posted on July 12, 2004 11:01:24 PM newThat's right and I'm glad this President was in office when this happened to us. A man with courage and a backbone to show the world we don't take things like 9-11 sitting down and 'talking it over'.
But what did he show the world?
Because of the war in Iraq, now the whole world is less safe as well as the US than it was before or just immediately after 9/11.
Wouldn't it have been better if he didn't take immediate action and had "talked it over" with others first so he had a plan?
posted on July 12, 2004 11:17:05 PM new
taken from the financial times - 7-12
Bush asserts pre-emptive strikes policy
By Edward Alden in WashingtonPublished: July 12 2004 21:07 | Last Updated: July 12 2004 21:07
President George W. Bush said on Monday his administration would maintain its policy of pre-empting potential security threats despite growing doubts over the adequacy of US intelligence to assess such dangers.
In a speech at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Tennessee, Mr Bush made clear he would not rethink the approach after Friday's damning report by the Senate intelligence committee.
The report concluded that the Central Intelligence Agency made serious errors in asserting that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction.
While acknowledging that the report "has identified some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities", he said that would not cause him to reconsider the approach that led the US to invade Iraq.
"America must remember the lessons of September the 11th," Mr Bush said. "We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialise."
The president said that before the US went to war with Iraq, the administration, Congress and the United Nations Security Council all agreed intelligence showed that Iraq posed a serious threat.
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," Mr Bush said. The war removed an enemy "who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists".
The Senate findings have fueled an already bitter election-year debate over Iraq, even though John Kerry, the Democratic presidential hopeful, and John Edwards, his running mate, both voted for the Senate resolution authorising war against Iraq.
Mr Kerry said on the weekend that the Senate findings bolster his argument that Mr Bush misled the country in launching a war that has hurt the US. He refused, however, to reconsider his vote, saying that "based on the information we had, it was the correct vote".
But Dick Cheney, the vice president, accused the Democrats on Monday of developing "a convenient case of campaign amnesia". He said Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards "are criticising the president for looking at the same information that they did and coming to the same conclusion that [he] did. If the president was right, and he was, then they are simply trying to rewrite history for their own political purposes."
Mr Bush's trip to Oak Ridge, where remnants of Libya's dismantled nuclear programme are being stored, was aimed at bolstering the argument that his strategy of pre-emption has made America more secure. He said his administration was "leading a steady, confident, systematic campaign against the dangers of our time", which has thinned the ranks of the terrorists.
---------------
We need and already have a President that did what was necessary...not one who can't make up his mind where he really stands on the issue of our National Security.
posted on July 12, 2004 11:47:52 PM new
Yes, but..but..but Bush SAID we were safer now than 3 years ago....why,.... do you thnk he LIED?????????????
Why do the neocons here want to ignore that statement????
Ladies and gentlemen ...let us not ignore the FACT that the war with Iraq was planned BEFORE
BEFORE
BEFORE 9/11....got it!
And any weak kneed idiot can start a war....a strong, courageous person uses their brains to stay out of one. You can only admire someone as anxious for war as Bush if you love slaughter and killing.
LINDA, where was georgie's courage and
backbone when it was HIS turn to go to war and he didn't?????????????????
posted on July 12, 2004 11:49:09 PM new
Duh! Considering that the info that Kerry and other members of the Congress had at the time was the inaccurate and misleading info that Bush & Co. were hurriedly shoveling out non-stop, why blame them for voting as they did?
I can remember posting here at the time about the way that Bush was doing his best to panic the nation. That, and the way that anyone who didn't fall into line was called unpatriotic, and anti-American.
As for what Bush has shown the world--he has shown the world that if he can't catch the terrorist that actually attacked us he will abandon the search and instead attack other countries that are no immediate threat to us and who have not attacked us. Oh, and that he will completely ignore a country from which the majority of the terrorists who did attack us came from. Oh, yeah, and he showed the world that although he talks big about curtailing nuclear weapons, he will back off from countries who actually possess or are close to possessing such things and go after much easier targets that will make him look good.
