Hi Everyone,
Ok I am kind of surprised that this has not been discussed before I went and looked but maybe I missed it.Has anyone seen this movie???I know I know a little late but OH MY GOD!Not only is this movie very informative but it really makes you shake your head in true disgust with some of the goings on that have made us look SO bad.I am going to leave it at that,for now.Last time I brought up a movie that was a documentary I wanted to talk about the movie "Supersize me" and I got shot down in flames VERY quickly.You can say this is another propaganda film BUT everything is documented on paper.Our goverment sure does try to sheild us off from the ugly things they try to keep quiet.Ok,nuff said .Anyone else seen it?If so what are your thoughts about it?

DD

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

Hi Everyone,
Ok I am kind of surprised that this has not been discussed before I went and looked but maybe I missed it.Has anyone seen this movie???I know I know a little late but OH MY GOD!Not only is this movie very informative but it really makes you shake your head in true disgust with some of the goings on that have made us look SO bad.I am going to leave it at that,for now.Last time I brought up a movie that was a documentary I wanted to talk about the movie "Supersize me" and I got shot down in flames VERY quickly.You can say this is another propaganda film BUT everything is documented on paper.Our goverment sure does try to sheild us off from the ugly things they try to keep quiet.Ok,nuff said .Anyone else seen it?If so what are your thoughts about it?

DD
Don't let the movie fool you. It is full of lies, coming from a man who hates the president and wants some publicity. It is just another propaganda film.

Lies? Have you seen the movie? It basically show REAL clips from the life of the president. There's no way you can alter REAL video clips. Now, I will say that the movie only shows one side of the story, but the clips that are shown are real. The president is a doofus.

Thank you Patrick!!Man I was getting seriously worried.I wasn't sure if I was gonna get beat down by the republicans or what.But Yes,I have seen it and I feel the same way.Especially the part where it shows him in the classroom when the planes were hitting the twin towers!!!I had to pick my jaw up off the floor countless times.He is a joke in my opinion,I don't think we as a Nation will ever gain the respect of other countries from some of the Crap Bush has made us go through.Anyway but yeah back to that scene and countless others that there is a factual paper trail and videotaped proof I want someone to explain to me how this is all Propaganda.If you guys think that we are allowed to hear all the crap going on in different countries and that our government isn't hiding it away from us because its NOT pretty.I have another movie then that you should all watch its called Wag the Dog.


DD:omg:

Yup, our president wasn't much of a leader right after the attacks. Cheney pretty much kept Bush from losing it. In that classroom, he was at a complete loss. Time kept passing by, and refused to leave the classroom, because he had no clue what to do.

So instead, he decided to hop on Air Force One and fly around the country like a scaredy cat or a chicken. Real leader, huh. He cut and run when the job got tough.

Hillary Clinton, 2008.

Amen Brother.I feel the same way.Its just sad and dam embarrassing,If I do say so myself.I just wonder how many parents have to lose their children in the war before its all over.Ohhh,and the part where he was trying to get the all the state leaders that supposedly support the war would absolutely NOT sign their children up to go to war.Its such a double standard it makes me sick.Anyway thanks Patrick I don't feel alone anymore lol.


DD:bedtime:

Lies? Have you seen the movie? It basically show REAL clips from the life of the president. There's no way you can alter REAL video clips. Now, I will say that the movie only shows one side of the story, but the clips that are shown are real. The president is a doofus.
It is one sided and that is why the movie is a joke. If they were going to make a true movie about the president, they should have included both sides. Once again, it shows how ignorant democrats are and how they can't stand to hear the truth on how great our president is. Heck, if Clinton was in office during 9-11, he would have had to ask Monica to release her grip so that he could hop on Air One and go to Hawaii, so that he would not have to make any decisions. He did make some decisions (excuse me, Billary made the decisions. Bill was too big of a chicken to make a decision on his own),but they were all really bad ones. What a pathetic example for American's. Bill and Billary Clinton, the laughing stock of the world.:tweeted:

True (or untrue) events can be distorted by selective editing or ommision of facts that pertain to the issue. No matter what your opinion of the president is, you cannot look at anything Michael Moore does as "truth" because he has proven himself to be full of **** and a biased ultra-liberal. If you want to debate leadership and presidential elections, start with logic and truthfulness, not spewing hatred, unsubstantiated lies, inuendo, political tricks and propaganda. You can't possibly think Al Gore could have lead this country though 9/11 do you?

PS. Please, please, please put Hillary on the Democratic ticket in 2008, to ensure a Republican victory.

