore. In the end, it came down to a few hundred votes in Florida. Read up, hit CNN, hit MSNBC, Ny Times, etc. etc. Learn about these guys that want to run our country.

That is all.

It would take me many hours to even begin to explain all the mistakes he has made. I'll summarize some of his biggest.

1) Tax cut- It's a ploy to get gullible people's votes. Yes, u get a few hundred dollars back. But where did that money come from? The government has to cut back on programs because of the tax cut. While the average person is receiving a few hundred dollars, the top 1% is receiving a much larger portion.

Wrong, the money came from me. If you people hate the tax-cut so much, give it back! Oh yeah, you dont pay taxes. Granted I dont pay a whole lot, but I am reasonably well informed of my parents economic standing.
For now, I'm only commenting on this.

I started paying taxes when I was 15. Yes, FIFTEEN. A freshman in high school, being claimed by my parents, can't even drive yet, much less vote, but they got money out of me (from my job, yes I was working that early, because I needed money for things and my family lives paycheck to paycheck).

When I was 17 I was geting emails from the Bush administration asking for me to donate money (for campaigning and etc). I replied to the emails telling them to lower the voting age or leave me the hell alone. Blocked the email addresses, and sure enough they kept sending me emails from different addresses after finding that I blocked them. (This is what I get for filing my taxes online.)

At 18 I was still in high school, and Bush went around saying that "everyone" would get a tax refund. Yeah, right. I then found out I couldn't get one because I was still a student. Wait, I'm 18, I can vote, I pay my taxes on time, but I can't get a refund because I'm still in high school?

As far as I'm concerned, screw Bush's tax cuts.

I think Bush is an idiot who wouldn't even have a political career if it wasn't for Daddy. Though our entire political system is full of corrupt idiots, the democratic platform agrees better overall with my views than the republican. But it doesn't really matter whom I vote for, Bush will win the state of Texas and my vote won't count for anything. The electoral college sucks.

I appreciate your post, DF. You make very salient points regarding voting. However, I wanted to comment on something.


But seriously people, you NEED to learn about these candidates. Our last election (2000) was ridiculously close. Presidential elections shouldn't be that close. When that happens, it means that we don't know what we want. Half of us want Bush, and half of us want Gore. In the end, it came down to a few hundred votes in Florida.

It's not quite as simple as that. Remember, if Gore had simply won his home state the Florida situation wouldn't have mattered. But you're right, politics is as polarized and as even as could be. This is all the more reason to make sure you vote.


Read up, hit CNN, hit MSNBC, Ny Times, etc. etc. Learn about these guys that want to run our country.

I would recommend not only reading and watching these particular outlets. I don't think you get a complete picture on everyone from them. Try other media outlets as well to round out what you need and want to know.

The problem is standard of living. The bottom portion of the population don't have huge amounts of expendable income. They are LIVING on that money. The top 1% has so much more than they need to live off of. This is why they are taxed more. Going by that chart you showed me, and from what u said, it wouldn't be a big deal if the bottom 50% stopped paying taxes. Why not do that instead of the tax-cut they passed?


Let us create a hypothetical scenario. I am rich (which I am not) and you are not. What entitles you the right to my money? I worked hard for it. And dont tell me about inheritence. Statisctically over 70% of millionares earned it themselves and did not inherit it. Granted that having more money will cause you to pay more money per % but I am fine with that.
I think it is funny that when my parents sold stock to pay for my brother's college education, we were labeled rich by the government and lost a third of that money. Or another one. I know someone who's mother is a nurse. She worked very hard for several years and was offered a promotion. She stupidly took it and the increase in pay moved her up a tax bracket. Because she was in a new tax bracket, she payed more taxes and ended up with making less money per year than if she hadnt accepted the promotion.

Then I applaud Clinton for doing what was needed. btw, do u know which term he passed the tax increase? I bet it was his second since it's impossible to run for a 3rd term he had no reason to suck up.

No, actually it was in his first, after having run on giving a tax cut to the middle class. As I said, if you want to pay more taxes, no one is holding you back. I say that everyone who wants a tax increase should just go ahead and write the government a check. We would actually save paper by not having to create a 1000 page tax bill.

