Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
and no one cares either that's why things can be as they are.
When the American people actually wake up and realize what happened, it'll be far too late, to which they then can be left wallowing in the leftovers...by then the leftovers will be no more then what a"3rd-world country" currently has...
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
Thats so true. makes you wonder who's even running this country? If you can even say 'running'.Originally posted by thesightless
O well, we'll just hafta see what happens when the whole world hates us.
oh wait....
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
imma just summize this thread as
""american politics is a joke and a disgrace"""Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
Rudy Guiliani. or mccain. or kuchinich. even mike bloomberg is a decent candidate since he has been back and forth to both parties throughout his life and doesnt have the stupid ""what's in it for me"" idea that every single politician in america does.lol
oh well, Bush will be gone in 2008...the only question is wether either of the two parties will be able to dig up some credible candidates.
NOT FUCKING HILLARY. ill move. if she gets elected, i hope runningman has a couch.
they dont care. been like that for republicans for awhile. democrats bend and bow to every pressure, republicans dont bow to anything, even if its for the better.Originally posted by toastyLeave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
The "intelligence failure" was with the American people who didn't reccognize a lie when they were slapped across the face with one.
Also to blame are politicians who were too chicken shit to oppose this thing because of the mob mentality of those same American people.
The amazing thing is that some of them are still fooled.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
lol
oh well, Bush will be gone in 2008...the only question is wether either of the two parties will be able to dig up some credible candidates.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
Telling you , " Told you so , in 2008 " ...........Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
they re going to roll in the elections
huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh
they can cover themselves up so much its ridiculous
they should b accountable
fuckersLeave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
As we say in Texas --- Shoot first and ask questions later. We shot Iraq and now people are asking questions.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
Right in time this info, I was already afraid we'd have to go to war!
We did?
Fuck. Must've missed it somehow.Leave a comment:
-
Why Aren't Heads Rolling?
Rumsfeld backs off al Qaeda assertionsAlso concedes WMD claims about Iraq were proved wrong
Monday, October 4, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared Monday to back off earlier statements suggesting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.
He also conceded that U.S. intelligence was "wrong" in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
"Why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
As recently as June, Vice President Dick Cheney was saying the opposite.
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview on CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials." (Full story)
Before the war, in a speech in Atlanta, Georgia, in September 2002, Rumsfeld said the CIA had "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq."
In his speech Monday, Rumsfeld said the U.S. intelligence analysts have changed their assessment: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."
The independent commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, found no evident that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out attacks against the United States.
The final report by the 9/11 commission, issued in July, also concluded that Iraqi officials might have met with Osama bin Laden or his aides in 1999, but there was "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
In June, President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq under Saddam's rule was in league with al Qaeda, saying that fugitive Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing." (Full story)
But in his speech Monday, Rumsfeld questioned whether the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi, who is suspected of being a major force in the current insurgency in Iraq, was working with al Qaeda even as he seemed to have a similar agenda.
"In the case of al Qaeda, my impression is most of the senior people have actually sworn an oath to Osama bin Laden," Rumsfeld said.
"And to my knowledge, even as of this late date, I don't believe Zarqawi ... has sworn an oath, even though what they're doing -- I mean, they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing."
Honestly, it blows me away that we can have this type of intelligence failure that led us to war on Bush's watch, most everyone still has their job, and half the country thinks this Bush fella ought to keep his job. Brain-bending...
Leave a comment: