PDA

View Full Version : The truth shall set you free



wolfdancer
02-21-2006, 11:26 AM
....but not if you share the truth.....

Administration to Prosecute Whistle-blowers (by William Norman Grigg)
by William Norman Grigg
February 21, 2006

"From the "intelligence failures" of 9/11 and the Iraq war, to the criminal exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the use of illegal warrantless wiretaps, the Bush administration has zealously obstructed efforts to conduct full and honest investigations. Now the administration is displaying great zeal to investigate and prosecute the government officials and reporters responsible for publicizing the president's use of illegal wiretaps -- a revelation the administration has characterized as a criminal disclosure of classified information.

Federal law enforcement agents have been conducting interviews, and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department are laying “the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,” noted the February 12 New York Times (a newspaper which is a target of the investigation). In recent congressional testimony, CIA Director Porter Goss stated: “It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less.”

Glenn Greenwald, a veteran litigator from New York City, puts this matter in perspective. “In essence, while the President sits in the White House undisturbed after proudly announcing that he has been breaking the law and will continue to do so, his slavish political appointees at the Justice Department are using the mammoth law enforcement powers of the federal government to find and criminally prosecute those who brought this illegal conduct to light.” Describing “this flamboyant use of the forces of criminal prosecution to threaten whistleblowers and intimidate journalists” as “nothing more than the naked tactics of street thugs and authoritarian juntas,” Greenwald concludes: “That sounds like a lot of things. The United States isn’t one of them.”

Gayle in MD
02-21-2006, 12:47 PM
I cannot understand for the life of me why the Democrats aren't screaming for impeachment proceedings. How many times is this pompus, out of control, power mongering, communist going to break our laws, and sell us down the river to other countries before our elected officials stop this dictatorship???????????

They always do the same thing, break the law, then put all those who complain about it on the defensive. It's all so obvious. Crooks, every one of them.

Street thugs, is a perfect description of this bunch, except street thugs have enough sense to deny it when they break the law.

John Dean's book, "Worse Than Watergate" is a must read for all Americans.



Gayle....

pooltchr
02-21-2006, 12:53 PM
You know, there have always been things done and decisions made in Washington that were never intended for public disclosure. I was in the military during Viet Nam, and with a top secret security clearance, I had a lot of information cross my desk that could have been detremental to our war efforts if it had come to light to the general public. Whether or not I personally agreed with some of the decisions, I knew that there was no way I could ever disclose what I saw. There was too much at stake to consider undermining the war effort for any reason. To this day, there are things I have seen that I would never share with anyone.
Today is no different. We are at war! In Iraq, and with terrorists all over the world, including right here in our country. There are things that need to be done and decisions that need to be made. The idea that the public has a right to know everything is crazy. People in positions that give them access to certain information are expected to be trusted to keep some things confidential. Those who breech that trust, deserve to be punished. Had I chosen to go public with some information I had, I could have been tried for treason. It's a fact, and whether you like it or not, those in such positions need to respect the trust that has been placed in them.
To win a war, ANY war, there needs to be some secrecy, and some descretion. Make everything public, and you undermine the efforts to be successful. I would rather see us win the war on terror, than to see full disclosure of everything the government is doing, and see more planes flying into more buildings.
It's all in how you look at things.
Steve

Sid_Vicious
02-21-2006, 02:16 PM
These gross infractions from Bush are an ongoing examples of the failure to have checks and balances in the governing bodies, and this was definitely not what the founding fathers intended. There's an idiot in charge, and you'd think that EVEN his supportive subordinates would become embarrassed and personally worried about this country, as I certainly am today. The rest of the world must see the US as quite the hemorrhoid of the earth about now...sid

wolfdancer
02-21-2006, 05:44 PM
Steve, I agree with you that there are many things that should be on a security clearance, need to know basis.
In the case of wiretapping, since there are so many ways to communicate, that are untraceable....throwaways,prepaid cells....even SKYPE is encrypted.
I think any terrorist would expect his phones to be monitored, and use a more covert method.
I believe what everone is concerned about, is you don't have to be identified as a terrorist to be monitored.
Look in the past,to J Edger Hoover's secret files gatherings, and using that info to build up his power base.

