PDA

View Full Version : Wake up, ZD Liberals


Danoz
09-25-2004, 06:14 AM
I post this thread, because I’m tired of people trying to compare President Bush and America’s cause to the crusades, and Hitler’s quest for domination and “purification”. The Crusades were run by an arrogance that made people think they could forcefully convert others to a different religion, lead by those who believed in Divine Right. Your blaming of Christianity as a religion, pure and simply, holds absolutely no water. In fact, your comparison is better made to the terrorists who ARE lead to their evil acts through false, cultist interpretations of religion. America is fighting a war, not for religious conversion, but for religious freedom and human rights. Moral clarity is the ability to recognize evil for what it is, and the courage to confront it head on before it spreads like cancer. Moral Clarity for a president is the strong ability to protect us, and—as the leader of free world, to protect humanity. Churchhill had it. Reagan had it. Bush has is.

A person cannot be intellectually honest and believe that Kerry is the answer for the future, especially in dealing with something as pivotal as the threat against terror. I’ve actually heard some people refer to his constant position changing as “conscience” and “honest change of opinion”. The fact is, Kerry is suffocated by electoral incentive, so much so that he doesn’t even have positions anymore. We elect people to make choices, not to be ever-changing reflections of public opinion polls.

Now, some here have said that it’s the love for ones country that represents the threat. I disagree. This isn’t a blind nationalism behind a death of promised virgins, or racial purification; this is a love of a nation founded on a promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we continue to love and find superior to that of other nations. It’s no secret that other democracies have echoed our example, and they’ll continue to be our allies of peace. However, we can never forget our responsibility to the people less fortunate. The rights we’ve declared in America weren’t just believed to be for Americans, but rights endowed by the creator of man that apply to all. When we see the prison camps in North Korea, the torture in Africa and the mass graves in Iraq—to ignore them would be the greatest sin of all.

Now John Kerry has proposed a more “sensitive” war in which the already sealed shut door of the highly questionable United Nations would be appealed to. In fact, this being the first of his “4 part plan” is a prerequisite to what follows. (The idea being, of course, increased support to quickly replace troops in Iraq). Welcome to Neverland. Suddenly, the nations that have already violently opposed the action would be more than willing to follow suit under a Kerry administration… nations whose connection with a certain 3 word scandal (Oil for Food) made their opinion on the matter obsolete to begin with. These leaders have blatantly undermined America and the spread of Democracy, the spread of freedom; as a result more of our soldiers have died.

Do you know what’s going to gradually replace troops in Iraq”? Iraqi police and troops that WE train. This is what Bush is talking about when he says “stay the course”, over and over again. We’re training an army; this kind of thing doesn’t happen over night.

This belief that America acted “unilaterally” is not only false, it’s an insult to the allies that have pledged their support to our united cause. Furthermore, if we had acted unilaterally, in our best interests, and for the freedom of a nation’s people—it would have been anything but wrong.
So, you’ll probably vote for Kerry. Most of you will. Why? Because you hate Bush, because “Kerry is a doushebag but I’m voting for him anyway”. At least realize the weight of such a decision before you go to the polls. You’re choosing somebody who lacks the courage to protect us, the vision to defeat terror and the foundation to set and maintain policy. Time to wake up.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Cornellius
09-25-2004, 06:37 AM
I'm not an american, but if I were, I think I would be a democrat. I'd vote for Kerry. I think he's the answer, and I hate Bush. I won't say why in 10 pages, I'll just say it's because I believe more in his ideas then in Bush ones.

<P ID="signature">__________________________________________________ _______________

'' What kind of freedom is bought with a gun ? '' - Bruce Dickinson </P>

Lenophis
09-25-2004, 07:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You’re choosing somebody who lacks the courage to protect us, the vision to defeat terror and the foundation to set and maintain policy. Time to wake up.

<hr></blockquote>
And you're choosing one person that is letting this country fall apart at the seams. You are choosing a person who will fight the war of Iraq. (Face it, he's in Iraq, the war on terrorism is dead. Not paying attention to Al Qaeda at all, or anyone else for that matter.)

And yet, jobs are leaving the country, Bush says that good. Bullshit
And yet, the education system is fucked over. Thanks a lot Bush.
And yet, he's cutting funding for all public assistance (including policemen and firefighters in '02).
And yet, he's STILL pushing to make the might-as-well-be-dead Social Security system privatized. (Enron-like guy determining who gets SS, no thanks...)
And yet, he's not doing anything to correct the corruption in this country.
He's giving tax breaks away when the country is BROKE/BANKRUPT. He SHOULD'VE given that money to the 50 states that ALL have budget deficits. (And let's face it, taxes are going up as a result)

I have considered it. Your pros don't outweigh the cons. Hell, I know I'm not voting for Bush. I don't like Kerry. If need be, I'll vote for Dean or Nader.

--Edit--
Now that I think about it, Colin Powell doesn't seem like a bad guy either, I'd for him too.

And if I were you, I'd stop labeling people. It makes you look bad.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Lenophis on 09/25/04 03:01 AM.</FONT></P>

puduhead
09-25-2004, 07:58 AM
I'm not so sure either one is the answer. Voter apathy is a problem these days. But I have to overcome that to exercise my democracy anyway. I won't say who I am voting for because i'm not a part of one "camp" or the other. People are people and I truly assume that neither major-party-candidate is the root of all evil that wants to steer this country astray. It's a dicey issue with much to sort through for each individual and make their choice.

everything further than that becomes politicizing and partisanship: something I can't stand more than the politicians running for office.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://p.xanga.com/image_hosting2/profile.jpg></P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And you're choosing one person that is letting this country fall apart at the seams. You are choosing a person who will fight the war of Iraq. (Face it, he's in Iraq, the war on terrorism is dead. Not paying attention to Al Qaeda at all, or anyone else for that matter.)

<hr></blockquote>
Totally and completely incorrect. First of all, the war on Iraq is part of the bigger war on terror. Don’t believe me? Saddam’s regime was more than just a hiding ground for terrorists, he sent money to the families of vicious, murdering, evil men—honoring and endorsing their acts with his contributions.

President Bush hasn’t neglected Al Qaeda. In fact, Tommy Franks makes it quite clear in his book, “American Soldier”, that the president made it quite clear that Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Osama Bin Ladin not be distracted from or taken away from during the war in Iraq. This is the man running the show under our commander in chief, and he’s made it quite clear that this “not paying attention to Al Qaeda” is another lie to discredit our mission.

Good job perpetuating what causes the country to “fall apart at the seams”. It’s those who endorse complete lies and conspiracies who commit treason from within the country.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And yet, jobs are leaving the country, Bush says that good. Bullshit

<hr></blockquote>

That’s free trade for you. Bush isn’t sending jobs overseas, companies are sending jobs over seas. If we’re going to have free trade, we need to do it fully. Now, I’m from Ohio, I know the short-term effects of outsourcing close-hand—but it’s a president who keeps the long-term in perspective that I want in office.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And yet, the education system is fucked over. Thanks a lot Bush.

<hr></blockquote>

Ouch, you blame the president fully and completely for an injured education system? And, I don’t know… I got a damn good high school education. In fact, most of us did. “No Child Left Behind” is set up to create incentives for schools to do well, making the school systems accountable for their results. He’s already putting more funding into this program to ensure it’s continued success.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And yet, he's cutting funding for all public assistance (including policemen and firefighters in '02).

<hr></blockquote>

Great spin. He’s creating several more jobs that often combine, and add new responsibilities in public assistance—obviously for increased protection. This is especially the case along the borders, where many officers are given new titles in effecting our safety.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And yet, he's STILL pushing to make the might-as-well-be-dead Social Security system privatized. (Enron-like guy determining who gets SS, no thanks...)

<hr></blockquote>

Actually the reform suggests a partial privatizing, and it’s a good idea. Allow the older generations to remain where they are, while younger Americans like myself can put away social security that can’t be touched. Saying that it’s almost, or might-as-well-be-dead is ridiculous.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And yet, he's not doing anything to correct the corruption in this country.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, you’ll have to be a lot more specific on the corruption he’s neglecting. That’s like saying, “There’s still crime in this country, and Bush isn’t stopping it!”

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

He's giving tax breaks away when the country is BROKE/BANKRUPT. He SHOULD'VE given that money to the 50 states that ALL have budget deficits. (And let's face it, taxes are going up as a result)

<hr></blockquote>

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Give tax breaks to everybody—why? Because the wealthy are more likely to spend it, putting it right back into the economy again. I’d say an excellent show of progress after an inherited recession and a war is something you should be commending this president for.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I have considered it. Your pros don't outweigh the cons.

<hr></blockquote>

Your cons are nothing more than spin and deceptive rhetoric straight from the mouths of Dean, Gore and Kennedy.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Hell, I know I'm not voting for Bush. I don't like Kerry. If need be, I'll vote for Dean or Nader.

<hr></blockquote>

Good. Vote for Nader. I’ll support your decision 100%.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And if I were you, I'd stop labeling people. It makes you look bad.

<hr></blockquote>

Many here are self-proclaimed liberals. You just spouted a post full of liberal words… don’t tell me your ashamed of this more-than-accurate title? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those moderates who just so happens to stand completely in line with the bullet marks at the Democratic Party website.

I’m entirely proud to be a conservative.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Voter apathy is a problem these days.