Well Shaggy,

Isn't that interesting,So democrats are ignorant huh???I think its really pathetic how YOU cannot see that our President is wasting BILLIONS of dollars on a pointless war for one thing.I could go into several other areas that show he is a putz.I wonder since we had to HIGHTAIL it into Iraq so quickly If you had a child that was killed because of this war THAT NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN,would you still feel the same?What if it was your only child?Also in a ridiculous and maddening way this IDIOT ass president you think is so wonderful (giggle) dropped the ball SO bad with Hurricane katrina.Before you jump on the back of what you think is your high horse,again I will ask what if you lost some family members in that hurricane would you still feel the same?


DD

Obviously, you Republicans are in the minority, because Bush's approval ratings sit at around 30%, the lowest of any president, except for maybe Hoover.

I love how, because some of us disagree with you , you say we are beating down on you. Why ask for opinions if you can't handle a little criticism of your views?

True (or untrue) events can be distorted by selective editing or ommision of facts that pertain to the issue. No matter what your opinion of the president is, you cannot look at anything Michael Moore does as "truth" because he has proven himself to be full of **** and a biased ultra-liberal. If you want to debate leadership and presidential elections, start with logic and truthfulness, not spewing hatred, unsubstantiated lies, inuendo, political tricks and propaganda. You can't possibly think Al Gore could have lead this country though 9/11 do you?

PS. Please, please, please put Hillary on the Democratic ticket in 2008, to ensure a Republican victory.

The events I stated above were true facts, not lies. The president cut and run when the heat came on.

Al Gore would've at least not run with fear. And if Al Gore were in office, we wouldn't be having nations back out of Iraq? Why? Because we would've waited for the UN to do it's job before we acted like a bunch of pompous fools and went into a place where we had no business being.

There's still no absolute reason we're in Iraq, except to steal their oil. No weapons of mass destruction. No terrorists. In fact, the terrorist problem over there is worse now.

By the way, I notice the Bosnia/Serbia conflict ended peacefully. Too bad we can't say that about Iraq.

This explains everything:

http://www.rockcitynews.com/photos3d/antibushwar4/images/iraq-bush-priceless.jpg

SO WHERE WERE YOU WHEN IT HAPPENED GEORGE?

Bush was at a school in Florida where he was taking part in a photo opportunity, which included reading a story about a pet goat to a class of children. The media around the world told us, from White House statements, that Bush heard of the twin tower attacks when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, spoke in his ear in the classroom as he addressed the children. There was the famous picture of Card leaning over Bush accompanied by headlines like: The Moment Bush Knew.

But Bush told the Florida town meeting a very different story. This is what he said about what happened that morning in answer to a question by someone named Jordan:

"Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

THIS IS STAGGERING - THERE WAS NO LIVE TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING THE TOWER - HOW COULD THERE BE?? THE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST CRASH WAS TAKEN BY ONLOOKERS AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AND DID NOT AIR FOR HOURS AND DAYS AFTER IT HAPPENED. THERE WAS LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SECOND CRASH, OF COURSE, BUT NOT OF THE FIRST - SO HOW ON EARTH CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CLAIM TO A PUBLIC MEETING TO HAVE SEEN IT LIVE ON A TELEVISION OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM WHERE HE WAS WAITING TO ADDRESS THOSE CHILDREN?? AND WHY HAS NO NEWS ORGANISATION OR "JOURNALIST" PICKED UP THIS FANTASTIC LIE?

And what about that statement about "there's one terrible pilot". What?? A passenger jet crashes into one of the twin towers full of people and all the President of the United States can say is "there's one terrible pilot"!! And then he walks into a classroom to read a story about a pet goat?? God help us. "There's one terrible pilot"? We are not talking a light plane flown by an amateur, but a commerical airliner and even if it had not been a terrorist outrage, it would still have been an enormous tragedy requiring the leadership of the US president. But of course none of this tissue of lies by Bush could have happened because he could not possibly have seen the first crash on live television because there was no live coverage. The fact that Bush KNEW the plane was going to hit the tower is more like it because he, like his masters who orchestrated it, was well aware of what was going to unfold that morning.

AND EVEN AFTER HE CLAIMS THAT HIS CHIEF OF STAFF TOLD HIM OF THE SECOND PLANE, AND THAT "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK", BUSH WENT ON READING THE STORY ABOUT THE PET GOAT!! YOU SIMPLY COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP, COULD YOU?