pooltchr
02-21-2006, 07:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I believe what everone is concerned about, is you don't have to be identified as a terrorist to be monitored.
Look in the past,to J Edger Hoover's secret files gatherings, and using that info to build up his power base. <hr /></blockquote>

What power base would GW be building and why? He will be out of office in less than two years. What would he do with whatever nasty dirt he might uncover against anyone? I don't see where there is anything to gain for him other than to keep track of any potential plots against the country.
Steve

wolfdancer
02-21-2006, 11:57 PM
Steve, programs like the K street project are designed to perpetuate the Republican dominance of the Cangress and white house....even to the point of a defacto one party system...
To think that Bush just gives up the reins, picks up a hammer and joins Jimmy Carter in humanatarian projects....t'aint gonna happen...not while there is big oil profits to be made, and maybe an honary Emirship for GWB.
Here's a little history of wiretapping...and some dissenting opinions by two liberals (naturally) a Jew and a Yankee
Louis Dembitz Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes
web page (http://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_secret_wiretaps,00.shtml)
It goes back to the framers of the constitution....establishing a system of checks and balances, which GWB would like to remove...executive privilege,etc......putting all your trust into, ceding your rights to a
megalomaniac, and a crook....just might not be what they had in mind in the late 1700's

Gayle in MD
02-22-2006, 11:49 AM
This bunch of Republicans on here don't give a good GD about the truth. The truth is what they resolve to ignore, otherwise, how the hell can they support Bush when he doesn't respond to National Disasters, Open Borders, and now he give our Ports over to Arabs.

I'll be you not one of them actually tuned in to C-Span to hear the horror of what this administration does to people who stand up to them by refusing to break our laws.

They are so stupid, they think bin Laden is backing down, LMAO, that is really a good one. This man is a GOD to thousands and thousands of Muslims, all over the world. He has access to more money than we owe to China, LOL. I am convinced, none of them read. Now I read that they think he attacked us on 9/11 because he was mad at Daddy, LMAO.

Bush could tell them to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, and they'd be knocking one another over to be the first one at the rail to jump.

Bush and Cheney will be counting their millions when they get out of office, for all the secret deals they have been making while in office. They are selling out our country, and the hard core republicans, are blazing the path for the sell out with their own ignorance.

They share Bush's same illness, Arrogant Ignorance.

"How Can Forty Million People Be So Dumb?"

Gayle in Md. Waiting for all the Bush BS about Protecting Americans, by turning our ports over to Arabs.

Gayle in MD
02-22-2006, 11:57 AM
It's all in how you look at things.

Steve

Kind of hard to see anything, when you're wearing blinders, isn't it Steve? Did you watch the hearings on the whistleblowers? I am quite sure, you didn't, or your statements in this post wouldn't be so overwhelmingly inappropriate. Do you support the ruining of people's lives because they refuse to break the law for this President?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-22-2006, 02:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> , and now he give our Ports over to Arabs.

Gayle in Md. Waiting for all the Bush BS about Protecting Americans, by turning our ports over to Arabs. <hr /></blockquote>

I didn't think it would take you 3 days to bring this up. Now I have to ask.
Prior to this week, did you personally have any idea who owned what ports, who the companies are, or what country they are from? Did you think it was American companies that owned them? Tell the truth, now.

Do you think it matters if the country that owns them are UAE based, French based, Brittish based, or any other country based?

Foreigh companies have owned the ports up until now. Is this discrimination on your part against the Arab countries?

Who is going to be responsible for security of the ports? The same people who are responsible right now...The US Coast Guard!

Who is going to be responsible for hiring workers at the ports? The same people who are now...the union.

What is going to be the big difference? A different company will be signing the pay checks.

They are spending 8 Billion dollars to buy out this company. If the purpose is to be able to bring bombs onto our soil, there are much less expensive ways.

This whole thing is a lot of paranoia over nothing. But by bringing it to national attention, the Dems have finally figured out a way to say they are all about homeland security.

Steve

Gayle in MD
02-23-2006, 01:36 AM
Wrong, it isn't the Democrats, it is both parties.

