Bush or Kerry?, Prez Election. Options

[Individualityy]

So who'll it be..do you like Bush or Kerry?

I personally think they're both stupid..but Bush is stupider than Kerry...so I'm going with Kerry..

Bush: Bad Stuff: Rushed into War with Iraq..and yeah people..watch Fahrenheit 9/11..I mean wow.

Kerry: Bad Stuff: Thinks that once he gets into office..America will be a lala dream land and everything will be perfect..complete with flying ponies and beautiful rainbows..makes promises that we aren't sure he'll keep.

Your opinion?

[x3chrissyx3]

I don't like either one to tell you the truth.
I mean, Bush was okay, but I had friends and family and friend's family die on 9/11, I was in NY, right now the street and I watched it happen...and then we went into Iraq for NOTHING, and then we have soldiers getting killed and people getting beheaded, I'm over it. Bush...is a jerk off for many more reasons than that, but in any case I find the war to be a HUGE issue at the moment. I do like Bush because he has a "go get 'em" type of attitude, but chances are he'll go after the wrong people...again. He even said he wasn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden. You take your Texan accent and go back to Texas...seriously. He's cowboy material, not president material...at least nowadays he's not.

Kerry...well...he makes good points, that's true..and he explains things a little better than Bush, but everyone knew Kerry was always a better speaker. Kerry isn't in favor of the draft...and that's a good thing for right now, I don't want my little sister, who graduates in June to get shipped off to Iraq. He wants to take the soldiers out of Iraq ASAP...and while it sounds good...who knows if he'll do it.

...I don't know who I'm voting for yet, though.

[x emo screamo x]

Neither. They all lie, what's the difference?

[Individualityy]

Heh..of course they all lie..they're politicians! Comes with the job description..

Neways..yeah..Kerry does make a lot of good points..but I'm not sure he can keep em..

[OkamaPower]

i choose INUYASHA !!!!!,lol just playing,i don really know,u know,after the vietnam war,he spit on some of the people just cuz they lost the war.and bush.....i think he'd do a better job.

[ilov3chubbs]

I personally think they're both stupid..but Bush is stupider than Kerry...so I'm going with Kerry..

i agree with you lol

[emrzz09]

Should this go into the debate forum..?

Anyways, Kerry all the way.

[PingPong]

Bush till i die...

[inlonelinessidie]

My opinion is that I think you know nothing about politics, and that you should learn to make you own decisions and not base them on a film.

Bush: Bad Stuff: Rushed into War with Iraq..and yeah people..watch Fahrenheit 9/11..I mean wow.

Kerry: Bad Stuff: Thinks that once he gets into office..America will be a lala dream land and everything will be perfect..complete with flying ponies and beautiful rainbows..makes promises that we aren't sure he'll keep.

^^Back this information up with reliable sources.

As for who I want to win . . . I think it's obvious. Yes, we've got a Liberal here.

[jambaJUICE]

Nader.

[sikdragon]

Farenheit 9/11 is a fantasy made up by one michael moore.
It can't even be considered a documentary... documentaries show curiosity... this film is 2 hours of Bush bashing.

Kerry wants a draft, is for killing of the innocence, supports the foundation of growing cancer cells attacking at the moral fiber keeping what it is to American alive. Kerry's record switches showing that he does the "popular thing" rather than the right thing. If all the other presidents jumped off a cliff, he would too.

Bush is openly Christian(Christian doctrine teaches love), Bush has given us a stable economy through times of war, Bush and his "right" wing ideas preserve the values of our fore fathers.

Boots or Flip-flops?

Bush/Cheney 04

[ComradeRed]

I wouldn't call such a HUGE deficit a stable economy.

[LilPiggi3]

IMO Bush is better compared to Kerry. At least he doesn't flip flop =/

[strice]

flip flop is just bush's campaign working on you. i believed it too for a while, but i read some stuff about him and his votes are really quite defensible.

[dafunnybunny]

if i could vote, i would vote for kerry. bush is annoying. i dont think any of da bushs should have became pres. da first bush made many mistakes dat prolly wouldnt have led up to 9/11 if he made da right choices in operation desert storm. and bush junior is an idiot who needs to go away to some other country or somethin

[dreamerOi]

well kerry supports the lower classmen& not only those rich dudes who live in beverly hills. &bush supports nadar. so um. i say um. bush i guess cause i support nadar. even though kerry might be the betr choice

[inlonelinessidie]

^^ Stupid cause. The only reason Bush supports Nader is so people can vote for Nader and take votes away from Kerry.