<hr></blockquote>

Frankly, I don't get too worked up over voter apathy. Not voting is a choice and the accountability is on the person who doesn't get the polls. I don't want apathic and uninformed people casting votes, anyway.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

People are people and I truly assume that neither major-party-candidate is the root of all evil that wants to steer this country astray

<hr></blockquote>

Well, first of all it’s dangerous to assume any person genuine—especially among politicians. However, I don’t think John Kerry wants to be harmful to America. Do I think he would be? Absolutely. In the same respect, I don’t dislike liberals. I have liberal friends, I have debates and discussions with them, I share artwork and discuss ideas—watch football and drink beer with them. Bottom line, I don’t want them in power! <img src=smilies/cwm11.gif>

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Fla Flash
09-25-2004, 08:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I post this thread, because I’m tired of people trying to
compare President Bush and America’s cause to the crusades,
and Hitler’s quest for domination and “purificatin”. The
Crusades were run by an arrogance that made people think
they could forcefully convert others to a different
religion, lead by those who believed in Divine Right.

<hr></blockquote>

As opposed to those whose arrogance leads them to convert other people's governments? Without evidence (gee that would be weapons of mass distruction, btw) and by force?

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

Fla Flash
09-25-2004, 08:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Absolutely. In the same respect, I don’t dislike
liberals. I have liberal friends, I have debates and
discussions with them, I share artwork and discuss
ideas—watch football and drink beer with them. Bottom line,
I don’t want them in power!

<hr></blockquote>

Do you have any idea how racist/bias that sounds???

<img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 09:02 AM
Bias? Racist? We're talking about policy of choice here. You have certain beliefs that you believe are right for this country-- do you want somebody on the opposite end of your ideology running the country?

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 09:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

As opposed to those whose arrogance leads them to convert other people's governments?

<hr></blockquote>

Let me see... Democracy of human rights over a fascist dicatorship with rape-rooms and mass graves. Arrogance? Common sense. I think the number of Iraqi's turning out to register to vote was an astounding endorsement of Democracy.

Proof? He used WMD on his own people. The mass graves are the evidence. Whether you agree with the timing or not, it wasn't arrogance that lead us into Iraq.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Fla Flash
09-25-2004, 09:07 AM
Your own quote. It's straight out of the "some of my best friends are black" handbook. Pay attention to what you write and what I quote.
<img src=smilies/director.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

puduhead
09-25-2004, 09:08 AM
> I don't want apathic and uninformed people casting votes, anyway.

Cool out on the categorical thinking (something I've been reprimanded for plenty). If voters are feeling apathetic, perhaps there is a root cause for this rather than just labeling them as apathetic people. I'm sure more people can relate with this sentiment.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://p.xanga.com/image_hosting2/profile.jpg></P>

Lenophis
09-25-2004, 09:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Totally and completely incorrect. First of all, the war on Iraq is part of the bigger war on terror. Don’t believe me?

<hr></blockquote>
No, I don't. I don't believe Bush either.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Saddam’s regime was more than just a hiding ground for terrorists, he sent money to the families of vicious, murdering, evil men—honoring and endorsing their acts with his contributions.

<hr></blockquote>
ANY proof of this? I want hard, NON-DISPUTABLE evidence, shown in context. No "word of mouth" stuff. Show evidence, or shut up.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

President Bush hasn’t neglected Al Qaeda. In fact, Tommy Franks makes it quite clear in his book, “American Soldier”, that the president made it quite clear that Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Osama Bin Ladin not be distracted from or taken away from during the war in Iraq. This is the man running the show under our commander in chief, and he’s made it quite clear that this “not paying attention to Al Qaeda” is another lie to discredit our mission.

<hr></blockquote>
And yet, all of the forces are in Iraq, NOT paying attention to Osama, Al Qaeda, or any other "organized" terror groups. How far down the road will Bush turn his attention to those that would hold 300 people hostage in a school, bomb buildings, or anything else that fall in that line. I know you don't have the answer. But if and when he finally does, I'll have a nice long list of terror attacks that have been pulled off even though Bush has avidly said that's what he is fighting.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Good job perpetuating what causes the country to “fall apart at the seams”. It’s those who endorse complete lies and conspiracies who commit treason from within the country.

<hr></blockquote>
50% of this country doesn't vote, and the ones that do, 50% of those people want Bush out of office. People only care about themselves. This is a country where people get killed over what shoes they are wearing; cops get killed because drunk idiots don't want tickets; and kids are diluted too much by figures and media, it's amazing anybody is still alive right now. Don't you think that's just a little fucked up?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

That’s free trade for you. Bush isn’t sending jobs overseas, companies are sending jobs over seas. If we’re going to have free trade, we need to do it fully. Now, I’m from Ohio, I know the short-term effects of outsourcing close-hand—

<hr></blockquote>
And yet, you did nothing to contest what I said. "Bush says that's good for the country."

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

but it’s a president who keeps the long-term in perspective that I want in office.

<hr></blockquote>
Who wouldn't? You make it sound like Bush is the only person in the world that thinks long term.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Ouch, you blame the president fully and completely for an injured education system? And, I don’t know… I got a damn good high school education. In fact, most of us did. “No Child Left Behind” is set up to create incentives for schools to do well, making the school systems accountable for their results. He’s already putting more funding into this program to ensure it’s continued success.

<hr></blockquote>
How many teachers were hired when Clinton was in office? I think it was somewhere in lines of 100,000. Although, I'm not sure on that number. Now, counties are broke, and there are schools closing, teachers being laid off, AND fewer kids are getting that education. Or are going to sit here and tell me that the terrorists are responsible for this? No, they aren't, Bush is. His "No Child Left Behind" policy was the only thing I supported on paper, and now that's turn to shit.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Great spin. He’s creating several more jobs that often combine, and add new responsibilities in public assistance—obviously for increased protection. This is especially the case along the borders, where many officers are given new titles in effecting our safety.

<hr></blockquote>
Great, now if only Superman were here, all of our problems would be solved. We need more manpower for a reason. Otherwise, everybody needs another head, 2 more feet, and 2 more arms. Too few people doing too much.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Actually the reform suggests a partial privatizing, and it’s a good idea.

<hr></blockquote>
It's not up to businessmen and women to decide whether or not I or anyone else gets social security. Because all it takes is a little swaggering/corruption and then some people oddly and coincidently don't get social security. And don't bullshit me how "that won't happen." That's thinking long term, not idealism.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Saying that it’s almost, or might-as-well-be-dead is ridiculous.

<hr></blockquote>
The news made it pretty clear two years ago. Unless you want to tell that NBC, CBS, and ABC national news are all liars. I trust Dan, Tom, and Peter on a just about everything they say.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Well, you’ll have to be a lot more specific on the corruption he’s neglecting. That’s like saying, “There’s still crime in this country, and Bush isn’t stopping it!”

<hr></blockquote>
Enron, Adelphia, Tyco, the "soft money" and political ads... Kudos to Congress for actually stepping up to the soft money this year, too bad it's not a perfect system.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

<hr></blockquote>
I'm still waiting for the stimulation. Bad timing on his part, and also to the wrong target.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Because the wealthy are more likely to spend it, putting it right back into the economy again.

<hr></blockquote>
Show proof. This kinda sounds like the "supply creates its own demand" theory. That would be incorrect, btw.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I’d say an excellent show of progress after an inherited recession and a war is something you should be commending this president for.

<hr></blockquote>
Inherited recession? He created the recession. The economy was great until about April 2001.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Your cons are nothing more than spin and deceptive rhetoric straight from the mouths of Dean, Gore and Kennedy.

<hr></blockquote>
I speak for myself, thank you. I don't need them to bullshit me on what's right and wrong, I judge that for myself.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Good. Vote for Nader. I’ll support your decision 100%.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Many here are self-proclaimed liberals. You just spouted a post full of liberal words… don’t tell me your ashamed of this more-than-accurate title?

<hr></blockquote>
I don't base my life on childish titles. I'm happy to be pro-choice. And if being a "liberal" as you so bluntly put it is the same as being pro choice, then so be it.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Don’t tell me, you’re one of those moderates who just so happens to stand completely in line with the bullet marks at the Democratic Party website.

<hr></blockquote>
You've heard me say many times how much I hate this piece of shit two party system many times before. It needs to go. I don't base my decisions on one side's train of thought. I gather the evidence, and decide for myself. Don't ever associate me with any party again. You do, and I don't care if it does get me banned, you will get that long awaited master flame.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I’m entirely proud to be a conservative.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/werd.gif> to that.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

Kuikorosu
09-25-2004, 10:15 AM
> Moral Clarity for a president is the strong ability to protect us, and—as
> the leader of free world, to protect humanity. Churchhill had it. Reagan had
> it. Bush has is.

I'm sure moral integrity and strength begins with attacking nations with only a suspicion to run on.

Oh wait.

http://img54.exs.cx/img54/709/whoops.gif

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Name: Kuik
Level: 43BLM/22RDM/40RNG/20NIN/15THF/8WHM
Skills: 51 Clothcraft / 10 Boneworking / 8 Fishing
Server/Nation: Fenrir / Windurst
Linkshell: CursorSolaris</P>

Fla Flash
09-25-2004, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'm sure moral integrity and strength begins with attacking nations with only a suspicion to run on.

Oh wait.

<hr></blockquote>

Haw. He shoots, he scores.
>
<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 03:13 PM
> Your own quote. It's straight out of the "some of my best
> friends are black" handbook. Pay attention to what you write
> and what I quote.

You know, making rascist implications is cheap-- I've never said anything that would imply rascism. This is a horrible shot on my character and it is truly beneath you. That was a post about the severe problems with affirmative action, don't continue along this path, in fact, you really should apologize, because this is bullshit flash <img src=smilies/flipa.gif>

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

thegodofhellfire
09-25-2004, 03:39 PM
> Time to wake up.