As Associated Press reported on September 12th: "In Sarasota, Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later. "

"Briefly" remained somber?? He's just been told that the New York twin towers have been struck by commercial airliners. Death and destruction on a massive scale was already obvious and the President was "briefly somber" before continuing to read a children's story? Bush told the town meeting:

"But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-in-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so, I've talked to the Secretary of Defense; one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert."

BUT HE COULD NOT HAVE TALKED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENCE UNTIL HE FINISHED THE GOAT STORY AND LEFT THE CLASSROOM AND ONLY THEN DID HE PUT AMERICA ON ALERT. HOW MUCH CRUCIAL TIME WAS LOST THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED, FOR INSTANCE, THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, WHICH HAPPENED 40 MINUTES AFTER THE SECOND TOWER WAS HIT?

By the way, I notice the Bosnia/Serbia conflict ended peacefully. Too bad we can't say that about Iraq.
Yeah, there was a war that had a concrete impact on our way of life. Ahhhh but, it was initiated during Saint Clinton's reign so everythings all good with that one according to the (ANTI WAR!!!) Dimmocrat's. :beaten_fi

This is interesting: Who do we blame?

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is bombed. US citizen Timothy McVeigh is convicted of the bombing, but some maintain there is a Middle Eastern connection. For instance, Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, says the possibility is intriguing and he has been unable to disprove it. [Clarke, 2004, pp 127 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20)] The bombing leads to a surge in concern about terrorism. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act becomes law as a result of such concern. However, many anti-terrorism provisions Clinton seeks are not approved by the Republican-controlled Congress. Many politicians agree with the National Rifle Association that proposed restrictions on bomb-making would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. [Clarke, 2004, pp 98-99 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20)]

This explains everything:

http://www.rockcitynews.com/photos3d/antibushwar4/images/iraq-bush-priceless.jpg

Here are updated numbers: As of the time of this post, the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation is up to $223.7 billion. Now, 2,123 soldiers have died.

OMG

Patrick,that is really scary.In a Nation where I grew up and felt safe and secure,it just doesn't exist anymore.I fear for my children and their children over the next few decades.

DD

Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=aearly01bushstaffers)


Clinton and Bush staff overlap for several months while new Bush appointees are appointed and confirmed. Clinton holdovers seem more concerned about al-Qaeda than the new Bush staffers. For instance, according to a colleague, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack. [Newsweek, 5/27/02 (http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html)] Brian Sheridan, Clinton's outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new military leadership up to speed on terrorism are brushed aside. “I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/latimes033004.html)] Army Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, Deputy National Security Adviser and manager of Clinton's NSC (National Security Council) staff, still remains at the NSC nearly four months after Bush takes office. He later notes that while Clinton's advisers met “nearly weekly” on terrorism by the end of his term, he does not detect the same kind of focus with the new Bush advisers: “That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what [Clinton holdover Richard] Clarke and the CSG [Counterterrorism and Security Group] were doing.” [Washington Post, 1/20/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19)] Kerrick submits a memo to the new people at the NSC, warning, “We are going to be struck again.” He says, “They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn't see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as.” Kerrick adds, “They were gambling nothing would happen.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/latimes033004.html)] Bush's first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Henry Shelton, later says terrorism was relegated “to the back burner” until 9/11. [Washington Post, 10/2/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30061-2002Oct1.html)]

January 3, 2001: Clarke Briefs Rice on al-Qaeda Threat; Keeps Job but Loses Power (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a010301clarkerice)

Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for the Clinton administration, briefs National Security Adviser Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, about al-Qaeda. [Washington Post, 1/20/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19)] Outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger makes an unusual appearance at the start of the meeting, saying to Rice, “I'm coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is.” He claims that he tells Rice during the transition between administrations, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Clarke presents his plan to “roll back” al-Qaeda that he had given to the outgoing Clinton administration a couple of weeks earlier. [Time, 8/4/02 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/time080402.html)] He gets the impression that Rice has never heard the term al-Qaeda before. [Guardian, 3/25/04 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1177418,00.html); Clarke, 2004, pp 227-30 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20)]

People and organizations involved: Condoleezza Rice (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2439), Richard A. Clarke (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1708), Bush administration (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2488), Stephen Hadley (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2237), Sandy Berger (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-75), al-Qaeda (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-449)

January 21-September 10, 2001: Transportation Secretary Says Bush Administration Does Nothing to Fight Terrorism (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a12101minetanothing)

In 2003, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta will be asked by the 9/11 Commission, “Did this higher level of [terrorist] chatter [before 9/11] ... result in any action across the government? I take it your answer is no.” He replies, “That�s correct.” [Associated Press, 5/23/03 (C) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2708839,00.html)]