Who does the checking?
The intelligence community. One of my friend's fathers is in the NSA and he is one of the smartest people I know. He said something I think is very true. He said this right after 9/11 when everyone was complaining that the NSA didn't do their job. "When we do our jobs right, no one knows about it. It's only when we miss something that we are in the public eye. This hasn't happened much, so obivously we have been doing a pretty good job."
I believe that.

I believe you missed my point. The intelligence community gave the possible flawed information and so even if they double checked, which I am sure they did, the flaw could still exist.

How often did we hear about what was going on in Iraq or Afganistan before 9/11? Not often. Saddam wouldn't allow Al Qaeda in Iraq because he hates Osama.

So I suppose that the Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq actually didnt exist.

One last thing. I'm sure you know this, but there are statistics all over the internet. You could find statistics to support anything you want to say. There are conflicting statistics.

Given the fact that the site I quoted was a respected newspaper, I dont feel that it is the equivelent of quoting a blog. Wouldd you like me to mail some Reuters to you?

The information u just showed us was found AFTER WE INVADED. Who's to say we didn't plant it?

I am I actually expected to take this as a serious argument?


btw. Here is an interesting statistic I heard on the news awhile ago.

The number of violent deaths in Baghdad before the war was an average of 17 a month. After the US led invasion it has skyrocketed to 673 (I believe that was the correct number. It may have been 663, but you get the gist) This figure doesn't even include U.S. soldiers killed. These are JUST Iraqis. More stable and less violent with Saddam gone? I think not.

What you have to realize is this is Baghdad. Why dont we look at a statistic for Iraq as a whole. Im sure the mass graves where hundreds of thousands of people are buried would tell a slightly different story.

I was not saying they couldn't cooperate. What I was saying that they are far away from eachother.

You obviously either didnt get my point about 9/11 or you just ignored it. Seriously, we are much farther away from Afgahnistan and we were still attacked.

Let us create a hypothetical scenario. I am rich (which I am not) and you are not. What entitles you the right to my money? I worked hard for it. And dont tell me about inheritence. Statisctically over 70% of millionares earned it themselves and did not inherit it. Granted that having more money will cause you to pay more money per % but I am fine with that.
Are you suggesting that everyone pay the same amount of money for taxes? I don't see your point. Those millionares still have a hell of a lot more expendable cash then we do after taxes.

No, actually it was in his first, after having run on giving a tax cut to the middle class. As I said, if you want to pay more taxes, no one is holding you back. I say that everyone who wants a tax increase should just go ahead and write the government a check. We would actually save paper by not having to create a 1000 page tax bill.

This is just plain ignorant. No body wants to pay taxes. Everyone wants the benefits that we receive for paying taxes. We don't want the benefits to decrease, but we want the amount of taxes we are paying to decrease. The amount of taxes we pay and the amount of benefits we receive are directly porportional.
Who do u think is going to pay off the National Debt? or do u think we should leave it as it is? paying billions of $$$ in interest every year?

I believe you missed my point. The intelligence community gave the possible flawed information and so even if they double checked, which I am sure they did, the flaw could still exist.
I think you need to check what actually happened. It wasn't that the intelligence community completely overlooked something. It was that there are so many threats and plots that we can't possibly check all of them.

So I suppose that the Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq actually didnt exist.
I haven't heard of any large scale Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. There might be some small ones that Hussein didn't know about. But from what I have read/heard, Hussein very much didn't like Osama and made things as difficult as he could for him.

I am I actually expected to take this as a serious argument?
I am too. This is a serious argument.

What you have to realize is this is Baghdad. Why dont we look at a statistic for Iraq as a whole. Im sure the mass graves where hundreds of thousands of people are buried would tell a slightly different story.
I realize this. The point is that in Baghdad things have gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

You obviously either didnt get my point about 9/11 or you just ignored it. Seriously, we are much farther away from Afgahnistan and we were still attacked.
It's funny that u choose to quote things out of context. Here is the full quote.

I was not saying they couldn't cooperate. What I was saying that they are far away from eachother. Hussein has no reason to attack them. He couldn't easily get his soldiers over there to fight them. Al Qaeda would have to send terrorests through several nations to get to Iraq for them to attack Iraq. My point is that they can't very well fight eachother. It would be nearly as difficult as attacking the U.S. and they couldn't possibly draw as much support for their attacks against eachother as they could for their attacks against us.