I knew you wouldn't give a damn if Bush turned our ports over to a concern which is owned by a government. This is not a private company from another country, it is a government owned concern, did you know that? I doubt it. This has never happened before, and there are a number of governments that I would not want involved in our ports. This country was linked to alQaeda, among other things. Guess they don't tell you that on Rush's show.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
02-23-2006, 03:57 AM
You know Gayle, when I see all of the plain and simple atrocities and obvious sell-outs Bush is doing to the US, I absolutely and honestly feel he is involved in treason, orchestrated by a super power pulling the strings. If I were deeply religious I'd say Satan's tool, GWB, has us by the balls and there's nothing we can do about it, especially since many of these blind-eyed, flat-headed rights resist cracking one eye open and noticing just a little of what's really going on. This is a dangerous situation and it keeps getting worse...sid

pooltchr
02-23-2006, 06:44 AM
Gayle,
Do you know that the UAE is the only country in the region that allows us to have a Navy base in their country? If our navy couldn't refuel in their port, our military capability would be greatly crippled.
Do you know that our government owns and operates airfields in other countries all over the world? What would happen if those countries told us to get out?
Do you think we should start telling other countries who operate airlines that they are no longer allowed to land in our country? Damn, here we are letting foreigners fly airplanes right into our airports!!!
Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. The UAE has also been an ally in trying to track them down. Those same terrorists also targeted the UAE.
Maybe we should just totally isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Let's tell Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and every other foreign company operating here to take their plants (and jobs) and go home!
Allowing other governments access to operate business in this country, but drawing the line at the UAE (one of our allys in the war on terrorism) is nothing short of prejudice against a country who has done nothing other than be the home of some crazy militants. Timothy McVay was a US citizen. Maybe we shouldn't let any Americans get access to our ports either.
It might be nice for you to have all the facts before you make your decision on the topic. But I guess all you need is the Dem spin to decide.
Steve

Deeman3
02-23-2006, 06:51 AM
I agree that i don't want Arabs guarding or even operating our ports. The very fact that Jimmy Carter agrees with Bush is enough for me. If this socialist icon thinks it is a good idea, there must be somethng in the works to allow the Arabs to attack us.

Deeman

Fran Crimi
02-23-2006, 07:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Wrong, it isn't the Democrats, it is both parties.

I knew you wouldn't give a damn if Bush turned our ports over to a concern which is owned by a government. This is not a private company from another country, it is a government owned concern, did you know that? I doubt it. This has never happened before, and there are a number of governments that I would not want involved in our ports. This country was linked to alQaeda, among other things. Guess they don't tell you that on Rush's show.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

How are they linked to Al Quaeda? Because two of their citizens were 9-11 hijackers? Then I guess we'd have to say that we're linked to Al Quaeda too because a citizen of ours was a member of Al Quaeda fighting against us over in Afghanistan.

Is there some other way that the rest of us don't know that the Emirates are linked to Al Quaeda?

I don't have an opinion on this because I'm waiting for the facts to emerge. Yes, I know that the company is Gov't owned. I think most of our gov't leaders are just asking for more time to consider the issue and discuss it, rather than yelling and screaming that it's a bad move.

I also think that once everyone calms down and starts looking at the facts that they can take a better look at it with a clearer head.

I think it's pretty interesting that for the first time in History, the LA Times and the NY Times disagree.

Fran

eg8r
02-23-2006, 08:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Foreigh companies have owned the ports up until now. Is this discrimination on your part against the Arab countries?
<hr /></blockquote> I don't call it discrimination, I call it profiling, and I am very much in support of it. We have been attacked by terrorists from the UAE and now we are talking about selling our ports to the UAE. It should be raising an alarm (and it is across both parties).

Boortz explained this very well the other day. The current owner is a private foreign company (with no government intervention). The company that is wanting to buy is not just a private company, it is a state owned company. Which means the UAE government would own the ports. I will be honest in stating I did not know who owned the ports before hand, and I never had a reason to know since we were not worried about terrorism. However this has changed a bit and my pushing back on the UAE buying the ports is not because they are a foreign company, but moreso because this foreign company is government run by a government that supports terrorism against the US, in one form or another.

As far as being responsible, sure the Coast Gaurd will be there and I am sure they will continue to do their job to the same level of quality we have come to expect, however that may not be enough. The Coast Gaurd does not inspect every single crate, container, etc that comes through. Also, most of the trailers/containers are inspected at the port in which they depart, this poses a big question for containers leaving the ports of an ally of the UAE who might also support terrorism against the US.