January 25, 2001: Clarke Presents Plan to Roll Back al-Qaeda, but Response Is Delayed (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a012501clarke)

Richard Clarke. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/056_richard_clarke.jpgCounterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke submits a proposal to National Security Adviser Rice and “urgently” asks for a Cabinet-level meeting on the al-Qaeda threat. [Clarke, 2004, pp 230-31 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20)] He forwards his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 “Delenda Plan” (see August 27, 1998 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a082798delenda&timeline=complete_911_timeline)). He lays out a proposed agenda for urgent action:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/childbullet.gif Approve covert assistance to Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D) (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/independentcommissionreport032404d.html)]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/childbullet.gif Significantly increase funding for CIA counterterrorism activity. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D) (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/independentcommissionreport032404d.html)]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/childbullet.gif Respond to the USS Cole bombing with an attack on al-Qaeda. (The link between al-Qaeda and that bombing had been assumed for months and is confirmed in the media two days later.) According to the Washington Post, “Clarke argue[s] that the camps [are] can't-miss targets, and they [matter]. The facilities [amount] to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda's human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?” No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. [Washington Post, 1/20/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19)]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/childbullet.gif Go forward with new Predator drone reconnaissance missions in the spring and use an armed version when it is ready. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D) (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/independentcommissionreport032404d.html)]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/childbullet.gif Step up the fight against terrorist fundraising. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D) (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/independentcommissionreport032404d.html)]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/childbullet.gif Be aware that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are not just a potential threat, but are a “major threat in being.” Additionally, more attacks have almost certainly been set in motion. [Washington Post, 1/20/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19); PBS Frontline, 10/3/02 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/)] Rice's response to Clarke's proposal is that the Cabinet will not address the issue until it has been “framed” at the deputy secretary level. However, this initial deputy meeting is not given high priority and it does not take place until April 2001. [Clarke, 2004, pp 230-31 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20)] Henry Shelton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman until 9/11, says, “The squeaky wheel was Dick Clarke, but he wasn't at the top of their priority list, so the lights went out for a few months. Dick did a pretty good job because he's abrasive as hell, but given the [bureaucratic] level he was at” there was no progress. [Benjamin and Simon, 2002, pp 335-36 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375508597/centerforcoop-20); Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/latimes033004.html)] Some counterterrorism officials think the new administration responds slowly simply because Clarke's proposal originally came from the Clinton administration. [Time, 8/4/02 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/time080402.html)] For instance, Thomas Maertenson, on the National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, says, “They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration. So anything [that administration] did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it.” [New York Times, 3/24/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html); Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 3/25/04 (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/4684189.html)]

January 31, 2001: Bipartisan Commission Issues Final Report on Terrorism, but Conclusions Are Ignored (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a013101report)

Gary Hart (left) and Warren Rudman (right) testify before a Senate committee in 2002. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/057_hart_rudman.jpgThe final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) is issued. The bipartisan report was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Hart and Rudman personally brief National Security Adviser Rice, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell on their findings. The report has 50 recommendations on how to combat terrorism in the US, but all of them are ignored by the Bush administration. According to Senator Hart, Congress begins to take the commission's suggestions seriously in March and April, and legislation is introduced to implement some of the recommendations. Then, “Frankly, the White House shut it down... The president said ‘Please wait, We're going to turn this over to the vice president’ ... and so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.” The White House announces in May that it will have Vice President Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism despite the fact that this commission had just studied the issue for 2 1/2 years. Interestingly, both this commission and the Bush administration were already assuming a new cabinet level National Homeland Security Agency would be enacted eventually, even as the public remained unaware of the term and the concept. [Salon, 9/12/01 (http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html); Salon, 4/2/04 (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/02/hart/)] Hart is incredulous that neither he nor any of the other members of this commission are ever asked to testify before the 9/11 Commission. [Salon, 4/6/04 (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/06/commission/)]

Early February 2001: Clarke Urges Cheney to Take Action Against al-Qaeda (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0201clarkeurges)

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke briefs Vice President Cheney about the al-Qaeda threat. He urges decisive and quick action against al-Qaeda. Cheney soon visits CIA headquarters for more information about al-Qaeda. However, at later high-level meetings Cheney fails to bring up al-Qaeda as a priority issue. [Clarke, 2004, pp 227-30 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20); Time, 8/4/02 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/time080402.html)]

February 2001: Bush Administration Abandons Global Crackdown on Terrorist Funding (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0201crackdown)

According to Time magazine, “The US was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens [in early 2001]. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates—and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush administration took office.” [Time, 10/15/01 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/10/22/secrecy.html)] After pressure from the powerful banking lobby, the Treasury Department under Paul O'Neill halts US cooperation with these international efforts begun in 2000 by the Clinton administration. Clinton had created a National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in his last budget, but under O'Neill no funding for the center is provided and the tracking of terrorist financing slows down. [Time, 10/15/01 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/10/22/secrecy.html); Foreign Affairs, 7/01 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/foreignaffairs0701.html)]

Funny how Bush was planning on attacking Iraq long before 9-11 and long before he asked the UN to intervene. He had his mind made up. There was no justification.