I can't comment because there is no longer freedom of speech in the US and I could be taken to jail for saying what I think.

I can't comment because there is no longer freedom of speech in the US and I could be taken to jail for saying what I think.
Reminds me of the guy who got suspended from school for wearing a "Bush sucks" t-shirt a year or two ago.

Are you suggesting that everyone pay the same amount of money for taxes? I don't see your point.

No, but why not pay the same RATE on taxes? That is fair. And the rich still end up paying more, but just at the same rate.

Those millionares still have a hell of a lot more expendable cash then we do after taxes.

So what? How does that mean you have more right to it than they do?

This is just plain ignorant. No body wants to pay taxes.

But you praise tax increases. Sounds like you want to pay taxes. Or is it, you want everyone else to pay taxes?

The amount of taxes we pay and the amount of benefits we receive are directly porportional.

I actually think you're completely wrong. The rich don't get hardly any benefits while the poor who don't pay any taxes also get welfare, foodstamps, EIC, etc. ad nauseum.


I haven't heard of any large scale Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. There might be some small ones that Hussein didn't know about.

There were many of them, as we found out when we came upon during the invasion. I seriously doubt a man like Hussein would have absolutely NO knowledge of terrorist training camps in his own country.

But from what I have read/heard, Hussein very much didn't like Osama and made things as difficult as he could for him.

Where do you 'read/hear' this? Did you look at the recently leaked 50 page memo detailing over 10 years of Al Queda/ Iraq meetings and dealings?

I am too. This is a serious argument.

Unbelievable.

I realize this. The point is that in Baghdad things have gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

Perhaps, but you're fishing for specific downsides. You say nothing of the schools our troops have opened, free of weapons caches. You don't bother to mention all the businesses and restaurants that are now open. Like the sensationalist media, you seem content to only illuminate the bad. With such selective information gathering, of course you won't have anything nice to say about Bush or the Iraqi reconstruction.

I realize this. The point is that in Baghdad things have gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

Perhaps, but you're fishing for specific downsides. You say nothing of the schools our troops have opened, free of weapons caches. You don't bother to mention all the businesses and restaurants that are now open. Like the sensationalist media, you seem content to only illuminate the bad. With such selective information gathering, of course you won't have anything nice to say about Bush or the Iraqi reconstruction.
Things have gotten worse? Do you live there? Have you even visited there? Do you have friends there who TELL YOU PERSONALLY that things are worse? Or are you just going by what you see on the nightly news?

A big step in the right direction:

Kabul beauty school offers community, training for Afghan women
Erin Hanafy, Associated Press

Published November 16, 2003 KABVAR

NEW YORK -- Under Taliban rule, beauty salons were banned in Afghanistan. Since the regime also decreed that women be covered from head to toe in heavy burqas, banned from workplaces and schools and virtually restricted to their homes, the salon ban might seem irrelevant.

But it wasn't. Secret salons flourished, despite the risk of severe punishment and an extreme shortage of materials. A new beauty school in Kabul aims to rectify that situation, offering training with top-of-the-line materials and a way for women to make a living out in the open.

The Kabul Beauty School, which graduated its first class in October, has also become a source of support for the women as they adjust to newfound freedoms.

"The most affecting thing about the beauty school is just to have that contact," says Julia Reed, a Vogue senior writer who wrote about her August visit to the Kabul Beauty School for the magazine's November issue.

The image of vain women chatting away at a beauty salon has become a negative stereotype in American culture, but the sense of community shared by the Afghan women in the course of practicing hair and makeup techniques was far from shallow chitchat.

"They haven't been able to share their stories or ask advice for a problem or say, 'What do you do when your child is teething?' Just normal things that women have been doing since medieval times. For all intents and purposes, they have been under house arrest," Reed says.

In the secret salons, hairdressers used perm rollers that were crudely carved out of wood with thick rubber band fasteners. Makeup was so valuable that women would bury it, Reed says.

