# Today's news



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Seems like Al Qaeda has links with everyone _but_ Iraq:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5227257/site/newsweek/


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The 9-11 commision is nothing but a bunch of partisan grandstanding and nothing they say supporting either side of the issue is credible. Its a politically motivated body I watched a lot of it and it was sickening. And newsweek is so leftist they would say anything to hurt Bush. And finally Al Aqaeda is a minor part of the reason why we attacked Iraq, a position that the left has continued to distort, we attacked Irag to enforce that UN sanctions and because the whole world not just us knew Saddam was a threat to the Stability of the Middle east, and had the potential to give WMDs to terrorists. We need to hit Iran next, if they continue on their nuclear program


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

The 9/11 Commission was created by congressional legislation and the signature of President Bush. Help me out here.... The Republicans have a majority of both houses of Congress and they control the White House. If Republicans created this body and controlled the legislation creating it, how can the Commission be leftist?

It is amazing to me how any newspaper, TV station, or commission that makes statements criticizing or contradicting the White House is called "liberal".

Here's the challenge: Who specifically on the 9/11 Commission is so liberal that they would distort or ignore facts linking Saddam to Osama? Please provide specific names.

Here is the 9/11 Commission's homepage with member bios: http://www.9-11commission.gov/


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Pentagon John F. Lehman, CIA Jamie S. Gorelick, Homeland Security, Timothy J. Roemer, White House and NSC, Fred F. Fielding and Philip Zelikow, Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Timothy J. Roemer , Council on Foreign Relations, Thomas Kean, Lee H. Hamilton, Jamie S. Gorelick, John F. Lehman, Henry Kissinger: John F. Lehman

Republicans: Former Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, former Illinois Governor James Thompson, former White House Counsel Fred Fielding, former Washington state Senator Slade Gorton and former Navy Secretary John Lehman.

Democrats: Indiana congressmen, Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, Attorney Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick, a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration.

All members of this Commission were APPOINTED BY BUSH. Chairman Tom Kean--appointed by Bush. I hardly think this group could be fairly criticized as politically motivated--against him anyway. You may recall that Bush fough creation of this panel from the start and only relented after mounting pressure from 9/11 widows and surviving families.

I find it reprehensible that Bush and Cheney would give speeches LYING about a Saddam-Osama connection the very week the FACTUAL 9/11 Commission report was released.

Now about Newsweek. Leftist? C'mon Bob. You really think a magazine that supported this misguided war and even recently ran a cover story on Teresa Heinz Kerry with the title, "Is She a Loose Cannon or Crazy Like a Fox?" is leftist? Why didn't they just make the cover, "Teresa Heinz Kerry: Is She a Communist or a Crack-Whore?" Seems just about as accurate and as fair. Without Newsweek or Time or any other major news magazine owned by Bush Campaign-donating large corporations, where do you suggest we get our weekly print news--from you perhaps?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bid daddy I know your not stupid so I guess your just trying to "stir the pudding" as we say down here. I have a challenge for you show me where my post states that the 9-11 commission members that are left leaning are the only ones I criticized
Bob M said


> The 9-11 commision is nothing but a bunch of partisan grandstanding and nothing they say supporting *either side of the issue *is credible. Its a politically motivated body I watched a lot of it and it was sickening. And newsweek is so leftist they would say anything to hurt Bush


 I clearly stated either side, the whole thing was sham all of them were doing it.
As for newsweek being liberal, Heck yes, I can't even stand to read it its so biased but I can understand why you don't see bias when their position is liberal leaning. No one ever thinks the position they agree with is biased, its human nature. As far as reading my stuff for info, at least I make no phony claims about not being right wing conservative on most issues so there should be no doubt where my bias is, I'm proud of my beliefs as I'm sure you are. Newsweek and Time would never admit their bias. I didn't read the article about Theresa Heinz Kerry (I really don't like those hyphenated last names, what wrong with Theresa Kerry). However I'm sure she is a fine respectable person and doesn't need the idiots at Time or anyone else commenting in a National magazine on her politics or private sector activites. Shes not running and its nobodys business what she does unless she makes a public comment or gets involved in the campaign which could then be fairly opined upon. I think we should stick to what George W and John Kerry do and have done (not what they say they will do in some vague way in the campaign )to make the decision who to vote for, and leave their wives and families alone. Kerrys' a left leaning liberal Bush is a right leaning Conservative when its all distilled to the end its really as simple as that. That whole commision is a copout like all commissions. Do you know why politicians appoint commissions, its so they won't be held accountable for what the commisions opinions are its a slick way to pass the buck and keep politically safe, all politicians ( Big daddy :lol: read this *on both sides*) do it. Whenever you see a commission appointed remember this they are all BS.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob, I'm confused. You have called the 9/11 Commission partisan and politically-motivated. Now they have arrived at a conclusion that hurts the White House. If they are partisan, are they partisan towards the Republicans or Democrats?