Now we are finding out that Bush never knew about this buyout until a day or so before we did. I find this pretty suspect considering what is being decided. Anyways, I am a bit surprised at how vehement he is backing this decision even threatening to veto any bill that goes against it. I really think this is a bad idea, so I guess we will see how it plays out.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-23-2006, 02:16 PM
No Fran, not because two of alQaeda came from there. They have close ties with bin Laden, and the Taliban. When we didn't go after bin Laden in 99, it was because their (UAEA)Prince's were with him, they were having a little get together, and we didn't want to kill all of them, (The UAEA Princes) and face the aftermath.


They blocked us from freezing al Qaeda money after 9/11, and maybe it doessn't bother you that once they take over, anyone they hire will have access to all our information regarding how we operate our ports, when various security operations are performed, who is working on what days, how we determine which containers to check. Maybe that doesn't bother others, but it bothers the hell out of me. They are mentioned in the 9/11 report. You might want to check that out. Their loyalty to the United States, is questioned in the report, and they are said to be sometimes allies, and also a threat.

I don't like George Bush, and I personally think that his first interest is to maintain his links to the wealthy Arabs with whom both he and his father have been in bed with for thirty years. I don't believe anything he says, and I certainly don't believe that he didn't know anything about this. Anyone who would believe that that is true, needs to have their head examined, as far as I am concerned.

Every Governor of every port is against this contract. Bush, is a sneak. Everything he does, he does it in a sneaky, underhanded way. I wouldn't trust him with my pool stick, let alone, his underhanded sneaky deals with the Arabs operating our ports. This whole thing is totally outrageous, as far as I am concerned. We have company's right here in this country who could serve that contract. Do you think we are doing this to save money, or is Bush still bending over to shoot more money the way of the Arabs in the Middle East. You sure as hell can't say that he has given a good G. damn about the debt he is running up, or the waste the accompanies every single thing he and his appointees and contractees do.

How much more damage does he have to do to us before people open their F-ing eyes. Look at the deficit. Look what we owe to Chine, what this war is costing us, after he told us their oil would pay for it. HA! Now he's up there this morning saying we have to pay to re-build thier Mosque. Look how he ignores the problems with our borders. He just signed something else so illegals can stay here longer, guest workers my A##, they're criminals, committing crimes, and no one can do anything about them because they aren't Americans. We don't even know who they are. Does snybody remember that the 9/11 attackers had been right here in our country for years?

Bush has been warned over and over about our Chemical Plants, about our Nuclear Power Plants, our borders, our shipping containers, it isn't enough he hasn't done anything to make a mark on straightening out these pressing National Security Issues, now he wants Arabs running our ports. The same Arabs who blocked us from freezing some of the alQaeda money after 9/11.

There is plenty of information out there regarding this bunch, UAEA, it isn't hard to find, but don't expect to hear about it on Fox news, or Rush Limbaugh, or the National Review. I listened to hearings this morning, on C-Span. They will probably be repeated this evening, they usually are. I suggest everyone watch them and make up their own minds. I just wish you had all watched the Whistleblowers interviewed, you would be wondering, like I am, if George Bush is a communist.

No President, in the history of this country, has disregarded our laws, lied over and over, spent us into this kind of debt, destroyed our standing around the world, and grown our enemies by the millions, and totally overlooked his responsibility to safegaurd this country, even in the midst of a National Disaster, this president is AWL. I certainly don't expect him to change anything now.

Just wait, until Bush and Cheney get out of office, and check out how their wealth goes through the roof, then maybe everyone will understand what he had to gain by screwing over the American people like he has for the last six years.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-23-2006, 02:20 PM
There is a lot about the UAEA that you obviously don't know, but here is something about me that you don't know, I wouldn't trust any Arab Nation with ties to bin Laden, alQaeda, and the Taliban to operate our ports, none of them! If that makes me predjudice, fine, I am a biggot, but I am not dumb enough to trust the judgement of George W. Bush, so I'm way smarter than you are.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-23-2006, 02:22 PM
Well, Well, Well, there may be hope for you yet, Ed.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
02-23-2006, 02:35 PM
Gayle, don't press your luck !!!
According to the latest managed news item,
it seems like they kept GWB "out of the loop", until
the last second, but GWB says it's perfectly safe.
My idea is that even if they have checked out all the parties
to this deal, and they are all defacto Republicans, and their second choice for religion would be southern Baptist,
it's the family and friends that could coerce these people....and the future ones in charge of operations.