"I thought to myself, 'Would I really risk my life for having some well-groomed hair and makeup?' " Reed says. "I think that they were so dehumanized, it was the one way they could keep self-respect, even though nobody could see them."

Because many women were already running secret salons, it was a natural choice for many seeking jobs after the Taliban's ouster. Interest in the Kabul Beauty School was so keen that a lottery was held to fill the first 20 slots. More than 200 women are on the waiting list for the next class.

The idea for the school was born in late 2001, when hairstylist Terri Grauel was working on a photo shoot for a Vogue story on Mary MacMakin, an aid worker who had been expelled from Kabul. MacMakin and Grauel hit it off, came up with the beauty school idea and enlisted Patricia O'Connor, a marketing and development consultant to the beauty industry.

The trio approached Vogue with the idea, and the magazine cut a check for $25,000 to build the school and held a fund-raising lunch to solicit help from other beauty industry leaders. The cosmetics company MAC developed the core curriculum for makeup, contributed money and products, and shot a cosmetics training video in Dari, the most common language spoken in Afghanistan. Clairol contributed $60,000 and created the school's hair coloring curriculum. Pennsylvania's Wilkes University created the business curriculum that covered everything from bookkeeping to customer service.

Finally, they enlisted several Afghan-American beauty professionals to teach the classes, some returning for the first time since fleeing their country more than 20 years ago during the Soviet invasion.

"They can connect with the women there in a way that nobody from the West could," Reed says, though the homecoming was painful for most.

But, once these women have expert hair and makeup skills, who will their customers be? Some business will come from aid workers, but most of their clients will be Afghans. Despite a devastated economy, Afghans are in a mood to find exuberance wherever they can get it. Beauty salons and wedding and formalwear stores can be found on almost any block, Reed says.

At least in formerly Westernized Kabul, residents seem to be looking for any occasion to celebrate and dress up, Reed says.

"The exuberance of these women, just at being allowed to express themselves and look how they wanted to look, was palpable," Reed says.

Taken from http://www.startribune.com/stories/389/4210747.html

No, but why not pay the same RATE on taxes? That is fair. And the rich still end up paying more, but just at the same rate.

The problem with that is that the lower classes can't afford to pay much, if any, taxes, while the upper classes can afford much higher rates. Someone has to pay for it. So they do. This is because they don't NEED the money to SURVIVE. while the lower classes can't afford to pay a large % of their income in taxes.

But you praise tax increases. Sounds like you want to pay taxes. Or is it, you want everyone else to pay taxes?
Again. This is just plain ignorant. NO ONE WANTS TO PAY TAXES. but someone has to. If a country is going to last, it's citizens have to pay taxes. The way things are turning, we are paying less taxes, while the nation is in debt. Does this make sense? absolutely not. There is nothing u can say that can convince me that while the nation is in trillions of $$$ of debt we should lower taxes.

I actually think you're completely wrong. The rich don't get hardly any benefits while the poor who don't pay any taxes also get welfare, foodstamps, EIC, etc. ad nauseum.

I meant a nation as a whole. The more money the government gets, the better they can fianance programs.

There were many of them, as we found out when we came upon during the invasion. I seriously doubt a man like Hussein would have absolutely NO knowledge of terrorist training camps in his own country.
Do you have any articals that mention terrorist camps being found? specifically Al Qaeda ones? I honestly haven't heard anything about that. However, from what I have heard in my AP Government class at school, on the news, and in articals I have read, Hussein hates Osama.

Where do you 'read/hear' this? Did you look at the recently leaked 50 page memo detailing over 10 years of Al Queda/ Iraq meetings and dealings?
No, I haven't looked at it. Who was it leaked by?

Perhaps, but you're fishing for specific downsides. You say nothing of the schools our troops have opened, free of weapons caches. You don't bother to mention all the businesses and restaurants that are now open. Like the sensationalist media, you seem content to only illuminate the bad. With such selective information gathering, of course you won't have anything nice to say about Bush or the Iraqi reconstruction.

Yes, Iraq has certainly been helped OVERALL by the U.S. invasion. It has by no means liberated the people, and there are many, MANY bad things for Iraqis that have been a result of the U.S. invasion. Yes, schools have been opened. That's great. Businesses have been opened (some have been closed because they were destroyed by bombs and/or looters) But look at the cost of the war. In both money and lives. There are many countries who's citizens have it just as bad as the Iraqis, why aren't we helping the other countries overthrow their oppressive governments?