[ghjgfkgfk]

I personally think they're both stupid..but Bush is stupider than Kerry...so I'm going with Kerry..

sorry, but that's just plain stupid. if you think kerry is stupid then WHY 'go with him'? kerry and bush have the same opinions on some things. they are not that different. maybe if you learned a little something about teh other canidates you would look smarter .

the only way you waste your vote is voting for kerry JUST because you don't bush.

if i could vote, i would vote for kerry. bush is annoying. i dont think any of da bushs should have became pres. da first bush made many mistakes dat prolly wouldnt have led up to 9/11 if he made da right choices in operation desert storm. and bush junior is an idiot who needs to go away to some other country or somethin

i think that if you can't even spell 'the' you shouldn't even be able to vote.

i support badnarik.

[ComradeRed]

IMO Bush is better compared to Kerry. At least he doesn't flip flop =/

Look up some of Bush's speeches from 2000.

He clearly flip flopped on just about every issue except tax cuts.

[Spirited Away]

I already voted.

Just today at 1600 hr.

[*Weird addiction*]

so im not an american,im a belgian but if i wuz in the states i'll prolly vote for kerry,bush killed all dem innocent iraqis

[ghjgfkgfk]

so im not an american,im a belgian but if i wuz in the states i'll prolly vote for kerry,bush killed all dem innocent iraqis

kerry supports the war.

[heyyfrankie]

i want bush to win.

[gerundio]

Kerry wants a draft, is for killing of the innocence

And what do you call killing thousands of Iraqi citizens?

[DrNick311]

And what do you call killing thousands of Iraqi citizens?

I'd call it self defense seeing as how those "citizens" were wielding AK-47s and lobbing grenades at our troops.

[gerundio]

I'd call it self defense seeing as how those "citizens" were wielding AK-47s and lobbing grenades at our troops.

What don't you get? American troops were not supposed to be there in the first place.

[DrNick311]

What don't you get? American troops were not supposed to be there in the first place.

We were after Al-Qaeda (as was much of the rest of the world). Al-Qaeda had ties to Saddam Hussein. We got Hussein and are just that much closer to stopping Al-Qaeda.

Tell me again why we weren't supposed to be there.

[inlonelinessidie]

We were after Al-Qaeda (as was much of the rest of the world).  Al-Qaeda had ties to Saddam Hussein.  We got Hussein and are just that much closer to stopping Al-Qaeda.

Tell me again why we weren't supposed to be there.

1. We weren't supposed to be there because they DID NOT attack us.
2. We had the guy who attacked us cornered and what did we do? Gave him months to disappear.

So tell me, is this war just and correct?

I'd call it self defense seeing as how those "citizens" were wielding AK-47s and lobbing grenades at our troops.

Of course citizens are going to attack American troops. They view us as terrorists and invaders. If they came and waged war on us, I bet there would be thousands of people who would be in the militia. Plus more would join the militia if they hear the leader of these people called the war a Crusade.

kerry supports the war.

Supports it but doesn't agree to how Bush has handled it.

[DrNick311]

May 2003 - We declare an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Ever since then our troops have come under sporadic attacks from small insurgent groups with ties to Al-Qaeda.

The only reasonable explanation to that is that Iraq itself was once, if not still tied to Al-Qaeda. The U.S. government came to that realization before declaring war on Iraq, and it's now an undisputable fact. I remember the U.S. and several other countries once making a vow to hunt down terrorists, no matter where they hide. Nobody complained when we went into Afghanistan to take down the Taliban. Saddam was just as oppressive as the Taliban, so why are people so opposed to the war in Iraq?

[inlonelinessidie]

May 2003 - We declare an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Ever since then our troops have come under sporadic attacks from small insurgent groups with ties to Al-Qaeda.

The only reasonable explanation to that is that Iraq itself was once, if not still tied to Al-Qaeda.  The U.S. government came to that realization before declaring war on Iraq, and it's now an undisputable fact.

There is Al- Qaeda and terrorists in the U.S. Should we wage war on ourselves?

All I'm saying is why wage war on people who did not attack us, when we already had the guy who did cornered but did nothing about it?

[gerundio]

We were after Al-Qaeda (as was much of the rest of the world). Al-Qaeda had ties to Saddam Hussein. We got Hussein and are just that much closer to stopping Al-Qaeda.