pooltchr
02-23-2006, 03:23 PM
Maybe you would feel more secure if Haliburton took over the ports??????????????
Steve

Fran Crimi
02-23-2006, 03:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> No Fran, not because two of alQaeda came from there. They have close ties with bin Laden, and the Taliban. When we didn't go after bin Laden in 99, it was because their (UAEA)Prince's were with him, they were having a little get together, and we didn't want to kill all of them, (The UAEA Princes) and face the aftermath.

<font color="blue"> Do you mean this incident?

"Former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen yesterday said the Clinton administration on several occasions "called off" military action against bin Laden when it determined the intelligence wasn't good enough to ensure success.
Mr. Cohen said that in one of the incidents, a target believed to be bin Laden "turned out to be a sheik from [the United Arab Emirates]," </font color>


Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sid_Vicious
02-23-2006, 04:42 PM
Dog bites me once, not my fault. Twice....sid

Gayle in MD
02-24-2006, 06:24 PM
Hi again, Fran,
I don't know if that is the incident or not, but it doesn't sound like it. there were a group of UAE Prince's present, but I'm sure there are many more incidents than the two we are discussing, since ObL is in tight with the whole bunch.

The one I speak of was a time when bin Laden was at a meeting with a group of UAE Prince's.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-24-2006, 06:27 PM
Yeah, I've heard that excuse so many times, "He didn't know, The president didn't know the levees broke, he didn't know his people were slandering John McCain, he didn't know that Scooter Libby was slandering Joe Wilson, and destroying his wife's career." Blah Blah Blah, It's nauseating, isn't it?

I guess nobody told the president that the UAE blocked our investigations into the bombing of the our our Naval Ship, either.

This bunch has tried to wear two hats for a long time, one minute they are supporting us, the next they are conspiring with our enemies.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
02-24-2006, 06:49 PM
I did a search and didn't find anything else. Can you find something in writing that discusses that incident?

Fran

Gayle in MD
02-24-2006, 06:58 PM
I will try to find something for you Fran. Maybe I will just send you a book. It is hard for me to fins links for people, because I get most of my information from books, and from C-Span, but I do know there is infromation about the things I am telling you in the 9/11 report, as it was referenced in some of my books regarding the investigation. Give me a few days, and I'll see what I can find for you. I read things, and I honestly have to take out books and search through them to discover where I read what. I also heard this mentioned on either Chris Mathews, or Lou Dobbs program, I think. It was also referred to by one of the Governors interviewed in the last few days. I might have to call Jack in for some help on finding you a link, he's better at that than I am. You know me, I'm a computer dunce, I can't even post links, just clicking them in is all I can manage, LOL.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
02-24-2006, 07:11 PM
Okay, thanks. Just post up here what you find. I think it's a very serious accusation, and I haven't seen anything like that anywhere in writing, including the 9-11 Commission Report. Maybe I missed it?

Fran

Gayle in MD
02-24-2006, 07:19 PM
It's in there. Also, check out C-Span's weekend schedule, and some of their links. www.Capitalnews.org...great (http://www.Capitolnews.org...great) link ! I'll check on it too.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-25-2006, 01:55 PM
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46645 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46645)

www.somaliawatch.org/archivesep01/011109101.htm (http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivesep01/011109101.htm)

dailykos.com/story/2006/2/22/1031531034

Fran, I had a sight the other day with more of the 9/11 material...trying to locate that again. There is a good deal of info scrolling throught a google search. I typed in United Emirants connections to terrorism...there is pleanty of info there.

Gayle...sorry I can't give you links....the font colors don't work for me here either, LOL.

Fran Crimi
02-25-2006, 06:08 PM
I'm just asking for information on that particular incident that you cited, Gayle. I appreciate all the other stuff but I'm just asking about that one, only because that's the one you specifically mentioned.