And finally, he has shown the world that, having invaded a country on false pretexts which he quickly changed to "bringing democracy," he will put back into power people from the very group he lsupposeldly liberated the populace from.
Yeah, he sure showed the world...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 11:50:10 PM new
Linda says,"A man with courage and a backbone to show the world we don't take things like 9-11 sitting down and 'talking it over'"
So linda, I've asked you and asked you in so many different ways ....where was bush's courage and backbone when HE was supposed to go to war....He was a COWARD but is very "courageous" with other's lives.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:02:12 AM new
The FACT that the Bush haters or lefties want everyone to overlook is they ALL had the same intelligence information. The UN Security Council, etc. etc. Even Putin has come forward to defend Bush against the out-and out-lies the left are spewing.
AND if anyone checks out kerry's voting record....HE is one of those who voted against funding for those agencies. Those are the FACTS.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:07:00 AM newPutin: Saddam prepared terrorist attacks against US
June 21, 2004 Posted: 08:50 Moscow time (04:50 GMT)
See Also: Putin takes Bush's side against Democrats on Iraq | 11-Jun-2004
Saddam Hussein's regime prepared terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests abroad, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a news conference after a regional economic and security summit in the Kazakh capital Astana last week.
According to Mr. Putin, after September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, "Russian special services received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the US military and other interests."
He said Russian intelligence officers had passed this information to their American colleagues, and US President Bush had personally thanked the head of the Russian intelligence service.
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to say when I tried to give the direct link....the site is currently down....but here's the source for the above.
The Russia Journal Daily::World/CIS - Putin: Saddam prepared terrorist attacks against US
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 13, 2004 12:10 AM ]
posted on July 13, 2004 12:19:52 AM new
Back on topic:
Here is why this election issue is being discussed.
taken from MSNBC
Federal election officials will meet next week with officials of the Department of Homeland Security to discuss whether and how they would delay the November presidential election in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack, a top elections official told MSNBC on Monday.
The official, DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, denied in an interview on MSNBC's "Countdown" that federal officials had any plans to postpone the election, but he confirmed a report in the new edition of Newsweek magazine that the panel was seeking to establish a process to do so should it become necessary.
"This has less to do with expecting terror than it has to do with making plans in the event of a crisis," Soaries said. "If I suggest that you buy a spare tire, I'm not suggesting you postpone your trip."
President Bush did not directly address the issue in a speech Monday at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
But he said, "The terrorists are ruthless and resourceful, and we know they are preparing to attack us again."
Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, said in a television interview, "No one's thinking about postponing the election."
"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time.
That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.
No 'national standard'
Newsweek reported that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel last week to review a letter Soaries sent to Secretary Tom Ridge noting that "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."
July 12: "We don't have a real national standard for what constitutes a disaster," DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, says in an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
MSNBC
Soaries confirmed Monday that he did bring the issue to Ridge's attention.
"We don't have a real national standard for what constitutes a disaster," Soaries said, noting that the Sept. 11, 2001, mayoral primary in New York City was suspended after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center that morning. The primary was delayed for two weeks; the general election went ahead as scheduled.
Soaries also expressed concern in his letter to Ridge that higher Election Day security could intimidate some voters, highlighting the need for communication between security officials and election administrators. He said he raised similar questions in a letter he sent to Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress.
"We have mutual interests in common to both law enforcement and election offices across the country as we prepare for the November election," he told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, adding that he and other election officials would "begin meeting and planning together next week" with Homeland Security officials.
The issue has been raised against the backdrop of bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people and injured 2,000 others on March 11, three days before the Spanish national elections. The bombings were blamed in part for the defeat of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who strongly supported the war in Iraq.
While there is no formal mechanism in federal law for suspending a presidential election, Congress does have responsibility for setting the date of the election, meaning it could change the date if an attack took place before voting started, authorities in constitutional law told NBC News.