Tell me again why we weren't supposed to be there.

You obviously have no idea what you talking about. It is well-known fact that there exists no ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Bush and friends have not been able to provide evidence for all the bullshit they said before invading Iraq.

[gerundio]

The only reasonable explanation to that is that Iraq itself was once, if not still tied to Al-Qaeda.  The U.S. government came to that realization before declaring war on Iraq, and it's now an undisputable fact.  I remember the U.S. and several other countries once making a vow to hunt down terrorists, no matter where they hide.  Nobody complained when we went into Afghanistan to take down the Taliban.  Saddam was just as oppressive as the Taliban, so why are people so opposed to the war in Iraq?

Say what?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...intstory.jsp&1c

"Much of the evidence that's now available indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Hussein or bin Laden; and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 attacks probably never happened.

A Knight Ridder review of the Bush administration statements on Iraq's links to terrorism and what's now known about the classified intelligence has found that administration advocates of a preemptive invasion frequently hyped sketchy and sometimes false information to help make their case. Twice they neglected to report information that painted a less sinister picture.

The Bush administration has defended its prewar descriptions of Hussein and is calling Iraq ''the central front in the war on terrorism,'' as the president told U.S. troops two weeks ago.

But before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

• Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was ''overwhelming evidence'' of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

• Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he would consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al Qaeda leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because ``if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.''

• The administration linked Hussein to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al Qaeda appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an ''al Qaeda-affiliated'' group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al Qaeda leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al Qaeda ``associate.''

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al Qaeda rebuffed.

• Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

• Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts."

[DrNick311]

There is Al- Qaeda and terrorists in the U.S.  Should we wage war on ourselves?

All I'm saying is why wage war on people who did not attack us, when we already had the guy who did cornered but did nothing about it?

In a sense, we ARE waging war on ourselves. Think about how many suspected terrorists have been caught since 9/11. The five Al-Qaeda operatives from Buffalo? Jose Padilla, the person who had plans to set off nuclear bombs?

And we didn't wage war on the people who didn't attack us. We didn't ruthlessly go into Iraq and slaughter civilians in the streets. We sought to defend those civilians and take out only Saddam's private guards and military.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...intstory.jsp&1c

"Much of the evidence that's now available indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Hussein or bin Laden; and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 attacks probably never happened.

A Knight Ridder review of the Bush administration statements on Iraq's links to terrorism and what's now known about the classified intelligence has found that administration advocates of a preemptive invasion frequently hyped sketchy and sometimes false information to help make their case. Twice they neglected to report information that painted a less sinister picture.

The Bush administration has defended its prewar descriptions of Hussein and is calling Iraq ''the central front in the war on terrorism,'' as the president told U.S. troops two weeks ago.

But before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

• Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was ''overwhelming evidence'' of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

• Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he would consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al Qaeda leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because ``if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.''

• The administration linked Hussein to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al Qaeda appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an ''al Qaeda-affiliated'' group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al Qaeda leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al Qaeda ``associate.''

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al Qaeda rebuffed.

• Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

• Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts."

No offense but I'd rather see proof from a more reputable source than the Miami Herald. A lot of smaller publications have a tendency to be more biased.

This post has been edited by DrNick311: Oct 24 2004, 06:11 PM

[gerundio]

And we didn't wage war on the people who didn't attack us. We didn't ruthlessly go into Iraq and slaughter civilians in the streets. We sought to defend those civilians and take out only Saddam's private guards and military.

That's why there's over 13,000 civilians dead?

[DrNick311]

That's why there's over 13,000 civilians dead?

But are they civilians killed by the U.S. troops themselves, or civilians killed by the insurgents? You don't see some random sergeant from the Marines videotaping a group of hostages that are bound and gagged with guns to their heads.

[inlonelinessidie]

We sought to defend those civilians and take out only Saddam's private guards and military.

But way wage a war when it isn't necessary? We could've waited and have gotten allies to go get rid of Saddam. We needed to find Osama first because he is the one behind the attacks. We had him cornered and did nothing. Why did we do that? Do you know?

[DrNick311]

But way wage a war when it isn't necessary? We could've waited and have gotten allies to go get rid of Saddam. We needed to find Osama first because he is the one behind the attacks. We had him cornered and did nothing. Why did we do that? Do you know?

It's not like we pulled all of our troops out of Afghanistan. We still have a good amount of troops present there, as do some of our allies (I believe the UK has some there). But do you seriously think that if some other nation had declared war on Iraq first, that the outcome would be any different?