I just want to know if it's really true.

Fran

Gayle in MD
02-26-2006, 03:34 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/bin-laden-uae-royals/


http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/sct-nws-portbin24/html (http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-portbin24/html)

Fran Crimi
02-26-2006, 06:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/bin-laden-uae-royals/


http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/sct-nws-portbin24/html (http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-portbin24/html) <hr /></blockquote>


Well, I was able to read the first one of the two. The second link didn't work. As far as I can tell, it seems that they were concerned about the potential of harming one or more of the Emirates at any given time, but it was never the cause of a canceled operation.

The first website you linked to was deceitful in the way it pulled quotes out of the 9/11 Commission Report as so-called 'support' of a false statement, because if you read their links to the sections of the report, it's not even close to what they were trying to present on their website.

Which is pretty much what I figured.

Fran

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 07:18 AM
On the thwarted mission to get bin Laden....
Here is another sight, from CNN, www.cnn.Com/2006/US/02/23/ports.binladen.ap/ (http://www.cnn.Com/2006/US/02/23/ports.binladen.ap/)
Let me know if it works...
Much of this has been discussed by Republican Senators over the weekend, and if you haven't heard any of it, you'll certainly be hearing more of it, during the next few weeks. I'm surprised you haven't heard anything about it.


UAE was referred to as a Consistant Counter Terrorist Problem for the United States. in the 9/11 Commission's report. Atleast half the money for funding of the terrorists involved in 9/11, came through UAE, and eleven of the High Jackers, came through Dubai airports. Nuclear Technology to Lybia and North Korea has come from Dubai, through UAE.

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to add another level of vulnerability to the most unprotected areas of potential terrorists plots. New Jersey's Port, located in an area referred to by the FBI as the most dangerous 2 miles in the country, of course would be exposed, and also, intelligence tells us that alQaeda has stated their intention to infiltrate through the supply chain, servicing Global Containers around the world.

Over the weekend, your own Representative from NY, Peter King, said, "We know they (UAE) were very close to bin Laden four years ago." And many former intelligence operatives say their society has already been infiltrated, and or is extremely vulnerable to infiltration, by al Qaeda, and Jjehadists.

I don't think these facts can be blown off as some kind of decietful partisan bs.

Gayle


Gayle







All of these statement are true, along with the fact that the New Jersey port, for example, is in the most dangerous 2 miles in America, according to the FBI.

DickLeonard
02-27-2006, 08:15 AM
Fran and Gayle I saw the Gov of NJ on Cspan this morning and he was saying the 911 hijackers money went thru the UAE
Banks.####

wolfdancer
02-27-2006, 10:21 AM
Dubya/Dubai..joined at the hip???
There's a link to the AP release, at Dubya speaks
web page (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/)
Seems to me that we are going to let a country, linked
to 9/11, linked to Alqueda,........oversee operations
at our major ports???
Is it too late to recount them Fla. Tammany Hall style, votes?
Can a President be impeached....and removed from office forcefully, if necessary.....if he is considered a clear and present danger? Can his die-hard,rabid, Fla. supporters be "detained" at Guantanamo?
Can we dissolve the entire cabinet of idiocrats, that advise the President?

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 02:40 PM
That's true, Dick, and it has been documented over and over again. Also, both Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke contacted Dubai, UAE, after 9/11 to pressure them to break their ties with terrorists organizations, alQaeda, and the Talliban.

Also, it came out today that the Coast Gaurd said the following regarding the potential of this contract going through, before it was approved, and suppposedly investigated and researched as far as it's potential National Security threat....

"There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P &amp; O assets to support terrorist operations that preclude an overall threat assessment of the potential merger...the breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities."

and AFTER THAT....they pushed it through anyway. This Bush machine is much more concerned with their commercial dealings with their buddies, the wealthy Arabs, than they have ever been with our National Security.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 02:48 PM
Good one, he says it himself, not concerned about National Security.

Don't you think it's funny how the Bush supporters are more than willing to give up their privacy, support our pre-emptive attact and occupation against a country that never attacked us, and had no ties to bin Laden, or 9/11, don't mind if the United States tortures their prisoners, and at the same time, they come out for a deal which puts our most vulnerable National Security hot spot, our ports, in the hands of a country which has long had ties with terrorists, and still doesn't recognize Isreal?