'Distorts the results'
Some legal scholars told NBC News that if a big enough Madrid-type attack were to disrupt voting in just one state, the entire election would have to be suspended because of the constitutional requirement that the election take place on the same day across the country.
"To let one area of the country vote on a different day, after the rest of the country had voted, when they would almost certainly know the likely outcome of the election otherwise, distorts the results of the election," said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
But considering that presidential elections went ahead during two world wars and even at the height of the Civil War, other legal experts said it would take a catastrophe much worse than the Madrid attacks to justify derailing the electoral process.
"I would think nothing like the Madrid bombing would even come close to the level that would have to be required," said Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University.
"Only if there was some massive disruption of the election itself would one even imagine this as a possibility."
By MSNBC.com's Alex Johnson with NBC's Pete Williams in Washington.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:26:49 AM new
Linda, just a suggestion and I'm being nice when I write this.
When you post your C&P's would you also put a clickable link? That way I can go directly to the article because I find that your bolding is an assault to my eyeballs. It's like you think you're addressing a bunch of dummies or idiots who can't grasp the gist of an article they are reading. JMHO
posted on July 13, 2004 12:30:13 AM new
Once again linda proves she is queen of cut and paste(has this woman EVER had her own thought).
If one cuts and pastes enough one does not have to think too deeply, does one?
Funny to see that she disagrees with Condi Rice on the civil war.
BUT:Linda says,"A man with courage and a backbone to show the world we don't take things like 9-11 sitting down and 'talking it over'"
So linda, I've asked you and asked you in so many different ways ....where was bush's courage and backbone when HE was supposed to go to war....He was a COWARD but is very "courageous" with other's lives.
And linda, the war with Iraq was planned BEFORE 9/11 and everyone but you knows it.
Oh and you're using quotes from PUTIN, a former terrorist and KGB agent???? Putin will say anything the bush administration tells him to.
[ edited by crowfarm on Jul 13, 2004 12:31 AM ]
posted on July 13, 2004 12:33:12 AM new
LOL - yes, certainly, just as soon as you make that request of all who do exactly the same thing....but agree with your positions - so are held to a different standard than you try to make me conform to.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:42:27 AM new
I enjoy reading and I haven't been aware of any other Kings or Queens of long C&P's on this board that bold so much of theirs. Perhaps Bear?
posted on July 13, 2004 12:43:43 AM new
Linda,why are you so hesitant about answering a question...couldn't you find a cut and paste article without a LOL in it?
You keep saying bush is courageous and has a backbone...so why didn't he fight in Vietnam ?
The REAL reason you don't answer is because you know I'm right. He was a drunken coward and still is.....it doesn't take bravery or intelligence to send others into battle.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:57:51 AM new
Linda is it true that bush did not serve in vietnam...?
Linda, what kind of statement is ,"Yea....right. Anyone who reads here KNOWS what's true and what's not."
Does it SAY anything....have I got you backed into a corner AGAIN ?
posted on July 13, 2004 01:17:57 AM new
I'm not sure who you are addressing with your last comment, Linda.
I'm trying to be fair so perhaps someone else will be kind enough in the morning to show me who else is posting long C&P's here and bolding so much of it each time and how I've missed it.
At least we all know Clinton didn't do it!
G'nite........ sweet dreams.... I hope I don't dream about spiders.
KIARA LOL - yes, certainly, just as soon as you make that request of all who do exactly the same thing....but agree with your positions - so are held to a different standard than you try to make me conform to.
You attempt to be so cute....but it's not working.
posted on July 13, 2004 06:08:27 AM newThe FACT that the Bush haters or lefties want everyone to overlook is they ALL had the same intelligence information. The UN Security Council, etc. etc
Of course all the members of Congress had the same information. Bush received the information, copied what he wanted to prove his point and then passed it out to members of Congress.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 13, 2004 06:48:39 AM new
logansdad - You're only making yourself look foolish. Maybe YOU should start googling to get your facts straight.