[gerundio]

No offense but I'd rather see proof from a more reputable source than the Miami Herald.  A lot of smaller publications have a tendency to be more biased.

Like what the New York Post?

And all papers all biased you idiot. Here's the text of a New York Times article published Oct. 22 for your ignorant ass:

"As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''

The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.

In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.

Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."

Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Levin's report drew particular attention to statements by Mr. Feith in communications with Congress beginning in July 2003 about such a link.

A classified annex sent by Mr. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, which was disclosed two weeks later by The Weekly Standard, asserted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990's to 2003,'' and concluded, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.''

In a Nov. 15 news release, the Defense Department said the "provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies, and done with the permission of the intelligence community.'' But Mr. Levin's report said that statement was incorrect, because the Central Intelligence Agency had not cleared release of Mr. Feith's annex.

The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

Perhaps most critically, the report says, Mr. Feith repeated a questionable assertion concerning a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally whose presence in Iraq was cited by the Bush administration before the war as crucial evidence of Mr. Hussein's support for terrorism.

In his Oct. 27 letter, Mr. Feith told Congress that the Iraqi intelligence service knew of Mr. Zarqawi's entry into Iraq. In recommending a correction, the C.I.A. said that claim had not been supported by the intelligence report that Mr. Feith had cited, the Levin report says. Nevertheless, the report says, Mr. Feith reiterated the assertion in his addendum, attributing it to a different intelligence report - one that likewise did not state that Iraq knew Mr. Zarqawi was in the country.

A reassessment completed by American intelligence agencies in September concluded that it is not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored Mr. Zarqawi during his time in Iraq before the war, intelligence officials have said."

But are they civilians killed by the U.S. troops themselves, or civilians killed by the insurgents? You don't see some random sergeant from the Marines videotaping a group of hostages that are bound and gagged with guns to their heads.

Of course you don't see it. The US doesn't want you to see it. The majority of the Iraqi civilians dead have been killed by American troops.

[inlonelinessidie]

It's not like we pulled all of our troops out of Afghanistan. We still have a good amount of troops present there, as do some of our allies (I believe the UK has some there). But do you seriously think that if some other nation had declared war on Iraq first, that the outcome would be any different?

Yeah we have troops over there, but far less than we have in Iraq. We needed more in Afghanistan to begin with; and never should've waged war in Iraq in that moment.

And yes I believe that if another country would've waged war on Iraq first it would've been handled differently, because they most likely wouldn't have gotten permission from the UN. The reason we got permission is because we were "attacked" by Iraq when in reality we weren't

Funny how you dodged my question.

[DrNick311]

Like what the New York Post?

And all papers all biased you idiot. Here's the text of a New York Times article published Oct. 22 for your ignorant ass:

"As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''

The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.

In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.

Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."

Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Levin's report drew particular attention to statements by Mr. Feith in communications with Congress beginning in July 2003 about such a link.

A classified annex sent by Mr. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, which was disclosed two weeks later by The Weekly Standard, asserted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990's to 2003,'' and concluded, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.''

In a Nov. 15 news release, the Defense Department said the "provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies, and done with the permission of the intelligence community.'' But Mr. Levin's report said that statement was incorrect, because the Central Intelligence Agency had not cleared release of Mr. Feith's annex.

The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

Perhaps most critically, the report says, Mr. Feith repeated a questionable assertion concerning a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally whose presence in Iraq was cited by the Bush administration before the war as crucial evidence of Mr. Hussein's support for terrorism.

In his Oct. 27 letter, Mr. Feith told Congress that the Iraqi intelligence service knew of Mr. Zarqawi's entry into Iraq. In recommending a correction, the C.I.A. said that claim had not been supported by the intelligence report that Mr. Feith had cited, the Levin report says. Nevertheless, the report says, Mr. Feith reiterated the assertion in his addendum, attributing it to a different intelligence report - one that likewise did not state that Iraq knew Mr. Zarqawi was in the country.

A reassessment completed by American intelligence agencies in September concluded that it is not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored Mr. Zarqawi during his time in Iraq before the war, intelligence officials have said."



Of course you don't see it. The US doesn't want you to see it. The majority of the Iraqi civilians dead have been killed by American troops.

1 - It's the work of one person, Mr. Feith. Have you factored in the results of efforts by anyone else?