Like I said earlier, they'd be shoving past each other to get to the rail first if Bush told them to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
02-27-2006, 04:49 PM
Gayle, in addition to everything else...they do not have to keep financial records here???
You have to wonder why, that little clause was inserted.
At least some of the Republican politician's object for now,
but a little arm twisting, and they'll say this will be the best deal for the U.S. since we bought Times Square from the Indians.

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 08:19 PM
Oh yeah, they're already starting to cave in, atleast the worst of them have already started. It will be interesting to see what happens. Bush, has already been caught in lies about this. I swear, not only does he never tell the truth, he is a bad liar, along with everything else. He alwasy gets caught. Now it comes out he has known about this deal monger than he said.

This entire operation was completely mishandled, just like everything else the Republicans do, and was not handled according the the law. It should have gone before the Congress before any deal was signed, because both the Coast Gaurd, and the Homeland Security Department, said they had concerns regarding National Security, which should have immediately sent it to the Congressional Committee for Homeland Security, and the Representative of that committee, can't think of her name at the moment, came out after being briefed, and stated that she had even more concerns after getting more information.

I doubt there are enough Republicans up there with enough balls or integrity to take a stand against it. The people in this country are overwhelmingly against it, so they will pay a price come election time.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 08:27 PM
It's on page 138 of the 9/11 report.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 09:25 PM
Hi Martin,
You are right. But, every dog has his day, and I do think that more and more people are wising up to him. Look how low his numbers are. Eventually, if it doesn't happen with this port deal, which is another case of him over stepping his powers, and breaking the law, it will be something else. He is out of control. Iraq is already in a civil war. Their police force is made up of Shiites, using their power to kill Sunnis, it's been a civil war for months, and it's getting worse. We are close to more soldiers dead in Iraq than people lost on 9/11. He has opened a hornets nest, and played right into bin Laden's hands. This is just what he wanted all along. It wouldn't surprise me who Bush is hooked up with, but he sure as hell isn't helping this country.

Gayle in Md.

nAz
02-27-2006, 09:32 PM
Gayle i think they should have left Mr.Saddam in power and rearm him so he could keep himself busy fighting the Iranians.

Is Iraq better off without Saddam? not sure anymore but i do know that right now, the last two years and probably the future the world is a worse place without SadDam.

Gayle in MD
02-27-2006, 09:48 PM
LOL, Well, atleast they had water and electric with Saddam, lol, that's a better life style than they have had with us in there, and we sure weren't worried about him joining up with Iran, like we are now about the Sunnis. It's a mess over there for sure. Many. in the foreign affairs community think that a contained Saddam, forcing him to be less of a problem to his people, and keeping him in the box regarding WMD's, would have been better than what we most likely will end up with in Iraq. who knows, but no fresh water and no electric is hard to deal with for three years, especially when you see more killing on your streete than you have ever seen before, on a daily bases. I guess that's why most of the Iraqis want us out of there.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
02-27-2006, 10:36 PM
Where is the information that says an attack was canceled because OBL was with the Arab Emirates?

I think it's a very straight-forward question. Did it happen or didn't it happen?

Fran

nAz
02-27-2006, 11:04 PM
Hi there Fran how is it going?

I had heard this account before and I think this is what Gayle is referring to, I do now know how accurate it is but it came from a transcript of Meet The Press on May 8 2005. here is an excerpt...


MR. RUSSERT: In 1999, we had located bin Laden at a hunting camp where some Arab princes were also hunting with him. And there was a big discussion, debate whether or not to launch cruise missiles and take out bin Laden. Why didn't we do it?

MR. SCHROEN: The debate came down to the fact that we would be using cruise missiles and that this camp would be undoubtedly totally destroyed. There were a number of princes from the United Arab Emirates. This was a camp that was being supported by the UAE government, UAE military; C-130s were supplying these guys with the amenities that they needed. Bin Laden was there. And the debate-- we had the plan, our guys had scoped the camp out, put a beacon down so that we knew it was the exact camp. And then it got into, "Well, what tent does bin Laden sleep in? Where does he eat? Where does he go to the bathroom?" So these kinds of questions dragged on and on for two weeks. And, finally, the administration's decision was not to take the strike because of the collateral damage that would occur.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the Clinton administration?