Osama Bin Laden would vote Republican. It's as simple as that. Your president's been the best recruiting agent that Al-Queda or any similar group has ever had. By failing entirely to pay due regard to Islamic perceptions of the US in his 'War on Terror', and by giving Israel the most bafflingly unquestioning support the whole time, he's made Bin Laden's goal of a holy war (at least in the eyes of the Islamic Middle-East) self-fufilling. Bush has played right into his hands, and, even worse, he still doesn't see it.

Anyway, there are far worse threats in the world than terrorism. Global warming and air pollution kill far more already than any jihadi organisation could dream of. Poverty in the third world is a blight upon the developed world's conscience. If even a fraction of the effort directed at international terrorism were diverted towards these causes, vastly more lives would be saved. Shame it wouldn't go down as well with voters.

<P ID="signature"></P>

maq112k2
09-25-2004, 04:46 PM
http://ricky.politicalanalyst.net/todo.jpg

<P ID="signature"></P>

MooglyGuy
09-25-2004, 05:58 PM
OMG! TEH LIBRULZ R EVAL AGIN!!!!!!!!! OMG U MUST KIL TEH LIBRULS

<P ID="signature"></P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Osama Bin Laden would vote Republican.

<hr></blockquote>
Hah! I'm sure Saddam Hussein would have voted Republican, also.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It's as simple as that. Your president's been the best recruiting agent that Al-Queda or any similar group has ever had.

<hr></blockquote>
Right, because eliminating their source of funds and places to train is really in the best interest of Al Queda. Why else to you think they've responded so violently in Iraq? They know that a free and Democratic Iraq (where other terrorist nations like Syria follow suit to avoid the same fate) is detrimental to their hateful cause.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

By failing entirely to pay due regard to Islamic perceptions of the US in his 'War on Terror',

<hr></blockquote>
These aren't "Islamic perceptions", they're "terrorist perceptions". The only Islamic viewpoint I trust is a peaceful person of Islam publicly condemning acts terrorism.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

and by giving Israel the most bafflingly unquestioning support the whole time, he's made Bin Laden's goal of a holy war (at least in the eyes of the Islamic Middle-East) self-fufilling. Bush has played right into his hands, and, even worse, he still doesn't see it.

<hr></blockquote>
What would you do to Israel, tie their hands behind their back while terrorists bomb their homes and schools?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Anyway, there are far worse threats in the world than terrorism. Global warming and air pollution kill far more already than any jihadi organisation could dream of.

<hr></blockquote>
Right, and I still recall Al Gore giving a speech over Global Warming on the coldest day in New York winter.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Poverty in the third world is a blight upon the developed world's conscience. If even a fraction of the effort directed at international terrorism were diverted towards these causes, vastly more lives would be saved. Shame it wouldn't go down as well with voters.

<hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is a shame. It's a shame that such evil exists in the world that we have to put forth such an effort of protection, that we have to take the offensive to the terrorists and their sponsors-- it's a shame that the UN is stained with dishonorable, cowardly thugs who care only about their own pathetic and corrupted interests.
Do you know what's not a shame?
That the people have chosen in mass a news station that seeks to share balanced news that doesn't put forth a liberal bias (How about "Rathergate" or the good ol' ClintonNewsNetwork). That, it appears, people may be reflective and intelligent enough to reelect our great President for a second term-- despite constant attempts by the liberal media to discredit the president's character at every turn.


<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 06:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Ignore every damn post made my Danoz

<hr></blockquote>

Well, you're doing a good job thus far <img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Find Danoz a girlfriend, if time persists

<hr></blockquote>

Already have one of 3 1/2 years-- a nice, pretty conservative Christian girl, I'm sure you'd hate her <img src=smilies/cwm11.gif>

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Danoz
09-25-2004, 06:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

OMG! TEH LIBRULZ R EVAL AGIN!!!!!!!!! OMG U MUST KIL TEH LIBRULS

<hr></blockquote>

Another riveting contribution to the backroom <img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

maq112k2
09-25-2004, 06:19 PM
> Well, you're doing a good job thus far
>
> Already have one of 3 1/2 years-- a nice, pretty
> conservative Christian girl, I'm sure you'd hate her

I'll put it in a simpler manner then, since my post doesn't seem to enlighten you: Does it ever hurt your own head trying to follow your logic?

<P ID="signature"></P>

thegodofhellfire
09-25-2004, 06:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Right, because eliminating their source of funds and places to train is really in the best interest of Al Queda. Why else to you think they've responded so violently in Iraq? They know that a free and Democratic Iraq (where other terrorist nations like Syria follow suit to avoid the same fate) is detrimental to their hateful cause.

<hr></blockquote>

Pre-2003: No terrorists in Iraq.
Post-2003: Terrorists in Iraq.

Oops.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

These aren't "Islamic perceptions", they're "terrorist perceptions". The only Islamic viewpoint I trust is a peaceful person of Islam publicly condemning acts terrorism.

<hr></blockquote>

Right, so any variant viewpoints inevitably belong to terrorists? Nice one.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

What would you do to Israel, tie their hands behind their back while terrorists bomb their homes and schools?

<hr></blockquote>

Israel has killed more than 3 times as many Palestinians than suicide bombers have killed Israelis. Israel continues to build settlements in illegally-occupied territories purely to create new de facto borders. Israel builds a 'Security Wall' and controls Palestinian borders and airspace, effectively eliminating any chance of domestic autonomy. None of this has been limited or even critisised by the current administration - quite the opposite. The US remains the largest state sponsor of Israel, continues to veto any UN Security Council resolution containing even the remotest critisisim of the country, while waging war in Iraq (read: a broadly Islamic, as opposed to Jewish state) on far less solid ground. A real PR coup there, don't you think?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Right, and I still recall Al Gore giving a speech over Global Warming on the coldest day in New York winter.

<hr></blockquote>

Way to make yourself look really intelligent there. Congrats.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Yes, it is a shame. It's a shame that such evil exists in the world that we have to put forth such an effort of protection, that we have to take the offensive to the terrorists and their sponsors-- it's a shame that the UN is stained with dishonorable, cowardly thugs who care only about their own pathetic and corrupted interests.

<hr></blockquote>

If you want to put forward an argument, there are ways and means to go about it. This isn't one of them. I have no idea what your point is, past spewing forth empty invective.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Do you know what's not a shame?

That the people have chosen in mass a news station that seeks to share balanced news that doesn't put forth a liberal bias (How about "Rathergate" or the good ol' ClintonNewsNetwork). That, it appears, people may be reflective and intelligent enough to reelect our great President for a second term-- despite constant attempts by the liberal media to discredit the president's character at every turn.

<hr></blockquote>

What is this? What on earth are you trying to say here, and what does it have to do with anything?

<P ID="signature"></p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 09/25/04 01:29 PM.</FONT></P>

Fla Flash
09-25-2004, 06:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

.You know, making rascist implications is cheap-- I've never
said anything that would imply rascism. This is a horrible
shot on my character and it is truly beneath you. That was a
post about the severe problems with affirmative action,
don't continue along this path, in fact, you really should
apologize, because this is bullshit flash

<hr></blockquote>

Bullshit. Your statement came across as the liberals (of which I am really not one, surprise) were second class citizens.
The whole thing stinks of, oh, I have black friends lame shit our parents used.
No Apology. End of discussion


<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

maq112k2
09-25-2004, 07:18 PM
I post this thread, because I’m tired of people trying to compare President Bush and America’s cause to the crusades, and Hitler’s quest for domination and “purification”.
Not America, just President Bush's.

The Crusades were run by an arrogance that made people think they could forcefully convert others to a different religion, lead by those who believed in Divine Right. Your blaming of Christianity as a religion, pure and simply, holds absolutely no water.
As does most of your arguements..

In fact, your comparison is better made to the terrorists who ARE lead to their evil acts through false, cultist interpretations of religion.
Whom are you talking about, when you speak of 'your'? Conservatives made this same anology many times before.

America is fighting a war, not for religious conversion, but for religious freedom and human rights.
Since when? The wars we fought were in the middle east... unless you mean the war on the muslims at home.. in which we target muslims at airports and such. Not today, my friend.

Moral clarity is the ability to recognize evil for what it is, and the courage to confront it head on before it spreads like cancer.
Or in the case of Bush, confront it without any true plans and lots of lies and deception.

Moral Clarity for a president is the strong ability to protect us, and—as the leader of free world, to protect humanity. Churchhill had it. Reagan had it. Bush has is.
Where is it? All I see from the Bush administration is ties to the oil industry, and lots of broken promises. Can you tell me where it is..?

A person cannot be intellectually honest and believe that Kerry is the answer for the future, especially in dealing with something as pivotal as the threat against terror.
I believe Kerry will do a better job then Bush. And on that same token, A person cannot be intelletually honest and believe that Bush is the answer for the future, especially in dealing with something as pivotal as the threat against terror. That's the basis of all your arguements. 'Emotions', 'I can't believe', and 'You honestly can't say'. Really strong evidence there. Go hug a fucking oil pipeline.

I’ve actually heard some people refer to his constant position changing as “conscience” and “honest change of opinion”.
I'd rather have a president who can remain dynamic as the future changes instead of remaining hard and steady on an already lost war.

The fact is, Kerry is suffocated by electoral incentive, so much so that he doesn’t even have positions anymore. We elect people to make choices, not to be ever-changing reflections of public opinion polls.
So, what's wrong with having a president WHO FOLLOWS THE OPINION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?!

This topic is already boring me. Your logic is always the same old shit. I hope you have fun reading Hannitys book, and following the 'progress in the war in Iraq'.