Start with who Hillary clinton went to for advice before she voted for giving Bush the power to go to war - HER OWN trusted people.
And maybe pull up kerry's own statements when he was explaining why he voted to go to war. Not what he's said since then.
posted on July 13, 2004 06:59:25 AM new
As I recall, despite what Bush & Co. are claiming now, the CIA kept refuting the crap about Iraq that was being touted as a reason for going to war. And were told to shut up. That was discussed right here on this board.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 13, 2004 07:20:56 AM newYou attempt to be so cute....but it's not working.
ssshhh! dont tell her that. otherwise we wont get to hear anymore spider stories and how they go thump in the night into her handy vacumn cleaner. lol!!!
please moommie tell us more.
posted on July 13, 2004 08:13:06 AM new
Linda says,"A man with courage and a backbone to show the world we don't take things like 9-11 sitting down and 'talking it over'"
So linda, I've asked you and asked you in so many different ways ....where was bush's courage and backbone when HE was supposed to go to war....He was a COWARD but is very "courageous" with other's lives.
The REAL reason you don't answer is because you know I'm right. He was a drunken coward and still is.....it doesn't take bravery or intelligence to send others into battle.
posted on July 13, 2004 08:45:45 AM new
Election delay fears downplayed
Vote likely to go on even if terrorists attack, experts and lawmakers say
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published July 13, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Even if terrorists were to attack on Election Day, it is highly unlikely that voting could or would be halted across the United States, lawmakers and scholars said Monday.
Congress could postpone a federal election, but only by passing a law to do so, while the Bush administration has no legal authority to act on its own.
The question arose after Newsweek reported in its July 19 issue that counterterrorism officials were reviewing a proposal that could allow for postponing the election. But the Department of Homeland Security said Monday that it has no plans to seek such a delay in the face of fears that Al Qaeda is planning a large-scale attack to try to influence the election.
"I am unaware of any such efforts," said Brian Roehrkasse, a department spokesman. "DHS is not looking into a contingency plan."
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was even more emphatic. "Let me just be very clear: I don't know where the idea that there might be some postponement of elections comes from," she said on CNN.
The Homeland Security Department has been researching laws and precedents in an effort to gather information, but is reportedly not drafting a plan.
An official said the research was prompted by inquiries from the Election Assistance Commission, a federal advisory body whose chairman, DeForest Soaries, pointed out in a letter to the department that no federal agency has the authority to postpone an election.
Newsweek reported that the Homeland Security Department had asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze the issues raised by Soaries' letter. But officials of both departments said Monday there was no formal request for an opinion.
"No discussions, formal or informal, have transpired," said a Justice Department spokesman. It remained unclear, however, whether the letter was informally forwarded to the Justice Department.
The United States has held elections in the throes of civil and world wars, and several senior lawmakers forcefully rejected the suggestion that elections might be postponed.
"Were we to postpone the elections, it would represent a victory for the terrorists," said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "The election is going to go forward."
"We should be an example for democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections as scheduled," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Experts said a mechanism for postponing elections should be debated, even if there is little chance it would be needed.
"It is very unlikely that a terrorist incident would disrupt the entire election because it would tend to be localized," said Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution.
To avoid any appearance of politics tainting the process, Congress probably would have to create a neutral entity to decide whether to postpone elections, said Richard Pildes, a professor at the New York University School of Law. The powers of that body, and the rules for applying them, would have to be spelled out, he noted.
The power to set the times and places of federal elections is shared by the states and Congress, said Mann. Congress requires states to hold federal elections on the same day. If a disaster strikes a state or city, Mann said, local authorities have the power to postpone voting. That occurred in New York state on Sept. 11, 2001, when local primaries were postponed.
In the case of a presidential election, a state legislature also directly can appoint the electors who will cast that state's votes in the Electoral College.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