MR. SCHROEN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: You're convinced we could have gotten bin Laden then?

MR. SCHROEN: Absolutely. Our guys had eyes on him. Well...

MR. RUSSERT: And the what-ifs. This was in 1999, two years before 2001.


BTW here is the link for the full story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/7761272)

Fran Crimi
02-28-2006, 07:36 AM
Great! Thanks for that, nAz.

It's about the closest I've seen to actually canceling a mission due to the UAE, but it's still impossible to tell if the UAE was the only reason the bombing didn't take place, (even though at the beginning of the transcript it's written:

"This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed.")

What if the Emirates weren't there? Would we have bombed the camp if just the Taliban were there with bin Laden? Were we looking to start a war with the Taliban prior to 9-11?

Fran

Gayle in MD
02-28-2006, 07:39 AM
Thanks Naz, I knew I had read about it in more than one book, and also, it is referenced in the 9/11 report, on Page 138.

There are also loads of links through Google/books which quote this same account almost word for word from a number of former CIA people who have written of this incident.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-28-2006, 08:52 AM
Well, it seems that now the information has emerged which proves that GW knew about this a week from last Thursday, which means they lied again, so what else is new, right?

It was Susan Collins, (Couldn't remember her name before) R.-Maine, and Homeland Security Committee Chairman, who emerged from viewing the "Classified" information on the deal, saying that she now has even more concerns regarding this contract than ever before.



As I said, everything Bush does, he does it in an underhanded, sneaky way, and he totally blind sided his own party with this. Frist, has already wavered, after being taken to the wood shed by Bush for not backing him up, but there are others, a bi-partisan group, determined to legislate for the right to stop this contract if their 45-day review does not assuage their fears regarding the National Security issues concerned with this deal. It seems, that the concerns posed by the Coast Gaurd, and Homeland Security in considering this contract, should have activated a law which would have sent the issue to the hill for review by the Congress, before it was signed. Guess this explains why Bush tried to deceive everyone about "What did the president know, and when did he know it."

I heard it mentioned that there isn't a single US company capable of serving this contract, JEEZE, is there anything left that American Company's can handle? We don't even have a shipping line? Don't have control of our borders, ports, or emergency response systems? No Steel Industry? And at the mercy of the Chinese, and other countries, for food, clothing and energy?

Gee, Things are going great! No wonder the Neocons are so optimistic!

Even when the Republicans do their flip flop on this, Americans are completely against it. Their party will pay the price, if it isn't squashed.

bin Laden must celebrating, he was already thrilled over what's heppening in Iraq, Bush is his best buddy!


Gayle in Md.

nAz
02-28-2006, 10:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>

What if the Emirates weren't there? Would we have bombed the camp if just the Taliban were there with bin Laden? Were we looking to start a war with the Taliban prior to 9-11?

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

good question, i like to think the answer is yes... they sounded like they were serious about going after him but well never really know.
makes me wonder if the US did kill him then would it have prevented 9/11 or merely postponed it.

either way there are or rather were? real ties between OBL and the UAE.

Fran Crimi
02-28-2006, 07:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>
either way there are or rather were? real ties between OBL and the UAE. <hr /></blockquote>

Ah ha...here's where the waters get murky, at least for me, which is why I'm not willing to commit to an opinion on this just yet.

No question that there was some sort of relationship between the UAE and bin Laden. No question that we knew it. No question that the UAE knew that we knew it. Also there is no question that the U.S. and the UAE had a strong relationship all the while this was going on. So what's the deal? Did we never discuss bin Laden with the UAE? Impossible. Of course we did. What if the U.S. and the UAE had an understanding as to what the relationship was between the UAE and bin Laden? Couldn't that be possible? After all, these guys have to survive in that region. They're surrounded.

Also, this was all pre 9-11. We're not hearing about any more meetings with Al Quaeda after that, as far as I can tell.

I wonder if it may have to do with what can't be said publically, something that may hurt the Emirates standing in the Middle East.

Fran

Drop1
02-28-2006, 07:37 PM
Wow! That would have been great blowing bin Laden up while he's taking a dump. Screw the Arab princes.