If they are partisan towards the Democrats, I could understand their findings. However, if you are saying that they are partisan towards the Republicans, how could they arrive at the conclusion that there is no link between Saddam and Osama, or that we could have done more to stop the attacks.

If they are politically motivated, what is their political agenda? I really want to hear your views.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy the bias and partisanship is from both sides respectively as I have stated twice above.....Geez reread the posts without any assumptions and take them at face value. Now more on the commission and bias in the media relating to it.
We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? *He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections.*  The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.
CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the 9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.

This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include that bogus "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant. The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Here read this Link even Hillary Clinton has publicly Statd that Saddam and Al qeada have slinks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _cheney_dc

The *Very Biased media *has changed the premise and claims Bush said things he didn't just so they can now claim hes contradicted. The media is lying to all of us because they realize that at least 50% of the Us population is so politically stupid that they the mainstream leftist media will get away with it. And if it wasn't for the internet and other alternative sources they would get away with it.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

some Bush quotes in this article:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp ... VF&b=92284

Cheney on Monday's talk:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _cheney_dc


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm, here I thought you were coming up with your political writings on your own:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200406/06172004.html


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Nobody that has a job has enough time to research all this stuff on their own. Thats a great source.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh I understand. It's just that I assumed that you were coming up with these ideas on your own since you didn't reference your source.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Heres another of my favorites that really is good
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
and this is the best one of all
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Both sources look like they take a really unbiased approach... no lean to the right at all :lol:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists.


This is from the Boortz.com quote.

When did he do this? I would think that if Bush did really imply the above it would fly right in the face on what Cheney said on Monday.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Read this article aobut the Commissions report
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=39025
Of course they lean right, I don't think anyone will find that a surprise if I like it :lol: . I do read a lot of left stuff too I just don't believe most of it :lol: , but if there is any doubt in your mind, I am right wing conservative :beer: 
And I know there wasn't any doubt. :lol: 
Read the article about the findings of the commission it sure doesn't square with what the Mainstream media has conviently left out of the reporting of this issue. I really think all of us are being lied to by the ABC,NBC,CBS crowd because they don't like Bush. I want to hear the news all of it and make up my own mind I just don't like the filter. You can take for example the gun control issue or the mainstreams portrayal of hunters as neanderthal brutes something we all know isn't true, when you realize they will ly about that, you then can make the logical jump they will lie about anything else they don't favor. AS I've said many times thank god for the internet.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Seabass, The point Bush made was that they had no link that Saddam was involved with the 9-11 attack. Cheneys point was that he did have a relationship with Al queada and there is a lot of evidence proving that, they are talking about tewo different things. The media is trying to confuse us with double speak by combining the two issues and make people that aren't paying close attention think there is a contradiction when there isn't,becasue of their political leanings. Guys like you and I that are interested in current events are paying attention but most citizens are not. The real fear after all was that the terrorists would be able to use Saddams wealth and weapons for future attacks, 9-11 is history after all, we had to worry about what is next. Hence the argument for preemption. Do we change the policy on preemption or do we wait until thousands more of our citizens are killed before we act. A very tough decision and one I feel that Bush made correctly. I really don't care for Bushes domestic ajenda but the terroist threat trumps that in my opinion. The biggest single responsibility that the federal gov. has is National defense everything else is secondary.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Watch the media shuffle this story to the back of the deck in a few days. :******: but they will still be talking up the so called "Prison Abuse scandle" We are dealing with a 7th century mentality that has sworn to kill christians and Jews whenever they can using twentieth century technology whenever possible. As you read the following news story remeber these guys will be here if we don't get them over there. The Islamic Jihadist is the biggest threat we face and Bush is facing them correctly. Its just a matter of time before a car bomb or some similar type event will happen in this country and it will be interesting to see if the people of this country are as weak as the Spanish wimps.
*Paul Johnson Jr*., a Lockheed Martin Corp. engineer abducted in Saudi Arabia, *has been beheaded*, images posted on the Internet showed. *The beheading was the second of an American in the Middle East in as many months.* Our wonderful media got over the first one in short order :******:

The Associated Press, citing unidentified Saudi security officials, said Johnson's body has been found in a section of the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

Johnson, based in Orlando, was working in Saudi Arabia on Apache AH-64 helicopters for Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed. The Apache is the U.S. Army's top attack helicopter, and a message carried on an Islamist Web site alluded to the craft's use in Iraq.

``Let him (Johnson) taste something of what Muslims have long tasted from Apache helicopter fire and missiles,'' the statement said, according to AP.

This statement is an obvious lie its not Muslims but Islamic Jihadists, if our intent was to kill Muslims Iraq could of been over in a week why doesn't the news story say it? answer it doesn't fit their political ajenda

Terrorists in Saudi Arabia suspected of ties to al-Qaeda have stepped up attacks on foreigners in the desert country, the world's largest oil exporter, under an ideology that seeks to expunge Western influence from the spiritual home of Islam. Al- Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a native of Saudi Arabia, three- quarters of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from the country and Saudis are jailed at the U.S. military's anti-terrorism prison camp in Cuba. *But heaven forbid we profile middleasterns*

Oil Rises

Crude oil futures rose after news of Johnson's slaying, amid concerns that Western oil workers will leave Saudi Arabia. Crude oil for July delivery rose 29 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $38.75 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest close since June 3 when OPEC raised production quotas.

An attack in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, last month led to the deaths of 22 people, and an American working for a unit of defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. was shot dead in Riyadh 10 days ago. The U.S. and U.K. have advised their nationals, close to 80,000 people, to leave Saudi Arabia.

President George W. Bush said there was ``no justification whatsoever'' for Johnson's murder, and Secretary of State Colin Powell called it ``barbarism.''

Lockheed Martin's Web site carried a large message saying, ``Our thoughts and prayers'' are with Johnson and his family.

``Paul was a valued and respected employee, who bravely carried out his duties, and the news of his loss is a shock to everyone in the Lockheed Martin family,'' the company said in a statement.

Wife's Plea

Johnson's Thai wife, Thanom Johnson, pleaded for his release earlier today on the Arabic television channel al-Arabiya. ``He didn't do anything wrong,'' she said, and broke down in tears. Other family members had gone on television in the U.S. to appeal to his captors to end the ordeal.

Earlier this week a video was released showing Johnson blindfolded and came with demands from his kidnappers that any suspected al-Qaeda loyalists be released from imprisonment in Saudi Arabia within 72 hours. The message was signed in the name of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

One of the images posted to the Web today showed a severed head on top of a man's body, another with a knife leaning against it. The execution( this is somthjing else that bugs the hell out of me execution infers there was a crime these bastards *murdered *Mr. Johnson) itself was not depicted. Nicholas Berg,(* remember him our media doesn't* :eyeroll: ) a Pennsylvania man who had gone to Iraq to look for reconstruction work, was beheaded in a video distributed on the Internet last month.

`Redouble' Efforts

Powell said the U.S. was still waiting on final confirmation of the murder from the Saudi government.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will ``redouble our efforts to go after terrorists wherever they are, wherever they're trying to hide, and to go after those who support this kind of terrorist activity,'' Powell said in Washington.

The U.S. has praised Saudi Arabia's efforts to combat terrorism since the May 2003 attacks on housing compounds for foreigners in Riyadh, which killed dozens of people.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned Johnson's slaying in a statement as an ``act of senseless violence and (we) repudiate all those who believe such murderous behavior benefits the faith of Islam or the Muslim people.'' *BobM comment( these guys are the biggest bunch of phonies too busy worring about profiling and other politically correct BS to really help us defeat the terroists)* 
I say its just matter of time because these terorists will want to strike right before the election to try and get Bush voted out, because they know Kerry doesn't have the stones to deal with them. We'll see if the American public does :eyeroll:


----------