Also, does anyone think Bush is good in foriegn affairs? If it wasn't so scary (that he's turning the international community against us) it would almost be funny how terrible he is at dealing with other nations.
Anyone heard about how pissed off the Queen of England is at him for destroying part of her garden because of security or something. Helicopters landed and destroyed a good portion of her garden. Also, he brought 5 of his own cheifs when he came to visit. That is considered an insult. She's mad about that too.
There are many, many more insults he has been tossing around. Mainly to France and Germany.

The problem with that is that the lower classes can't afford to pay much, if any, taxes, while the upper classes can afford much higher rates. Someone has to pay for it. So they do. This is because they don't NEED the money to SURVIVE. while the lower classes can't afford to pay a large % of their income in taxes.

Thank you for providing a basic definition of communism.

The way things are turning, we are paying less taxes, while the nation is in debt. Does this make sense? absolutely not. There is nothing u can say that can convince me that while the nation is in trillions of $$$ of debt we should lower taxes.

Okay, I see the problem. You don't know anything about economics.

A reduction in tax RATES does not reduce the AMOUNT of tax revenue. Quite the opposite in fact. Reducing taxes spurs spending which in turn increases tax income for the government. This is exemplified in the Laffer Curve. Conversely, if you raise taxes you can decrease tax revenue. Case in point: Gray Davis tripled the car tax in Cali because he wanted to raise $18B. However, the trippling in car tax was the reason why luxury car sales plummeted in Cali. As a result, over $18B of revenue was lost in only 1 fiscal quarter!

As to the relationship between lowering taxes and getting rid of the debt. It will eliminate the debt faster than raising taxes. You have to understand that high taxes is a DIS-INCENTIVE to produce. Why would people want to start a small business (and therefore employ people and sell things that people will buy) when they will make no money? Why would anyone want to be successful when they will see progressively more and their more of their money taken from them?

And you're ignoring the other side of the debt. Spending. This country is spending WAY too much. Why aren't you as incensed about spending?

I meant a nation as a whole. The more money the government gets, the better they can fianance programs.

We are agreed, but raising tax RATES won't do it. Lower tax rates and the tax revenue will skyrocket.

Yes, Iraq has certainly been helped OVERALL by the U.S. invasion. It has by no means liberated the people, and there are many, MANY bad things for Iraqis that have been a result of the U.S. invasion.

I'm not denying that, but there is absolutely no way the 'bad stuff' gets anywhere close to the amount of 'good stuff', despite what you're ingesting from the mainstream media.

Yes, schools have been opened. That's great. Businesses have been opened (some have been closed because they were destroyed by bombs and/or looters) But look at the cost of the war. In both money and lives.

I'm sure the rest of the world is thankful you weren't in a decision making role during WWII.

The 9/11 attack cost us a half TRILLION dollars and thousands of lives. If all the money we're spending, if all the heroic sacrifices that are made in Iraq eliminate even another potential attack like that, then we're getting a monstrous return on the investment.


There are many countries who's citizens have it just as bad as the Iraqis, why aren't we helping the other countries overthrow their oppressive governments?

Well, why don't you ask the almight UN?

However, I'll answer your question. Right now they don't pose a threat to us.

Also, does anyone think Bush is good in foriegn affairs? If it wasn't so scary (that he's turning the international community against us) it would almost be funny how terrible he is at dealing with other nations.

Please explain how he is 'terrible' in dealing with other nations? Oh, and you can't use the 'they don't like us' mantra.

Personally, I'm glad we have a guy who's not going to subrogate the decisions relevant to our safety to France, Germany and China.

There are many, many more insults he has been tossing around. Mainly to France and Germany.

Good. Frankly, until they show a little gratitude that we liberated them (or better yet, how about they repay the cost of their reconstruction!), I could care less what they think. They're irrelevant.