<P ID="signature"></P>

MooglyGuy
09-25-2004, 09:34 PM
> In reply to:OMG! TEH LIBRULZ R EVAL AGIN!!!!!!!!! OMG U MUST
> KIL TEH LIBRULS
>
> Another riveting contribution to the backroom

OMG yes. :(

<P ID="signature"></P>

Octocrook
09-25-2004, 09:37 PM
I'm in the "anybody but Kerry and Bush" group. The "democracy" in this country is pathetic.

<P ID="signature"><center>[/url]
| [url="http://www.domainsfeatured.com>DF</a>"]Music (http://www.crooky.us><img) |</center></P>

Cornellius
09-25-2004, 10:50 PM
Bush did the war just because of the OIL and to continu the job that his Dad began.

<P ID="signature">__________________________________________________ _______________

'' What kind of freedom is bought with a gun ? '' - Bruce Dickinson </P>

WhyteKnight
09-27-2004, 06:55 AM
> I'm in the "anybody but Kerry and Bush" group. The
> "democracy" in this country is pathetic.
>

Further proof that I should be president. (http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=239585&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0∂=)

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

icenine0
09-27-2004, 07:31 AM
If you're wondering why there's no replies, it's cuz http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=236780&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=Flash</A> beat ya to the punch. Such is the fast paced world of politics...

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

Lobster Cowboy
09-27-2004, 09:21 AM
> The "democracy" in this country is pathetic.

what democracy?

we live in a republic

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

WhyteKnight
09-27-2004, 12:37 PM
> If you're wondering why there's no replies, it's cuz Flash
> beat ya to the punch. Such is the fast paced world of
> politics...
>

Nah. Everyone is just rendered speechless by my suitability as a candidate. <img src=smilies/cwm11.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

SwampGas
09-27-2004, 06:03 PM
> Nah. Everyone is just rendered speechless by my suitability
> as a candidate.

China says "withdraw from iraq immediately or face dire consequences." What do you do?

Diane Feinstein comes to you begging for you to support a new gun ban. What do you do?

A freak hurricane hits San Francisco and devestates everything. What do you do?

A stranger comes up to you and asks why you sent his son to die in vain. What do you do?

Stock market is on the way down. Full 5 days of a down trend. Unemployment for that week is apparently up. What do you do?

You got a C in grammar in the 4th grade. You beat a kid up in 7th grade. You got high when you were 19. You're accused of being unfit to run the country. What do you do?

You need to be 35 to be president. Welcome.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=10>http://www.zophar.net/personal/swampgas/hsrun.gif</marquee></P>

WhyteKnight
09-27-2004, 08:08 PM
> China says "withdraw from iraq immediately or face dire
> consequences." What do you do?

First step is to seek international support. With enough support from other nations China would either bow to world opinion or be unwilling to risk the possibility of having to contend with a conglomerate of world powers. Without said international support though, in light of China having not only the largest standing military on earth but also nuclear capabilities, one would have to attempt diplomacy and, if that were to prove fruitless, comply.

> Diane Feinstein comes to you begging for you to support a
> new gun ban. What do you do?

After lowering federal politicians' salaries (including the president's) significantly I don't expect she'll stick around. In any case though, the second amendment is the only legislation needed in regards to the bearing of arms.

> A freak hurricane hits San Francisco and devestates
> everything. What do you do?

Use the money saved by lowering politician salaries to aid in the disaster area.

> A stranger comes up to you and asks why you sent his son to
> die in vain. What do you do?

Having not been the one to initiate the war, this gentleman is asking the wrong guy. Nonetheless I'm certainly sorry for his loss.

> Stock market is on the way down. Full 5 days of a down
> trend. Unemployment for that week is apparently up. What
> do you do?

There's no way a president can really directly influence the stock market. Lowering interest rates is a temporary windfall, but again, not the direct department of the president. Legislation that would take away the benefits american companies get for sending jobs overseas (i.e. laws stating that an american based company must pay employees equally, insure all employees, and pay taxes no matter where they operate) will help to staunch or stop the movement of jobs away from the US.

> You got a C in grammar in the 4th grade. You beat a kid up
> in 7th grade. You got high when you were 19. You're
> accused of being unfit to run the country. What do you do?

There's nothing criminal about being human. Any reasonable accusations of being unfit will be defended as necessary.

> You need to be 35 to be president. Welcome.

Aye, there's the rub.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

Lenophis
09-28-2004, 03:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I believe Kerry will do a better job then Bush. And on that same token, A person cannot be intelletually honest and believe that Bush is the answer for the future, especially in dealing with something as pivotal as the threat against terror. That's the basis of all your arguements. 'Emotions', 'I can't believe', and 'You honestly can't say'.
Really strong evidence there. Go hug a fucking oil pipeline.

<hr></blockquote>
Up until the end, you had something there.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'd rather have a president who can remain dynamic as the future changes instead of remaining hard and steady on an already lost war.

<hr></blockquote>
Dynamic, yes. Indecisive, no.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

So, what's wrong with having a president WHO FOLLOWS THE OPINION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?!

<hr></blockquote>
It shows that he's being a zombie that only goes along with the group. He's displaying no thoughts of his own, he's just reflecting what other people are saying. Smart people don't do that.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 04:00 AM
Lenophis is exactly right. We live in a republic, one where we elect somebody to make decicions for us. This means we put forth a certain amount of trust with the leaders we choose. If you wanted public opinion polls to run the country, there'd be no reason for a president!

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

SpaceTiger
09-28-2004, 04:00 AM
> He's displaying no thoughts of his own, he's just
> reflecting what other people are saying. Smart people don't
> do that.

No, that's exactly what smart people do if their goal is to get elected. The smartest ones are a little bit more convincing about it, though.

Kerry has plenty of opinions and beliefs, but the problem is that he has to play the middle in order to beat Bush -- he can't come off too liberal. Unfortunately, the middle is composed mostly of ignorant people who like to vote based on media stereotypes and people whose beliefs are so far from the mainstream that it's not clear what would have to be done to appease them.

The other reason that Kerry comes off as wishy-washy in comparison to Bush is that he can see both sides of the issue. Bush's views are so dogmatic and narrow that he could make anybody look indecisive. Simple questions like, "What would you do in the event of a terrorist attack?", shouldn't have simple answers. If you go off and analyze it with the proper amount of detail, the average American is going to tune you out after about five seconds.

Kerry is nothing special, but I would feel safe if he were president. I can't say the same for Bush.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 04:01 AM
Are you going to put forth an argument? Your post wasn't funny. You can redeem yourself by backing it up with substance.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 04:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

No, that's exactly what smart people do if their goal is to get elected. The smartest ones are a little bit more convincing about it, though.

<hr></blockquote>

Wait, so you're saying that it's smart not to affirm any real position until you're elected? No wonder I don't understand Democrats http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/smilies/eek13.gif. What I'm trying to say is that the American people don't want somebody that idecisive, especially right now-- and especially on these issues.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

SpaceTiger
09-28-2004, 04:05 AM
> Wait, so you're saying that it's smart not to affirm any
> real position until you're elected?No wonder I don't
> understand Democrats . What I'm trying to say is that the
> American people don't want somebody that idecisive,
> especially right now-- and especially on these issues.

I see you didn't read the rest of my post.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 04:32 AM
No, I read every word of your post-- I only quoted the first section. I said, "affirm any real position until you're elected", and that's exactly what you were talking about when you said "...playing a middle ground." Second, I'm not talking about questions like, "What you would do in the event of a terrorist attack". You know this is spin-- John Kerry has consistently flopped (we're talking, full, diametric flops) on issues like whether or not he even supported the Iraq war to begin with. There's a level of inconsistencies here that should make anybody unsettled, especially with countries like Iran and North Korea becoming nuclear powers. I, for instance, am going to support President Bush when he says-- "Diplomacy first, but Iran won't be obtaining nuclear weapons-- that's our policy."

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 04:40 AM
> Bush did the war just because of the OIL and to continu the
> job that his Dad began.

Thanks, Mr. Moore <img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

SpaceTiger
09-28-2004, 05:24 AM
> I said, "affirm any real position until you're
> elected", and that's exactly what you were talking about
> when you said "...playing a middle ground."

No it wasn't. Playing the middle ground usually involves taking a stance which won't turn too many heads (for example, being against gay marriage but not wanting an amendment to the constitution). To my knowledge, this describes most of his positions. There are some in which he hasn't been particularly clear, but it's not the majority, despite what the Bush campaign would like you to think.


> Second, I'm not
> talking about questions like, "What you would do in the
> event of a terrorist attack". You know this is spin--

Your misunderstanding of the concept of spin never ceases to amaze me.


> John
> Kerry has consistently flopped (we're talking, full,
> diametric flops) on issues like whether or not he even
> supported the Iraq war to begin with.

It's clear to me that he never would have entered the war and it's unfortunate that he feels compelled to give his support in order to appease popular opinion.


> There's a level of
> inconsistencies here that should make anybody unsettled,
> especially with countries like Iran and North Korea becoming
> nuclear powers.

I would distrust anybody who said they had a solution to those problems at this moment in time.


> I, for instance, am going to support
> President Bush when he says-- "Diplomacy first, but Iran
> won't be obtaining nuclear weapons-- that's our policy."

Wow, he was really going out on a limb there. I wonder if he's willing to take a stand against the Holocaust too.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 06:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

No it wasn't. Playing the middle ground usually involves taking a stance which won't turn too many heads (for example, being against gay marriage but not wanting an amendment to the constitution). To my knowledge, this describes most of his positions. There are some in which he hasn't been particularly clear, but it's not the majority, despite what the Bush campaign would like you to think.