Impeach President Bush.

February 1, 2001: Rumsfeld Envisions Post-Saddam Iraq (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_458)

The Bush White House holds its second National Security Council meeting. Like the first meeting (see (January 30, 2001) (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_911=bush&timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=400#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasio n_of_iraq_457)), the issue of regime change in Iraq is a central topic. [CBS News, 1/10/04 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0110-03.htm); New York Times, 1/12/04 (http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/bushdisputes.html)] Officials discuss a memo titled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,” which talks about troop requirements, establishing war crimes tribunals, and divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. [Sources: Paul O'Neill (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=paul_o_neill)] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argues that by removing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration would “demonstrate what US policy is all about.” It would also help transform the Middle East, he claims. According to Paul O'Neill, Rumsfeld talks at the meeting “in general terms about post-Saddam Iraq, dealing with the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, the reconstruction of the country's economy, and the ‘freeing of the Iraqi people.’ ” [New York Times, 1/12/04 (http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/bushdisputes.html) Sources: Paul O'Neill (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=paul_o_neill)] Other people, in addition to O'Neill, Bush, and Rumsfeld, who are likely in attendance include Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers. [Sources: National Security Presidential Directives—NSPD-1, 2/13/01] (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm)]

February 26, 2001: Paul Bremer: Bush Administration Paying No Attention to Terrorism (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a022601bremercomment)

Paul Bremer, who will be appointed the US administrator of Iraq in 2003, says in a speech that the Bush administration is “paying no attention” to terrorism. “What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this.’ ” Bremer speaks shortly after chairing the National Commission on Terrorism, a bipartisan body formed during the Clinton administration. [Associated Press, 4/29/04 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bremer.bush.ap/)]

March 2001: Cheney's Energy Task Force Eyes Iraq's Oil Reserves (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_460)

Cheney's Energy Task Force authors a variety of documents relating to the oil industries of Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. [New York Times, 1/12/04 (http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/bushdisputes.html); CBS News, 1/10/04 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0110-03.htm); Judicial Watch, 7/17/03 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml)]
Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts - This document, dated March 5, 2001, includes a table listing 30 countries which have interests in Iraq's oil industry. The document also includes the names of companies that have interests, the oil fields with which those interests are associated, as well as the statuses of those interests. [Sources: Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors, page 2 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml), Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors, page 1 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml)]
Map of Iraq's oil fields - The map includes markings for “supergiant” oil fields of 5 billion barrels or more, other oilfields, fields “earmarked for production sharing,” oil pipelines, operational refineries, and tanker terminals. [Sources: Iraq Oil Map (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml)]
Other documents - Other documents include oil field maps and project tables for both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates [Sources: UAE Oil Map (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml), Saudia Arabia Oil Map (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml), UAE Oil Project Table (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml), Saudi Arabia Oil Project Table (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml)]

June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0601surge)

Terrorist threat reports, already high in the preceding months, surge even higher. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and national security aides are given briefing papers with headlines such as “Bin Laden Threats Are Real” and “Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks.” The exact contents of these briefings remain classified, but according to the 9/11 Commission they consistently predict upcoming attacks that will occur “on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil, consisting of possible multiple—but not necessarily simultaneous—attacks.” CIA Director Tenet later recalls that by late July the warnings coming in could not get any worse. He feels that President Bush and other officials grasp the urgency of what they are being told. [9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731182/)] But Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin later states that he feels a great tension, peaking these months, between the Bush administration's apparent misunderstanding of terrorism issues and his sense of great urgency. McLaughlin and others are frustrated when inexperienced Bush officials question the validity of certain intelligence findings. Two unnamed, veteran Counter Terrorism Center officers deeply involved in bin Laden issues are so worried about an impending disaster that they consider resigning and going public with their concerns. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (C) (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/independentcommissionreport032404c.html)] Dale Watson, head of counterterrorism at the FBI, wishes he had “500 analysts looking at Osama bin Laden threat information instead of two.” [9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731182/)]