Now, on to the Iraq/Al-Qaeda stuff:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/4/6/144706


From Newsmax:
Sunday, April 6, 2003 2:48 p.m. EDT

Saddam's 9/11 Hijack Training Camp Destroyed

A South Baghdad terrorist training facility used before the 9/11 attacks to train al-Qaeda recruits to hijack American airliners using small knives was attacked by U.S. forces Saturday night.

"The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force raided a training camp near Salman Pak and destroyed it," U.S. Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks told reporters Sunday morning.

"We believe it had been used to train foreign fighters not from Iraq," he added, in some of the first comments by a U.S. official hinting that Saddam Hussein's regime was training terrorists from other countries.

"The nature of the work being done by some of those people we captured, their inferences about the type of training they received, all these things give us the impression that there is terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak," Gen. Brooks explained, according to a report by the Press Association Limited.

Salman Pak has been named in a trillion-dollar lawsuit filed by families of Sept. 11 victims against Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In February, three Salman Pak defectors and two U.N. weapons inspectors, along with former CIA Director James Woolsey, were called to testify about the hijacking school.

Although the testimony has not been made public, Capt. Sabah Khodad, a former Iraqi intelligence officer who had worked at Salman Pak in 1994 and 1995, told the London Observer that when he saw the World Trade Center attack, he immediately thought, "This has been done by graduates of Salman Pak."

Commenting on Salman Pak's destruction, Maj. Robert Bevelaqua (Ret.) told Fox News Channel on Sunday: "That was a key site for us to go after because it blatantly shows the Iraqi regime embraces and teaches and indoctrinates their guys in terrorism. The fact that we had overhead imagery a year ago or so that showed a civilian airliner that they were using [to rehearse hijackings] really just kind of smacked of terrorism."

Bevelaqua noted that forces manning Salman Pak who were killed in Saturday night's attack included non-Iraqis from countries such as Yemen, Jordan, Iran and Syria. The CIA had largely dismissed reports by Khodad and other Salman Pak defectors who claimed that the camp's hijack trainees were recruited from throughout the Middle East.

Please permit me to make a follow up post of some magnitude. I don't think it will fit in this post. To immediately follow...

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/11/15/20031115_182204_flash32.htm

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue of the WEEKLY STANDARD: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.

5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.

Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government."

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.

This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).

Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:

10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that , Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

The analysis of those events follows:

The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.

IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A "former senior Iraqi intelligence officer" reported that "the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad's point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz."

11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .

14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.

According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.

15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.

16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.

17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader

[Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.

18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction.

An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:

Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.

Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."

The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.

23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.

Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:

24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.

One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."

26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

The analysis of this report follows.

CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons."

Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:

27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.

The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.

Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time.

Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:

31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration:

References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11.

Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq.

37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.

The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance."

CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror; that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely "exaggerated" for political purposes; that hawks "cherry-picked" bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public.

Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look at the administration's "exaggeration of intelligence."

Said Levin: "The question is whether or not they exaggerated intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that there's a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was there a basis for that?"

There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Gore's recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new "evidence" that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really?

[b]One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.

Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again.

Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted.

The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn't make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq.

Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out.

But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

(emphasis added)

No, but why not pay the same RATE on taxes? That is fair. And the rich still end up paying more, but just at the same rate.

The problem with that is that the lower classes can't afford to pay much, if any, taxes, while the upper classes can afford much higher rates. Someone has to pay for it. So they do. This is because they don't NEED the money to SURVIVE. while the lower classes can't afford to pay a large % of their income in taxes.

It seems to me that you are a socialist at heart. Are you familiar with the term incentives? My cousin has discovered the wonderful system of workmen's comp. She has discovered that the government pays her more money to not work than if she was to work. Instead of making the argument that someone has to pay for, why not have a much smaller government that doesnt cost as much and everyone can pay an equal but fair percentage of the taxes?

And you keep dodging the question. What right do you specifically have to take someone elses money? I have some wonderful quotes for you.
Early 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler wrote: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.

Alexis de Tocqueville: "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."


But you praise tax increases. Sounds like you want to pay taxes. Or is it, you want everyone else to pay taxes?
Again. This is just plain ignorant. NO ONE WANTS TO PAY TAXES. but someone has to. If a country is going to last, it's citizens have to pay taxes. The way things are turning, we are paying less taxes, while the nation is in debt. Does this make sense? absolutely not. There is nothing u can say that can convince me that while the nation is in trillions of $$$ of debt we should lower taxes.

If the debt is so important to everyone, why do we keep creating more entitlements? I see this all the time in my school district. They put a levy up for vote. They say that if they dont get the levy the will be forced to cut programs. The levy fails. The programs are cut. Then the levy comes up again and it passes. The programs are never put back into place. Instead they buy the football team new uniforms.
And yes, someone has to pay taxes. I am all for taxes as I realize that a government cannot exist without adaquet funding. We saw this in our own country under the Articles of Confederation. But why should a small minority be enslaved by the omnipotence of the majority (a bit more Tocqueville for you)? And do realize that every time this country has had a tax cut, its productivity increases? Smaller percentage rates but higher volume of taxable income=increased revenue.

I actually think you're completely wrong. The rich don't get hardly any benefits while the poor who don't pay any taxes also get welfare, foodstamps, EIC, etc. ad nauseum.

I meant a nation as a whole. The more money the government gets, the better they can fianance programs.

But if we are in such amazing debt, why are we still creating more entitlements?

he's turning the international community against us

When were they with us? We have always had major countries pissed at us.

Anyone heard about how pissed off the Queen of England is at him for destroying part of her garden because of security or something. Helicopters landed and destroyed a good portion of her garden.

Really? Im shocked. I mean, think of all of those poor defenceless roses that were killed! It is an international fiasco! Quick, everyone to the bomb shelters!

There are many, many more insults he has been tossing around. Mainly to France and Germany.

And you dont think there were insults hurled this way?


There are many, many more insults he has been tossing around. Mainly to France and Germany.


Good. Frankly, until they show a little gratitude that we liberated them (or better yet, how about they repay the cost of their reconstruction!), I could care less what they think. They're irrelevant.

Can we get that money back relative to inflation? ;) Interest?
This Iraq affair costs nothing compared to the reconstruction of post-WWII Europe.


Eldritch, I am at my grandmother's until Monday and was worrying that this could get outta hand. Looks like youve got this one pretty well. Thanks for the PM.

oh, and I think this is long over-due. :owned:

It seems to me that you are a socialist at heart. Are you familiar with the term incentives? My cousin has discovered the wonderful system of workmen's comp. She has discovered that the government pays her more money to not work than if she was to work. Instead of making the argument that someone has to pay for, why not have a much smaller government that doesnt cost as much and everyone can pay an equal but fair percentage of the taxes?
Actually, I think the best form of government is an oligarchy. Fascism is good too. I am completely against welfare. However, even with welfare there are plenty of incentives. Like I said before Millionaires still have a hell of a lot more money than us after taxes. Also, your idea of everyone paying the same % for taxes is insane. What about someone getting $18,000 a year? that's barely enough to live on. Are we going to tax them the same percent as someone making $5,000,000? because that would mean 0% taxes since the poor one couldn't pay any.

And you keep dodging the question. What right do you specifically have to take someone elses money?

The right every government has. To be a citizen, you have to follow laws. The law is...pay taxes.

Quote:
Early 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler wrote: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.


Quote:
Alexis de Tocqueville: "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Nice quotes :) I agree with them. I don't believe in democracy. Why? because the majority of those voting are ignorant and easily swayed.

If the debt is so important to everyone, why do we keep creating more entitlements? I see this all the time in my school district. They put a levy up for vote. They say that if they dont get the levy the will be forced to cut programs. The levy fails. The programs are cut. Then the levy comes up again and it passes. The programs are never put back into place. Instead they buy the football team new uniforms.
And yes, someone has to pay taxes. I am all for taxes as I realize that a government cannot exist without adaquet funding. We saw this in our own country under the Articles of Confederation. But why should a small minority be enslaved by the omnipotence of the majority (a bit more Tocqueville for you)? And do realize that every time this country has had a tax cut, its productivity increases? Smaller percentage rates but higher volume of taxable income=increased revenue.

The cause of this is that they can just borrow money. To win an election the politician makes promises, then he gets elected and decides he'll follow through with them so he can get re-elected. Of course, he promises more than he can afford and ends up in debt. The next person elected did the same thing, and so on and so on. No one