<hr></blockquote>
Maybe it's not the majority of policies, but it's certainly the most important of them.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Your misunderstanding of the concept of spin never ceases to amaze me.

<hr></blockquote>
You created a new question, "What would you do in the event of a terrorist attack" that isn't a direct example of the many relevant questions he's been indecisive on. Obviously nobody should have a simple, sword answer to that question-- but nobody expects him to. Nobody's asking for a simple answer-- they're asking at least for a consistent direction.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It's clear to me that he never would have entered the war and it's unfortunate that he feels compelled to give his support in order to appease popular opinion.

<hr></blockquote>
Then why did he state that, despite having all the information he has now, he would still have entered Iraq? This has sparked controversy among liberals, especially (namely, because it's so obviously the opposite of the belief you're "clear" of) . It amazes me that you're well aware his purely political agenda, but you insist he actually does have consistent viewpoints-- he just can't express them fully yet. If anything has hurt his political campaign more than anything, it's this. So, as you've stated, he's doing a terrible job at "playing the middle ground". The thought of a Kerry administration with all his inconsistencies makes me greatly prefer another 8 years of Clinton.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I would distrust anybody who said they had a solution to those problems at this moment in time.

<hr></blockquote>
I'd like to see some serious diplomatic pressure with a bottom line. My entire semester of Political Argumentation (personal choice of study) is the threat and human right violations of North Korea-- frightening research, and most Americans are entirely ignorant to how serious this threat is. A girl in our class actually called the Patriot Act "Orwellian". You want to see a true, modern correlation to "1984"? Study that country.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Wow, he was really going out on a limb there. I wonder if he's willing to take a stand against the Holocaust too.

<hr></blockquote>
Well, allow me to clarify, because I paraphrased using direct quotes-- but that's very close to what he said in his interview with O'Reilly I watched this evening. I'm impressed with that kind of clarity. We have to exhaust diplomacy, but we can't and won't let them obtain nuclear weapons. The Holocaust? You know what, you're right, because somebody should have taken a stand before it happened. Thank God we don't have a president willing to make the same terrible error.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Cornellius
09-28-2004, 12:30 PM
Hehehe :) I haven't saw any of his movies yet.

<P ID="signature">__________________________________________________ _______________

'' What kind of freedom is bought with a gun ? '' - Bruce Dickinson </P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 12:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

No it wasn't. Playing the middle ground usually involves taking a stance which won't turn too many heads (for example, being against gay marriage but not wanting an amendment to the constitution). To my knowledge, this describes most of his positions. There are some in which he hasn't been particularly clear, but it's not the majority, despite what the Bush campaign would like you to think.

<hr></blockquote>
Maybe it's not the majority of policies, but it's certainly the most important of them.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Your misunderstanding of the concept of spin never ceases to amaze me.

<hr></blockquote>

You created a new question, "What would you do in the event of a terrorist attack" that isn't a direct example of the many relevant questions he's been indecisive on. Obviously nobody should have a simple, short answer to that question-- but nobody expects him to. Nobody's asking for a simple answer-- they're asking at least for a consistent direction.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It's clear to me that he never would have entered the war and it's unfortunate that he feels compelled to give his support in order to appease popular opinion.

<hr></blockquote>

Then why did he state that, despite having all the information he has now, he would still have entered Iraq? This has sparked controversy among liberals, especially (namely, because it's so obviously the opposite of the belief you're clear of). It amazes me that you're well aware his purely political agenda, but you insist he actually does have consistent viewpoints-- he just can't express them fully yet. If anything has really hurt his political campaign, it's this. So, as you've stated, he's doing a terrible job at "playing the middle ground". The thought of a Kerry administration with all his inconsistencies makes me greatly prefer another 8 years of Clinton.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I would distrust anybody who said they had a solution to those problems at this moment in time.

<hr></blockquote>

I'd like to see some serious diplomatic pressure with a bottom line. My entire semester of Political Argumentation (personal choice of study) is the threat and human right violations of North Korea-- frightening research, and most Americans are entirely ignorant to how serious this threat is. A girl in our class actually called the Patriot Act "Orwellian". You want to see a true, modern correlation to "1984"? Study that country.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Wow, he was really going out on a limb there. I wonder if he's willing to take a stand against the Holocaust too.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, allow me to clarify, because I paraphrased using direct quotes-- but that's very close to what he said in his interview with O'Reilly I watched this evening. I'm impressed with that kind of clarity. We have to exhaust diplomacy, but we can't and won't let them obtain nuclear weapons. The Holocaust? You know what, you're right, because somebody should have taken a stand before it happened. Thank God we don't have a president willing to make the same terrible error.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Fla Flash
09-28-2004, 01:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Hehehe :) I haven't saw any of his movies yet.

<hr></blockquote>

Haw. Neither have I.
<img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 01:59 PM
> In reply to:Hehehe :) I haven't saw any of his movies yet.
> Haw. Neither have I.

I actually have http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/smilies/eek5.gif


<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

IceWolf20
09-28-2004, 05:49 PM
> I actually have

And the whole time, all you could do is think "Liar liar, pants on fire" over and over again for two hours without acutally listening or researching a damn thing he said. If you actaully took the time to look into what he says, you'll find that what he says is the truth, but it is also laden with an opinion about those facts. Its being able to see the truth that he presents and sifting through the opinion that is the important part. You must listen first, then disagree, not disagree outright and apply labels at a whim.


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

Danoz
09-28-2004, 07:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And the whole time, all you could do is think "Liar liar, pants on fire" over and over again for two hours without acutally listening or researching a damn thing he said. If you actaully took the time to look into what he says, you'll find that what he says is the truth, but it is also laden with an opinion about those facts. Its being able to see the truth that he presents and sifting through the opinion that is the important part. You must listen first, then disagree, not disagree outright and apply labels at a whim.

<hr></blockquote>

What a terrible assumption. And let me first stand out by saying, you're the first person I've ever heard use the word "fact" in a sentance describing Micheal Moore's work. Bottom line, I watched the damn film. I'm sure somewhere in what was a highly opinioned film of half-truths and accusations there were small sparks of the "facts" you stated (and "factual evidence" is only something potentially verifyable.) O'Reilly did a nice job outlining the most blatent of these-- and once again, the filmmaker has the burden of proof, not me.

Now I challenge you to read Sean Hannity's "Deliever us from Evil". I don't care if you download the E-book-- I would challenge you equally to read it without finding yourself as, if not more critical as I was watching Moore's work.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