2 - The report is by a Democrat, and in this day and age, the word Democrat just about always means "someone out to get Bush." A report representing the opinions of Democrats and Republicans alike (hell, include the Green party if you want) would be more convincing.

3 - There are a lot of uncertainties in this article ("questionable," "not clear," etc.) that also serve to detract from the validity of it all. Maybe Iraq didn't have the strongest ties with Al-Qaeda. But break down the insurgents for a second. You'll see that many don't come from Iraq itself, but rather from countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, where there is still a great Al-Qaeda presence.

[DrNick311]

Yeah we have troops over there, but far less than we have in Iraq. We needed more in Afghanistan to begin with; and never should've waged war in Iraq in that moment.

And yes I believe that if another country would've waged war on Iraq first it would've been handled differently, because they most likely wouldn't have gotten permission from the UN. The reason we got permission is because we were "attacked" by Iraq when in reality we weren't

Funny how you dodged my question. 

And I wasn't dodging your question, I was merely implying that a war WAS necessary. But the fact that you think another nation could have waged an effective war on Iraq tells me that you think war was necessary, contradicting your past statement.

[inlonelinessidie]

And I wasn't dodging your question, I was merely implying that a war WAS necessary. But the fact that you think another nation could have waged an effective war on Iraq tells me that you think war was necessary, contradicting your past statement.

If you read what I wrote I never said that it would've been affective because I stated that they would've never gotten permission to go in the first place.

[DrNick311]

If you read what I wrote I never said that it would've been affective because I stated that they would've never gotten permission to go in the first place.

They probably would have used the whole being attacked "excuse", seeing as how the U.S. wasn't the only nation to be affected by terrorism. These terrorists aren't out to get Americans, they are out to rule the world as a whole. Just about every country out there has been affected in some way by terrorists.

[inlonelinessidie]

They probably would have used the whole being attacked "excuse", seeing as how the U.S. wasn't the only nation to be affected by terrorism.  These terrorists aren't out to get Americans, they are out to rule the world as a whole.  Just about every country out there has been affected in some way by terrorists.

Funny, when did Iraq attack someone when they didn't have the power to? Bush Admin even said Saddam had no WMD's to attack anyone.

[gerundio]

1 - It's the work of one person, Mr. Feith.  Have you factored in the results of efforts by anyone else?

2 - The report is by a Democrat, and in this day and age, the word Democrat just about always means "someone out to get Bush."  A report representing the opinions of Democrats and Republicans alike (hell, include the Green party if you want) would be more convincing.

Wow, you are f*cking dense.

Search online. You'll get the same result: there are no ties between Sadam and Al Qaeda. They never existed. Just like the WMD. It's all fabricated.

This is not an opinion. It's an accepted fact. Ask Pat Buchanan, a REPUBLICAN.

Maybe Iraq didn't have strong ties with Al-Qaeda.  But break down the insurgents for a second.  You'll see that many don't come from Iraq itself, but rather from countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, where there is still a great Al-Qaeda presence.

Um ok. You just admitted that there's no reason to be in Iraq and that the US Army should be in Saudi Arabia instead.

If they were to attack an Arab country besides Afghanistan (which they shouldn't have) it should have been Saudi Arabia, but Bush and his family and friends are making too much money in Saudi Arabia.

[DrNick311]

Funny, when did Iraq attack someone when they didn't have the power to? Bush Admin even said so.

I never said that Iraq attacked anyone. But if another country would have had to suffer through a tragedy such as 9/11, I'm confident that they would have dug deep to discover exactly who it was that organized, financed and carried out the attack, and seeing the current terrorist populations and factions, it would more than likely be Al-Qaeda or one of its close affiliates. An even further investigation into that would turn up Iraq as a main supply line for those terrorists.

[gerundio]

An even further investigation into that would turn up Iraq as a main supply line for those terrorists.

No it wouldn't. Wow. What do you not understand.

Osama Bin Laden himself is Saudi.

[inlonelinessidie]

DrNick311 What are your sources? You seem to be confused.

[DrNick311]

No it wouldn't. Wow. What do you not understand.

Osama Bin Laden himself is Saudi.

You seem to think that finding Osama Bin Laden would solve all of our problems. It won't. That's why Bush felt the need to expand past Afghanistan and seek elsewhere. If he would have thought that killing Bin Laden would have meant an end to terrorism, he would have ordered at least ten nuclear strikes on Afghanistan already. But he decided to look at the larger picture.