June 2001: Clarke Asks for Different Job as White House Fails to Share His Urgency (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0601clarkewantsout)

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke asks for a transfer to start a new national program on cyber security. His request is granted, and he is to change jobs in early October 2001. He makes the change despite the 9/11 attacks. He claims that he tells National Security Adviser Rice and her deputy Steve Hadley, “Perhaps I have become too close to the terrorism issue. I have worked it for ten years and to me it seems like a very important issue, but maybe I'm becoming like Captain Ahab with bin Laden as the White Whale. Maybe you need someone less obsessive about it.” [Clarke, 2004, pp 25-26 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20); White House, 10/9/01 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011009-4.html)] He later claims, “My view was that this administration, while it listened to me, either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem. And I thought, if the administration doesn't believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there's an urgent problem, and if it's unprepared to act as though there's an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.” [New York Times, 3/24/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html)]

Amen Brother.I feel the same way.Its just sad and dam embarrassing,If I do say so myself.I just wonder how many parents have to lose their children in the war before its all over.Ohhh,and the part where he was trying to get the all the state leaders that supposedly support the war would absolutely NOT sign their children up to go to war.Its such a double standard it makes me sick.Anyway thanks Patrick I don't feel alone anymore lol.


DD:bedtime:

of course they are not going to sign their children up to go to war. you arent supposed to. its a choice of the individual if they are going to sign up. that was just a stupid thing for him to try to do. we have an all volunteer force.

Oh well EXCUSE me!!!It does still prove a point that if they were such supporters of this war that they of course no way in hell would want THEIR precious children over there fighting AND dying.If you watched the movie they dam near ran from him just because he asked them.In my opinion for this not to be viewed as a TOTAL double standard then they should have NO problems with having their children go over and fight right along side everyone elses's!!!


DD

Well Shaggy,

Isn't that interesting,So democrats are ignorant huh???I think its really pathetic how YOU cannot see that our President is wasting BILLIONS of dollars on a pointless war for one thing.I could go into several other areas that show he is a putz.I wonder since we had to HIGHTAIL it into Iraq so quickly If you had a child that was killed because of this war THAT NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN,would you still feel the same?What if it was your only child?Also in a ridiculous and maddening way this IDIOT ass president you think is so wonderful (giggle) dropped the ball SO bad with Hurricane katrina.Before you jump on the back of what you think is your high horse,again I will ask what if you lost some family members in that hurricane would you still feel the same?


DD

i think this trend to hate the pres. is something that started back in the nineties when clinton was in office. people hated him for his views and policies and that has just rolled over with this pres. pointless war? hardly. was it optional? yeah, i think so. is it illegal? no. saddam didnt follow the cease fire agreement after the first gulf war, and killed thousands of his own people with his weapons of mass destruction. he was a brutal dictator he WAS a terrorist, look what he did to his own people. i for one am glad he is out.
the whole hurricane issue. yeah some of the blame is definitely on the administration. he did however call the mayor of N.O. and told him he should evacuate the city like 2 days before it hit. i think more of the blame falls on the state and especially the local gov. both the mayor and governor grossly neglected N.O.

Oh well EXCUSE me!!!It does still prove a point that if they were such supporters of this war that they of course no way in hell would want THEIR precious children over there fighting AND dying.If you watched the movie they dam near ran from him just because he asked them.In my opinion for this not to be viewed as a TOTAL double standard then they should have NO problems with having their children go over and fight right along side everyone elses's!!!


DD
This is the sort of misleading crap that Moore relies upon. Asking someone "Would you send your child to die in Iraq?" is a lot different that "Would you still support the war if you son/daughter was involved?". No one would answer the former in the positive. And it still doesn't acknowledge the fact that our armed forces are made up of adult volunteers who chose to serve, not children that are forced to fight by their parents.

Oh well EXCUSE me!!!


[size=3][color=#ff0000]DD

wow, no need to get snippy. i was just saying its a volunteer force, you cant sign someone up to go into the armed forces.

Okay, okay. You're saying that the Michael Moore stuff is crap. What about all of the facts I've posted now?

I didn't hate Clinton, because what Clinton did was his own personal life. The mistakes Bush is making affect all of us and the conutry as a whole.

Bush had no valid reason to go into Iraq. The fact that he didn't comply with UN weapon's inspectors happened in the Clinton administration, not Bush's administration. He was complying with the UN during Bush's administration. Bush went in an invaded Iraq anyways.