IceWolf20
09-28-2004, 10:07 PM
Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One
THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'
Section One covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from the 2000 election to George W. Bush's extended visit to Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11th.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.
• “With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/
cnn.report/cnn.pdf
• Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top."PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/
election_night.html
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The man who was in charge of the decision desk at FOX on election night was Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis.
• “John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002.
• A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml.
• John Ellis, the Fox consultant who called Florida early for George Bush, had to stop writing about the campaign for the Boston Globe because of family ‘loyalty’ to Bush. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml, November 14, 2000.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin’ woman and that her state has hired a company that’s gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren’t likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin.”
• “The vote total was certified by Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, head of the Bush campaign in Florida, on behalf of Gov. Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.” Mark Zoller Seitz, “Bush Team Conveyed an Air of Legitimacy,” San Diego Union-Tribune, December 16, 2000.
• The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state’s database, but mistakes were rampant. “At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.
• Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, “was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida’s voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, “Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners,” The Guardian, May 5, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html. See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.
• In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. Melanie Eversley, “Atlanta-Based Company Says Errors in Felon Purge Not Its Fault,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001. Frank Borman of Database Technologies Inc. has donated extensively to New Mexico Republicans, as well as to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush. Opensecrets.org, “Frank Borman.”
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Gore got the most votes in 2000.
• [A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
• “The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.
• See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the election outcome on the floor of the House; no Senator would sign the objections.
• “While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried repeatedly to challenge the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush…. More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote.” Susan Milligan, “It’s Really Over: Gore Bows Out Gracefully,” Boston Globe, January 7, 2001.
• The Congressional Black Caucus effort failed for “lack of the necessary signature by any senator.” Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate. ‘They did not.’” Robert Novak, “Sweeney Link Won't Help Chao,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “On the day George W. Bush was inaugurated, tens of thousands of Americans poured into the streets of D.C. They pelted Bush’s limo with eggs.”
• “Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush's inaugural parade route yesterday to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.” Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.
• “Scuffles erupted between radicals and riot police while an egg struck the bullet-proof presidential limousine as it carried Mr. Bush and wife Laura to the White House.” Damon Johnston, “Bush Pledges Justice as Critics Throw Eggs,” The Advertisers, January 22, 2001.
• See also film footage.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “The inauguration parade was brought to a halt and the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped.”
• Bush made one concession to the weather -- or to security concerns: He stayed in his limousine nearly the entire length of the mile-long inaugural parade, waving through a slightly foggy window. He got out to walk only for a brief distance when his motorcade reached the VIP grandstands in front of the Treasury Department and the White House. Doyle McManus, et al., “Bush Vows to Bring Nation Together,” Los Angeles Times, January, 21, 2001.
• Bush's limo, which traveled most of the route at a slow walking pace, stopped dead just before it reached the corner of 14th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., where most of the protesters had congregated. Then it sped up dramatically, and Secret Service agents protecting the car on foot had to follow at a full run. When they reached a section of the parade route where the sidewalks were restricted to official ticketholders, Bush and his wife, Laura, who wore a flattering electric turquoise suit, got out of the limo to walk and greet supporters. Helen Kennedy, “Bush Pledges a United US,” New York Daily News, January 21, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “For the next eight months, it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush.”
• In a poll conducted September 5 to September 9, 2001, Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor showed President Bush’s approval rating at 45%, down from 52% in May ( Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Poll, conducted by TIPP, 9/5 to 9/9, 2001). Zogby’s polling had Bush at 47% in late July 2001, down from 57% in February (Zogby, 7/26 to 7/29, 2001).
• In June 2001, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed President Bush's approval rating at 50 percent, which was the lowest presidential approval rating in five years. Richard L. Berke, “G.O.P. Defends Bush in Face of Dip in Poll Ratings,” The New York Times, June 29 2001
• On July 26, 2001, in an article entitled “Bush Lacks the Ability To Force Action on Hill,” Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote, “ It may be premature to conclude that Bush has lost control of his agenda, but lawmakers and strategists in both parties said that Bush's next year is much more likely to look like the fractious month of July than like the orderly march toward Bush's tax cut this spring.… The troubles began, of course, with Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords' departure from the GOP, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. But the problems are nearly as bad in the House, where moderates who supported Bush's tax cut are proving recalcitrant on other issues. They rebelled against GOP leaders on campaign finance reform and held up Bush's "faith-based" legislation over concerns about discrimination. Next week, they're likely to oppose Bush's proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
• California energy crisis also took a toll on Bush’s approval ratings. Due to rolling blackouts and rising utility bills Bush’s ratings took a toll among Californians. The poll showed that almost as many Californians disapproved of the President’s job as approved of it with an approve/disapprove of 42/40. “Calif. Governor Says He'll Sue to Force Government Action,” The Houston Chronicle, May 30, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”
• “News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Bush relaxes at Camp David, Kennebunkport and his ranch in Crawford Texas.
• As of April 2004, President Bush had made 33 trips to Crawford during his presidency, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in just over three years. “Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family’s compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days – or about 40 percent of his presidency – at one of these his three retreats.” “Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: On Sept. 10, 2001 , Bush joined his brother in Florida where he slept the night in “a bed made of fine French linens.”
• Bush has not been bashful about visiting Florida, ground zero in the vote-recount battle that followed last year's election. On this trip, he was spending a good deal of time with his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush. " President to Push Congress on Education in Fourth Florida Visit,” Associated Press, September 10, 2001; See also, CNN Inside Politics, September 10, 2001.
• Two individuals prepared the president’s room “and made the bed with some of the family's fine French linens.” Tom Bayles, “The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals' Lives,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 10, 2002.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “As the attack took place, Mr. Bush was on his way to an elementary school in Florida . When informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, where terrorists had struck just eight years prior, Bush just decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity.”
NOTE: It should be emphasized that at the time Bush was notified of the first plane attack, he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB). He was also aware, of course, that the World Trade Center had been historically a target for terrorist attacks. He nonetheless went ahead with this photo opportunity in a school full of children.
• “Mr. Bush arrived at the school, just before 9 am, expecting to be met by its motherly principal, Gwen Rigell. Instead he was pulled sharply aside by the familiar, bulky figure of 51-year-old Karl Rove, a veteran political fixer and trusted aide of both Mr. Bush and his father, George Sr. Mr. Rove, a fellow Texan with an expansive manner and a colorful turn of phrase, told the President that a large commercial airliner (American Flight 11) had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre . Mr. Bush clenched his teeth, lowered his bottom lip and said something inaudible. Then he went into the school.” William Langley, “Revealed: What Really Went on During Bush’s ‘Missing Hours,’” The Telegraph, December 16, 2001.
• “The airborne attack on the World Trade Center was at least the second terrorist attempt to topple the landmarks. In 1993, terrorists sought to bomb one building so that it would explode and fall into the other. The plot did not succeed, but six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured.” Cragg Hines, “Terrorists Strike from Air; Jetliners Slam into Pentagon, Trade Center” The Houston Chronicle, September 11, 2001.
• August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US”: “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks… FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “When the second plane hit the tower, his chief of staff entered the classroom and told Mr. Bush the nation is under attack.”
• “At 9:05 a.m., the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., stepped into the classroom and whispered into the president's right ear, ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’” David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events; In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat.”
• “It was while attending a second-grade reading class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., to promote his education reforms that President Bush learned America was under attack. In the presence of her VIP guest, teacher Sandra Kay Daniels, 45, conducted the day's lesson, which centered on a story about a pet goat.” “9/11: A Year After,” Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2002.
• President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School second-graders read a story about a girl's pet goat Tuesday before he spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks. “Bush hears of attack while visiting Booker,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 12, 2001.
• See also film footage.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything.”
• “[H]e lingered in the room for another six minutes [after being informed of the second plane]… [At] 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.” David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events;In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001 .
• “Mr. Bush remained in the elementary school for nearly a half an hour after Andy Card whispered in his ear.” Michael Kranish, “Bush: US To Hunt Down Attackers,” Boston Globe, September 11, 2001.

Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Two
THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'
Section Two covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from Bush's failure to meet with Richard Clarke, to the August 6th memo, and ends with the Saudi flights out of the US after 9/11.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism?”
• “[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.
• "Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf
• See Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:
MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --
MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.
MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?
MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.
MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?
MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Maybe Mr. Bush was wondering why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI.”
• “This question of resources will also come up in the commission's questioning of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was brand-new on the job in the fall of 2001 and on September 10th cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent.” John Dimsdale, “Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft to appear before 9/11 commission tomorrow,” NPR Radio: Marketplace, April 12, 2004. See also, 2001 budget documents including Attorney General John Ashcroft FY 2003 budget request to Office of Management and Budget, September 10, 2001, showing $65 million offset in the FBI budget for counter-terrorism equipment grants: http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/
cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D
/FY03ASHCROFT.PDF
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.
• August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/
04/10/whitehouse.pdf
• “The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: On August 6 th, 2001, George W. Bush went fishing.
• “President Bush swung into vacation mode Monday, fishing for bass in his pond, strolling the canyons on his 1,600-acre ranch, taking an early-morning run. Associated Press, “President Bush Vacationing in Texas,” August 6, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Was it the guy my daddy’s friends delivered a lot of weapons to?”
• In 1995, a member of Reagan's National Security Council and co-author of his National Security Directives, Howard Teicher, signed a sworn affidavit stating: “From early 1982 to 1987, I served as a Staff Member to the United States National Security Council.… In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq." Affidavit of former Howard Teicher, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARLOS CARDOEN et al, January 31, 1995. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
article1413.htm
• “Questions have been raised about whether the United States not only ignored foreign arms shipments to Iraq, but actually encouraged or even arranged them. A former National Security Council official, Howard Teicher, said in a 1995 court affidavit that the CIA made sure Iraq received weapons from non-U.S. manufacturers.” Ken Guggenheim, “War Crimes Trial for Saddam Could Reveal Details of Past U.S. Help,” Associated Press, January 24, 2004.
• “There is ample documentation demonstrating that the Reagan and Bush administrations supplied critical military technologies that were put directly to use in the construction of the Iraqi war machine. There is also strong evidence indicating that the executive branch's failure to crack down on illegal weapons traffickers or keep track of third party transfers of U.S. weaponry allowed a substantial flow of U.S.-origin military equipment and military components to make their way to Iraq.” William D. Hartung, Weapons at War; A World Policy Institute Issue Brief, May 1995. See also, Alan Friedman, Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, (Bantam Books, 1993); Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, (Houghton, Mifflin, 1991).
• “Rep. Dante Fascell, D-Fla., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said … that the United States could not ‘make a claim for purity’ on arms sales, since the U.S. government has sold weapons to Iran, Iraq ‘and everybody else in the world.’” Robert Shepard, “Congress Approves Aid for Former Soviet Republics,” United Press International, October 3, 1992.
• “A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq. The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.” Patrick E. Tyler, “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” The New York Times, August 18, 2002.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?”
• “A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Or was it the Saudis? Damn, it was them.”
• “The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi. Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “In the days following September 11th , all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded.”
• “On the morning of September 11th, there were 4,873 instrument flight rule (IFR) flights operating in U.S. airspace. As soon as Secretary Mineta was aware of the nature and scale of the terrorist attack on New York and Washington -- that we were faced with, not one, but four possible hijackings, and several other rumors of missing or unidentified aircraft -- the Secretary ordered the air traffic system shut down for all civil operations. Jane F. Garvey on Aviation Security Following the Terrorist Attack on September 11th, September 21, 2001; http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/testimony/
2001/testimony_010921.htm; see also, “Airports to Remain Closed, Mineta Says,” Department of Transportation Press Release, September 12, 2001
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.”
• Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf
• “Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
• “I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.” Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”
NOTE: It should be noted that even though the film does not make the allegation, strong evidence has recently come to light that at least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. Moreover, for nearly three years, the White House has denied that this flight existed. This was reported in the June 9, 2004 St. Petersburg Times article cited below.
• After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people,mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf
• It should be noted that the US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004 lists 162 Saudi Nationals who flew out of the country between 9/11/2001 and 9/15/2001, departing from New York’s Kennedy airport, Washington’s Dulles, and Dallas Fort Worth. http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/
2004/homelandsecurity.pdf.
• For an official list of Saudi Passport holders (names redacted) who flew out of the country between 9.11.2001 – 9.15.2001, see US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004; http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/
2004/homelandsecurity.pdf.
• TheSt. Petersburg Times reported on Jun 9, 2004:
o "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country.”
o Moreover: “For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose… The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.
o "Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights.” Jean Heller, “TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.” St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004

Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Three
THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'
Section Three covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from Osama's relations with his family through Bush's military records and ends with Bush's business history, including Arbusto, Harken and the Carlyle Group.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: In 2001, one of Osama’s sons got married in Afghanistan; several family members attended the wedding.
• “Bin Laden as well as his mother, two brothers and a sister, who flew from Saudi Arabia, attended the wedding of one of his sons, Mohammad, in the Afghan city of Kandahar on Monday, the Arabic daily Al-Hayat said.… Another of bin Laden's sons married one of al-Masri's daughters in January. Al-Hayat said several members of the bin Laden family, who run a major construction company in Saudi Arabia, also traveled from the kingdom to attend the wedding. Agence France Presse, “Bin Laden Full of Praise for Attack on USS Cole at Son's Wedding”, Thursday, March 1, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “We held hundreds of people” immediately after 9/11.
• “More than 1,200 foreigners have been detained as part of the government's investigation into the terror attacks, some spending months in prison. Some civil liberties advocates have complained, but government officials insist they are simply enforcing long-standing immigration laws.” “A Nation Challenged,” New York Times, November 25, 2001.
• “The Department of Homeland Security announced new rules yesterday designed to prevent a recurrence of the lengthy detention of hundreds of foreign nationals, many of whom were prevented from making telephone calls or contacting lawyers for months after they were jailed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The guidelines, made public yesterday by Asa Hutchinson, the department's undersecretary for border and transportation security, were welcomed by civil rights groups that had bitterly denounced the detention of 762 immigration violators after the attacks, based on sometimes ill-founded FBI suspicions that they had links to terrorism. The new rules are a response to a highly critical 198-page report last June by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general. It concluded that in the chaotic aftermath of the terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, hundreds of Arab and South Asian men who had committed sometimes minor immigration violations languished in jail without timely review by U.S. officials. Guards mistreated some of them. The average detention lasted three months, and the longest was 10 months before the immigrants were cleared of terrorism ties and released from jail.” John Mintz, “New Rules Shorten Holding Time for Detained Immigrants,” Washington Post, April 14, 2004.
• “In the days, weeks and months following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, hundreds of American immigrants were rounded up and detained, often under harsh or abusive conditions, in the name of keeping America safe. Not because of evidence (or even sound hunches) that they were involved in the terrorist attacks that brutally ended the lives of more than 3,100 people. Not because they were found to have ties to – or even knowledge of – terrorist groups who might threaten American security in the future. Instead, hundreds of immigrants were arbitrarily snared in this dragnet, marked for arrest and thrown (literally, at times) in jail. The exact number is unknown, because the government refuses to release that information. They had one thing in common: Almost all were Arab or South Asian men, and almost all were Muslim... Once arrested, many immigrants were labeled "of interest" to the September 11 investigation and thrown into legal limbo – detained for weeks or months in connection with a criminal investigation, but denied the due process rights that they would have been entitled to had they actually been charged with crimes.” ACLU, "America’s Disappeared: Seeking International Justice for Immigrants Detained after September 11," January 2004.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The FBI conducted “a little interview, check[ed] the passport.”
Last year, the National Review reported that the FBI conducted brief, day-of-departure interviews with the Saudis -- in the words of an FBI spokesman, "at the airport, as they were about to leave." Experts interviewed by the National Review called the FBI's actions "highly unusual" given the fact that those departing were actually members of Osama bin Laden's family. "They [the FBI] could not have done a thorough and complete interview," said John L.Martin, the former head of internal security at the Justice Department. "The Great Escape : How did assorted bin Ladens get out of America after September 11?" National Review, September 29, 2003.
• “Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf
• “I talked to several people who were with the FBI during the actual repatriation. And they told me there was a lot of back-and-forth between the FBI and the Saudi Embassy. And the Saudi Embassy tried to get people to leave without even identifying them. The FBI succeeded in identifying people and going through their passports. But, in many cases, you had the FBI meeting people for the first time on the tarmac or on the planes themselves as they were departing. That was not time for a serious interview or a serious interrogation.” Interview with Craig Unger, CNN, September 4, 2003.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: White House released records in response to Moore’s charge of deserter.
• Left-leaning filmmaker Michael Moore got the discussion started in January, when he endorsed Clark for president and called the president a ‘deserter.’ The White House responded by releasing the president's service records, including an honorable discharge. James Rainey, “Who's the Man? They Are; George Bush and John Kerry Stand Shoulder to Shoulder in One Respect: Macho is Good. Very Good. It's Been That Way Since Jefferson's Day,” Los Angeles Times, March 18, 2004.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: There is one glaring difference between the records released in 2000 and those he released in 2004. A name had been blacked out. In 1972, two airmen were suspended for failing to take their medical examination. One was George W. Bush and the other wasJames R. Bath.
• See National Guard Bureau, Aeronautical Orders Number 87, September 29, 1972, Attachment B, paragraph 7 (original document):
The Document as Released in 2000: Page 1 | Page 2
The Document as Released in 2004: Page 1 | Page 2
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the Bin Laden family.
• See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C (“I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas.” Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.
• “According to a 1976 trust agreement, drawn shortly after [George H. W.] Bush was appointed director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Sheik Salem M. Binladen appointed Bath as his business representative in Houston. Binladen, along with his brothers, owns Binladen Brothers Construction, one of the largest construction companies in the Middle East.” Jerry Urban, “Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis,” Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: George W. Bush and James R. Bath had become good friends.
• “Bath, 55, acknowledges a friendship with George W. Bush that stems from their service together in the Texas Air National Guard.” Jonathan Beaty, “A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes,” Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.
• “In a copy of the record released by the National Guard in 2000, the man in question, James R. Bath, was listed as being suspended from flying for the National Guard in 1972 for failing to take a medical exam next to a similar listing for Mr. Bush. It has been widely reported that the two were friends and that Mr. Bath invested in Mr. Bush's first major business venture, Arbusto Energy, in the late 1970's after Mr. Bath began working for Salem bin Laden.” Jim Rutenberg, “A Film to Polarize Along Party Lines,” New York Times, May 17, 2004.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “After they were discharged, when Bush’s dad was head of the CIA, Bath opened up his own aviation business, after selling a plane to a man by the name of Salem bin Laden, heir to the second largest fortune in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi bin Laden Group.”
• “Bath opened his own aircraft brokerage firm in 1976.” Jonathan Beaty, “A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes,” Time Magazine, October 28, 1991. (Bush was CIA director, 1976-1977.)
• “Sometime around 1974… Bath was trying to sell a F-27 turboprop, a sluggish medium-range plane that was not exactly a hot ticket in those days, when he received a phone call that changed his life. The voice no the other end belonged to Salem bin Laden… Bath not only had a buyer for a plane no one else seemed to want, he had also stumbled upon a source of wealth and power that was certain to pique the interest of even the brashest Texas oil baron.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, pp,19-20 (Scribner: New York, 2004).
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “George W. Bush founded an oil company, a drilling company, out in west Texas called Arbusto, which was very good at drilling dry holes.”
• “After graduating from the Harvard Business School, Bush organized his first company, Arbusto Energy (Arbusto is Spanish for Bush) in 1977 on the eve of a run for Congress. According to records on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arbusto didn’t start active operations until March 1979.… According to 1984 securities filings, Bush’s limited partners had invested $4.66 million in Bush’s various drilling programs but they had received cash distributions of only $1.54 million. However, Bush’s CFO stated, ‘We didn’t find much oil and gas,’ adding ‘We weren’t raising any money.’ George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano, “Bush Name Helps Fuel Oil Dealings,” Washington Post, July 30, 1999.
• “Bush eventually renamed his company Bush Exploration and later merged with a firm called Spectrum 7. Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that the firm lost money from 1979 to 1982 and that investors who put in nearly $4.7 million got back just $1.5 million. Published reports contend that Bush Exploration was salvaged by Cincinnati oilmen Bill DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Bush today says otherwise, that his company was on firm financial footing and that the merger was a strategic one. Either way, George W. drilled his fair share of dry holes. As Conaway rues to this day, the company ‘never hit . . . the Big Kahuna.’” Maria La Ganga, “Bush Finesses Texas 2-Step Of Privilege, Personality,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2000.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “There is no indication that daddy wrote a check to start Bush off in his company.”
• “Seed money, upward of $4 million, was largely raised between 1979 and 1982 with the help of [Bush’s] uncle, financier Jonathan Bush. The Arbusto investor list is filled with family and famous friends. His grandmother, Dorothy W. Bush, chipped in $25,000. Corporate luminaries like George L. Ball, chief executive of Prudential-Bache Securities, invested $100,000. Macomber and William H. Draper III, who invested more than $125,000, were later named presidents of the U.S. Export-Import Bank during the Reagan and Bush administrations.” Maria La Ganga, “Bush Finesses Texas 2-Step Of Privilege, Personality,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2000.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Bush’s good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself, in turn, invested in George W. Bush.”
• See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C (“I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas.” Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.
• See 1981 Schedule 4 spreadsheet showing $50,000 investment by James Bath in George W. Bush’s Arbusto Exploration, Attachment D (original document).
• Bath’s business relationship with Salem bin Laden, and other wealthy Saudi businessmen, has been well documented. See, e.g., Mike Ward, “Bin Laden Relatives Have Ties to Texas,” Austin American-Statesman, November 9, 2001; Jerry Urban, “Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis,” Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992; Thomas Petzinger Jr., et al., “Family Ties: How Oil Firm Linked to a Son of Bush Won Bahrain Drilling Pact,” The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1991.
• “[E]arly 1980s tax records reviewed by TIME show that Bath invested $50,000 in Bush's energy ventures and remained a stockholder until Bush sold his company to Harken in 1986.” Jonathan Beaty, “A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes,” Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy and they gave him a seat on their board.”
• “Bush's name …was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record. By the end of September 1986, the deal was done. Harken assumed $ 3.1 million in debts and swapped $ 2.2 million of its stock for a company that was hemorrhaging money, though it had oil and gas reserves projected to produce $ 4 million in future net revenue. Harken, a firm that liked to attach itself to stars, had also acquired Bush, whom it used not as an operating manager but as a high-profile board member.… It was one of the biggest breaks of Bush's life. Still, the Harken deal completed a disappointing reprise of what was becoming a familiar pattern. As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign. But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the summer of 1975 and ended when he sold out to Harken and headed for Washington, is mostly about his failure to succeed, despite the sterling connections his lineage and Ivy League education brought him." George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano, “Bush Name Helps Fuel Oil Dealings,” Washington Post, July 30, 1999.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Bush was investigated by the S.E.C. The James Baker law partner who helped Bush beat the rap from the SEC was a man by the name of Robert Jordon, who, when George W. became president was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
• “A week before George W. Bush's 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Co., the firm's outside lawyers cautioned Bush and other directors against selling shares if they had significant negative information about the company's prospects. The sale came a few months before Harken reported significant losses, leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The June 15, 1990, letter from the Haynes and Boone law firm wasn't sent to the SEC by Bush's attorney Robert W. Jordan until Aug. 22, 1991, according to a letter by Jordan. That was one day after SEC staff members investigating the stock sale concluded there was insufficient evidence to recommend an enforcement action against Bush for insider trading.” Peter Behr, “Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers’ Warning,” Washington Post, November 1, 2002.
• “President Bush has chosen as ambassador to Saudi Arabia a Dallas attorney who represented him against … allegations arising from his sale of stock in Harken Energy Co. 11 years ago.” G. Robert Hillman, “Bush Taps Dallas Attorney to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,” The Dallas Morning News, July 21, 2001.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “After the Harken debacle, the friends of Bush’s dad got him a seat on another board, of a company owned by the Carlyle Group.”
• "Fred Malek, a senior advisor to Carlyle, who also served as the director of the 1988 Republican Convention, suggested to Carlyle that the President’s eldest son, George W. Bush, would ‘be a positive addition to Caterair’s board.’ Mr. Malek was also a Caterair director and vice chairman of Northwest Airlines, a major Caterair customer. ‘I thought George W. Bush could make a contribution to Caterair,’ stated Malek. Malek further claimed, ‘He would be on the board even if his father weren’t President.’" Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” New York Times, March 26, 1991
• Co-Founder of Carlyle Group, David Rubenstein, talking about setting up Cater Air after Carlyle acquired it: “When we’re putting together the board,” Rubenstein said, ‘somebody came to me and said ‘Look, there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth.’ …We put him on the board and (he) spent three years. Came to all the meetings. … And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years – ‘You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.’ The board member told him, Rubenstein said, ‘Well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.’ And I said, 'Thanks.' Didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush,’ Rubenstein said. ‘He became president of the United States. So if you said to me, name 25 million people who would be president of the United States, he wouldn't be in that category. So you neverknow." Nicholas Horrock, “White House Watch: With Friends Like These,” UPI, July 16, 2003 .

Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Four
THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'
Section Four covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 covers the Carlyle Group and Saudi money in the United States and its connection to the Bush family, their friends and associates.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “The Carlyle group is a multinational conglomerate that invests in heavily government-regulated industries like telecommunications, healthcare and, particularly, defense.”
• “The Carlyle Group is one of the world’s largest private equity firms, with more than $18.3 billion under management. With 23 funds across five investment disciplines (management-led buyouts, real estate, leveraged finance, venture capital and turnaround), Carlyle combines global vision with local insight, relying on a top-flight team of nearly 300 investment professionals operating out of offices in 14 countries to uncover superior opportunities in North America, Europe, and Asia. Carlyle focuses on sectors in which it has demonstrated expertise: aerospace & defense, automotive & transportation, consumer, energy & power, healthcare, industrial, real estate, technology & business services, and telecommunications & media.” Carlyle Group web site, http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/company/index.html
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The Bin Laden and Bush families were both connected to the Carlyle Group, as were many of the Bush family’s friends and associates.
• In the early 1990s, George W. Bush served on the board of directors for CaterAir, an airline catering company. CaterAir was owned by the Carlyle Group. Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” The New York Times, March 26, 1991. “George W. Bush left the company in 1994, a year after his father’s presidency ended.” Ross Ramsey, et al., “Campaign ’94 Fisher’s Staff Slips Up On Spanish,” The Houston Chronicle, September 17, 1994.
• In the mid-1990s, George H.W. Bush joined up with the Carlyle Group. “Under the leadership of ex-officials like Baker and former Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci, Carlyle developed a specialty in buying defense companies and doubling or quadrupling their value. The ex-president not only became an investor in Carlyle, but a member of the company's Asia Advisory Board and a rainmaker who drummed up investors. Twelve rich Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens, were among them. In 2002, the Washington Post reported, ‘Saudis close to Prince Sultan, the Saudi defense minister ... were encouraged to put money into Carlyle as a favor to the elder Bush.’ Bush retired from the company last October, and Baker, who lobbied U.S. allies last month to forgive Iraq's debt, remains a Carlyle senior counselor. Kevin Phillips, “The Barreling Bushes; Four Generations of the Dynasty Have Chased Profits Through Cozy Ties with Mideast Leaders, Spinning Webs of Conflicts of Interest,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004.
• The bin Laden family first invested in Carlyle in 1994. Representing Carlyle’s Asia Board, George H.W. Bush visited the bin laden family's headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Kurt Eichenwald, “Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group,” The New York Times, October 26, 2001.
• James Baker was a Carlyle Senior Counselor beginning in 1993. Carlyle Group web site, http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/team/
l5-team391.html.
• Bush's OMB chief, Richard Darman, was with Carlyle by 1994. Bob Cook, Mergers & Acquisitions Report, December 12, 1994.
• George W. Bush was with Caterair -- owned by Carlyle -- until 1994, after Fred Malek, a senior advisor to Carlyle, who also served as the director of the 1988 Republican Convention, suggested to Carlyle that the President’s eldest son would “be a positive addition to Caterair’s board.” Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” New York Times, March 26, 1991.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Carlyle Group was holding its annual investor conference on the morning of September 11th in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C. At that meeting were all of the Carlyle regulars, James Baker, likely John Major, definitely George H. W. Bush, though he left the morning of September 11th. Shafiq bin Ladin, who is Osama bin Laden’s half-brother, and was in town to look after his family’s investments in the Carlyle Group. All of them, together in one room, watching as the uh the planes hit the towers.”
• On the morning of September 11, 2001, “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as they terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. In any circumstance, a confluence of such politically complex and globally connected people would have been curious, even newsworthy. But in the context of the terrorist attacks being waged against the United States by a group of Saudi nationals led by Osama bin Laden, the group assembled at the Ritz-Carlton that day was a disconcerting and freakish coincidence.” Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, p. 139-140. See also, Melanie Warner, “What do George Bush, Arthur Levitt, Jim Baker, Dick Darman, and John Major Have in Common? (They All Work for the Carlyle Group),” Fortune, March 18, 2002,
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “With all the weapons companies it owned, The Carlyle Group was in essence, the 11th largest defense contractor in the United States.”
• “By virtue of its holdings in companies like U.S. Marine Repair and United Defense Industries, Carlyle is the equivalent of the eleventh-largest defense contractor in the nation. It has $16.2 billion under management and claims an average annual return of 35%.” Phyllis Berman, “Lucky Twice,” Forbes, December 8, 2003.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “It owned United Defense, makers of the Bradley armored fighting vehicle. September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just 6 weeks after 9-11 Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December made a one day profit of $237 million dollars.”
• “On a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks. … On Sept. 26, [2001], the Army signed a $665-million modified contract with United Defense through April 2003 to complete the Crusader's development phase. In October, the company listed the Crusader, and the attacks themselves, as selling points for its stock offering. Mark Fineman, “Arms Buildup is a Boon to Firm Run by Big Guns,” Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2002.
• "Still, in its annual report for 2001, United announced that it had been awarded a three-year, $697 million contract to complete full upgrading of 389 Bradley units and had added a $ 655 million contract modification to complete the Crusader's 'definition and risk-reduction phase contrac

Fla Flash
09-28-2004, 10:16 PM
WOW. I'd say somebody did their homework.<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

Lobster Cowboy
09-29-2004, 03:30 AM
> WOW. I'd say somebody did their homework.

or really knows how to use Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

icenine0
09-29-2004, 06:25 AM
Copy and Paste,
like bread and buttah,
ya can't use one unless you,
have the othaaahhhh
oh yeahhhh...

<sub>If you want an explanation, it's 11:23 PM, I just spent 8 hours writing a recursive assembly program, and I've officially lost my mind.</sub>

> or really knows how to use Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V
>

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

WhyteKnight
09-29-2004, 07:37 AM
Nonetheless, he certainly put some time into composing all that.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

Danoz
09-29-2004, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

If you want an explanation, it's 11:23 PM, I just spent 8 hours writing a recursive assembly program, and I've officially lost my mind.

<hr></blockquote>

Hey, if the Lord didn't want us to lose our minds he wouldn't have given us minds to locate them.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

Fla Flash
09-29-2004, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Hey, if the Lord didn't want us to lose our minds he
wouldn't have given us minds to locate them.

<hr></blockquote>

I lost mine a looooong time ago, and God had nothing to do with it.

<img src=smilies/cwm27.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe... (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

MooglyGuy
09-29-2004, 05:44 PM
> I lost mine a looooong time ago, and God had nothing to do
> with it.

Yeah, I did. <img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<P ID="signature"></P>