And this comes back to a point I was originally thinking of making. I would vote for Bush in the upcoming elections. You can debate all you want about the war in Iraq. But I believe Bush has every right to finish what he started. And I don't trust a man who already disagrees with himself over domestic issues to handle our country on an international level.

[CallMeJealousy]

I am a Bush supporter, but I don't think he'll win this year. The one thing that pisses me off are the people who have the logic of "Anybody BUT Bush", I mean yeah Kerry promises all these things but WHERE is he going to get all the money for the research he wants to do. Plus, he constantly says I have a plan..but he never clearly says what he's going to do. The only reason why he "flip flops" is because the majority of the baby boom generation are republicans, and he wants to "fit-in" with the younger voters.

[Spirited Away]

Eh, now that I have voted, I don't really care what happens.

I kind of want to see Kerry wins just to see how he would deal with everything.

[I.Luff.Emo.Boys.]

I personally think bush is an inconsiderate selfish man, and i never wanted him for president in the first place. Bush isnt for gay marriges, which is banning gays from their pursuit of happiness, and bush sent people to Iraq for a reason that he couldnt even BACK UP, and bush also gave a tax cut to the RICH PEOPLE? what about us middle class?

[Saeglopur]

Bush isnt for gay marriges.

I agree. I totally agree. Besides, it's a free country, is it not?

[Spirited Away]

If it's a free country, then how come people can't be against homosexuals if they want?


The answer is: we're not completely free.

Laws, policies... etc are limits. Limits =/= free

[Saeglopur]

If it's a free country, then how come people can't be against homosexuals if they want?


The answer is: we're not completely free. 

Laws, policies... etc are limits. Limits =/=  free

But.. why be against homosexuals? What did they do?

Darn, this sucks. >_> I'm moving to Antarctica.

[Spirited Away]

But.. why be against homosexuals? What did they do?

Darn, this sucks. >_> I'm moving to Antarctica.

This isn't the way America will be a couple of decades from now. Society changes and people change. We will eventually adapt to the idea. Change needs time. This applies to myself as well since I am currently against homosexual marriages.

[swe3txprincesz]

bush...

[*kryogenix*]

bush...

that is spam. your warning level will now be raised. you should know better than that.

[ComradeRed]

They probably would have used the whole being attacked "excuse", seeing as how the U.S. wasn't the only nation to be affected by terrorism. These terrorists aren't out to get Americans, they are out to rule the world as a whole. Just about every country out there has been affected in some way by terrorists.

"Rule the world"?

When has Bin Laden expressed interest in ruling the world?

The reason that terrorism is targeted against the Middle East and interventionist western countries is because we have troops in the Middle East.

When Reagan pulled Americna troops out of hte Middle East in 1981, we had NO terrorist attacks for TWELVE YEARS. If terroists were out to conquer the world, wouldn't they attack while we were weak and on the defensive?

Any country that is invaded and occupied will fight back any way it can -- terrorism is merely a method used when they don't have the same military power as we do.

[CallMeJealousy]

I don't believe in gay marriages. I mean, don't get me wrong their nice people and all, but do we really need to teach our children that kids can also come from daddy&daddy and mommy&mommy? Sure they can adopt children, but no matter how feminen/masculen a gay couple can be a man can never fulfill a mothers role in a child's life and vice versa. Do these children want to grow up being constantly ridiculed by other classmates that might not be as accepting? We would also have to spend a lot of money in changing forms for taxes, house renting/buying and such. Also it is VERY hypocritical that Kerry supports gay marriages/abortions when the Catholic religion does not believe in birth control. And why does he bring up scriptures in his debates all of a sudden? You CAN NOT support gay marriages and abortion when you are a CATHOLIC. It just doesn't make sense.

And people also say they voted for Kerry just to see if he could do a better job then Bush? Well hello, if he doesn't then we are even more screwed. That is almost as bad as voting with the rule of "anybody but Bush".

[carmi96]

""Kerry wants a draft, is for killing of the innocence""

^ ye but bush is stl drafting soldiers frm other countries n puttin ppls lives at risk. patriotism is juss goin over the limit atm :S

[*kryogenix*]

""Kerry wants a draft, is for killing of the innocence""

^ ye but bush is stl drafting soldiers frm other countries n puttin ppls lives at risk. patriotism is juss goin over the limit atm :S

what are you talking about?

[sammi rules you]

i think bush will probably win, but i'm pro-kerry.