My articles show that Bush had this planned all along, from the beginning of his presidency. Why was he so focused on Iraq, and not focused on other countries violating UN mandates, like North Korea, China, etc? Because Iraq has lots of oil, that's why.

Bush lied to the American public, basing his justification to go to war on everything from terroris, to weapons of mass destruction. All of that was lies.

Folks, regardless of how you feel about our president, we were lied to, and the president's lies regarding the war, have hurt this nation, far more than lies about a sex scandal ever did. We've alientated the entire world, and made everyone hate us. Not such a great position to be in, IMO.

True (or untrue) events can be distorted by selective editing or ommision of facts that pertain to the issue. No matter what your opinion of the president is, you cannot look at anything Michael Moore does as "truth" because he has proven himself to be full of **** and a biased ultra-liberal. If you want to debate leadership and presidential elections, start with logic and truthfulness, not spewing hatred, unsubstantiated lies, inuendo, political tricks and propaganda. You can't possibly think Al Gore could have lead this country though 9/11 do you?

PS. Please, please, please put Hillary on the Democratic ticket in 2008, to ensure a Republican victory.
Good job. I could not have said it better myself. There is no way on earth that Al gore could have led this nation through 9-11, and I am glad he didn't get the chance. Whoa, this moderator, DarlingDiva, sure has a temper. The president has done an excellent job with what he has, and the 30% approval rate means nothing to me. The stats came from the democratic party, I'm sure.

As far as the hurricane, maam? This was more of a state matter than a federal matter. As a matter of fact, nothing was happening to help the people in NO until the president stepped up, took charge, and told the mayor what needed to be done. That's the reason he wasn't there in the aftermath. He assumed that the mayor and the governor knew what they were doing. Instead, they (the mayor and governor) are responsible for all of those deaths. If the president hadn't stepped in, the death toll would have been much higher. Maybe you ought to get your facts straight before you start ranting and raving.

Yes, put Billary on the democratic ticket in 2008 so that the republicans are guaranteed a victory.

Another thing. Yes, Bush lied, so did Clinton (and he enjoyed it), Reagan, Carter, and half of the other presidents that we have ever had.

ok SHAGGY,

First of all you do not even know me.DO NOT try to judge me or act like you do.You have no way of knowing whether I have a temper or not.I am a moderator,so I am not sure why you are even throwing the title around???Am I not allowed to have feelings on a subject??.If you do n ot like it than I suggest you ignore my posts.
Back to idiot Bush,Bush can't do a dam thing without his advisors and we ALL know this.I am sorry you are SO disillusioned that you think he has just stepped up and done everything right,what a crock of crap.He dragged his feet in all of it why???Because he cannot make a decision on his own.He was flying around in his safe little helicopter telling the FEMA director what a great job he was doing.But OHHHH when he started hearing all the outrage by the public, then he says like a fool a few days later,this is unacceptable???What the hell MAKE UP YOUR MIND BUSH!!

DD

Wow!! Its really funny how Republicans start to get down right nasty as soon as we say something negative about Bush. As one of you guys stated earlier, "It just goes to show how ignorant Democrats are". Interesting, and now you saying that Darling Diva has a temper. Maybe because Republicans always got something retarded to say. I think Republicans are the most Double Standard people in America. I dont know why you guys back Bush so much with all the bad things he has done for this country. A few examples:

The war in Iraq: Bush already had this planned before he became president. He was just looking for an excuse and 9/11 was that for him. Funny how we got Saddam Hussein when we still dont know where Osama Bin Laden is (Who was responsible for the attacks in the first place. (sarcastic) Oh, right, the government flew the Bin Ladens out not too long after the buildings were hit.) Patrick was right, It's all about the oil and not about Weapons of Mass Destruction (hmm, where are those at republicans?). Majority of the republicans back this up anyways regardless, because republicans dont think about what is good for the US or the country, they only think what is good for their wallets and bank accounts.

Outsourcing Jobs: (Sarcastically) Wow. Another great idea from an outstanding republican president. Lets kill the economy some more by letting companys export jobs to other countries because its cheaper for them. While more americans are losing jobs because of this, big corporations are making more profits. Let me guess, republicans, the president is not making a mistake here too. Well, lets face it, 9 times out of 10, big corporations are probably republicans too and they like more money in their pocketbooks and bank accounts.

maybe that should be the new motto for republicans, "Got to make a million dollars no matter who dies". Well, why not. Republicans get so defensive when someone has something to say about their oh so great president when its obvious (as plain as day people, but for some reason, republicans cant see this) when the president is on vacation more than half the time since he has been in office, trying to finish his fathers war, and trying to make as much money as possible from the oil overseas before his term is up. And someone said something about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. To tell the truth, I think I rather have a president who is having sexual relations with his intern, than a president who wants to send our men and women overseas to die for war that we shouldnt be in in the first place. At least Democratic presidents try to what is best for the country instead of trying to destroy it for their own personal gain. How dare we, democrats, to say such things about someone who makes them (republicans) more money and give them so much more.

The movie was great, darling diva, very informative.

There's a difference between Bush's lies and Clinton's lies. Bush's lies have killed thousands of Americans and affected thousands more families. Clinton's lie affected no one except himself.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/masterwolf00/bush_Helps_Illegal_Aliens.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/masterwolf00/bush_Computer_Help.jpg

Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at Risk

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago



The U.S. is at great risk for more terrorist attacks because Congress and the White House have failed to enact several strong security measures, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said Sunday.

"It's not a priority for the government right now," said the former chairman, Thomas Kean, ahead of the group's release of a report Monday assessing how well its recommendations have been followed.

"More than four years after 9/11 ... people are not paying attention," the former Republican governor of New Jersey said. "God help us if we have another attack."

Added Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic vice chairman of the commission: "We believe that another attack will occur. It's not a question of if. We are not as well-prepared as we should be."

The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission, whose recommendations are now promoted through a privately funded group known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, conclude that the government deserves "more Fs than As" in responding to their 41 suggested changes.

Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But the government has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting money so it goes to states based on risk level.

"There is a lack of a sense of urgency," Hamilton said. "There are so many competing priorities. We've got three wars going on: one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq and the war against terror. And it's awfully hard to keep people focused on something like this."

National security adviser Stephen Hadley said Sunday that President Bush is committed to putting in place most of the commission's recommendations.

"Obviously, as we've said all along, we are safer, but not yet safe. There is more to do," Hadley said on "Fox News Sunday."

Ex-commissioners contended the government has been remiss by failing to act more quickly.

Kean said the Transportation Security Administration was wrong to announce changes last week that will allow airline passengers to carry small scissors and some sharp tools. He also said the agency, by now, should have consolidated databases of passenger information into a single "terror watch list" to aid screening.

"I don't think we have to go backward here," said Kean, who appeared with Hamilton on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"They're talking about using more money for random checks. Terrorists coming through the airport may still not be spotted," Kean said.

Kean and Hamilton urged Congress to pass spending bills that would allow police and fire to communicate across radio spectrums and to reallocate money so that Washington and New York, which have more people and symbolic landmarks, could receive more for terrorism defense.

Both bills have stalled in Congress, in part over the level of spending and turf fights over which states should get the most dollars.

"This is a no-brainer," said Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman.

"From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at (Hurricane) Katrina. They still cannot do it."



As for the dollar dispute, Hamilton said, "We know what terrorists want to do: they want to kill as many Americans as possible. That means you protect the Washington monument and United States Capitol, and not other places."

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its 567-page final report, which became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton for missteps contributing to the attacks but did say they failed to make anti-terrorism a higher priority.

The commission also concluded that the Sept. 11 attack would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaida had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Calling the country "less safe than we were 18 months ago," former Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick said Sunday the government's failure to move forward on the recommendations makes the U.S. more vulnerable.

She cited the failure to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, as well as the FBI's resistance to overhauling its anti-terror programs.

"You remember the sense of urgency that we all felt in the summer of 2004. The interest has faded," the Washington lawyer said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "You could see that in the aftermath of Katrina. We assumed that our government would be able to do what it needed to do and it didn't do it." ___

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/masterwolf00/bush_Iraq_War_Misinformation.jpg

And this is our president folks!!
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/masterwolf00/bush_No_Exit_Strategy.gif

michael moore, the genius behind this amamzing film, loves halliburton.
"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.

He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The only thing that's Republican about Bush is his voter's ID card. I can't think of too many 'conservative' policies that he's actually supported, unless you get to count privatization schemes built to enrich big campaign contributors like Merril Lynch, etc.

michael moore, the genius behind this amamzing film, loves halliburton.
"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.

He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sounds like a pretty intelliegent man, if you ask me. I need to buy stock in Halliburton right now. Making big bucks.

The only thing that's Republican about Bush is his voter's ID card. I can't think of too many 'conservative' policies that he's actually supported, unless you get to count privatization schemes built to enrich big campaign contributors like Merril Lynch, etc.

I'd say he's pretty conservative from an ethical and religious perspective. He's pretty liberal fiscally though.