WASHINGTON - Seeking to justify his tactics in the war on terrorism, President Bush on Thursday disclosed new details of an alleged al-Qaida plot to hijack a plane and fly it into the tallest high-rise on the West Coast in 2002.

The plot, aimed at a Los Angeles office building, had been known for some time, but Bush said that it “was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative.”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by Bush’s announcement and described communication with the White House as “nonexistent.”

(ADVERTISEMENT - NSA IS YOUR FRIEND)

“I’m amazed that the president would make this [announcement] on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,” the mayor told The Associated Press. “I don’t expect a call from the president — but somebody.”

The White House and the state Homeland Security Office said they informed city officials Wednesday of Bush’s upcoming remarks.

Following Bush’s disclosure, a Homeland Security official added more details, telling reporters that the leader of a four-man cell trained for the hijacking was arrested in February 2002, and that the three others were later arrested as well.

(ADVERTISEMENT - NSA PETS LITTLE KITTENS)

Frances Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security, also emphasized that the president’s speech was aimed at showing the importance of international cooperation, not as an attempt to support Bush's controversial eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.

“It was not meant to be a speech about the NSA program,” she emphasized.

Bush has been fighting criticism of his decision to authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without court warrants inside the United States on international emails and phone calls placed to and from people with suspected ties to terrorism.

(ADVERTISEMENT - DON'T QUESTION THE WAR ON TERROR)

West Coast tower
In a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building, Bush said the cell planned to use shoe bombs to gain entry to the cockpit door and then fly the plane into a Los Angeles high-rise. The president called it the “Liberty Tower” but the White House later corrected that to the Library Tower, since renamed the US Bank Tower.

Townsend said that the plotters did not specifically cite the Library Tower but stated that they intended to bomb the tallest high-rise on the West Coast as a continuation of the Sept. 11 attacks on the East Coast. Intelligence analysts concluded that meant the Library Tower, she added.

Bush has referred to the 2002 plot before. In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts.

(ADVERTISEMENT - BUSH KNOWS BEST)

The White House initially would not give details of the plots but later released a fact sheet with a brief, and vague, description of each.

Cell members not named
The president on Thursday said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

One of Mohammed’s key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al-Qaida related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said.

Bush said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

Was Antonio the mayor then?

The less people that know the better. I would have preferred no one to be have to told this. Hopefully the people who leaked the NSA program will have to spend time in jail.

Actually, this is not "new" news at all, as you are trying to snidely suggest in your subject line.

This was talked about last year, and was even included in the 9/11 Commision's report.

The only thing "new" today were two details that Bush gave about the thwarted attack:

1. That a shoe-bomb was going to be used.
2. That the terrorists were going to be Southeast Asians instead of Arabs.

Other than that, this is not a "we told you now!" thing, and mentioning it was perfectly natural in the context it was mentioned in - as natural as talking about past tax cuts might be when talking about the economy.

And certainly, one can't mention these things right when they happen anway - I think most people understand that, for reasons of national security and intelligence gathering, most of this stuff, even our successes, must stay under wraps for awhile so the bad guys don't know what we know and how...

Oh Ok. So let's talk about that then.

Why were those two details left out until now?

Oh wait. Because those details were...

TOP

SECRET

:eek:


rotfl

And Bush is mentioning it AGAIN, because he's reaching for justification for his War On Something.

Again I say he needs to take a trip to the Mexican-US border.

It's not that new since I posted it in another thread.

Congressmen can't declassify materials.

The President can.

Of course Bush got the name of the building mixed-up. ;)

Obviously much of the public will say 'see, the domestic spy thing did work.' 'Good for you, George.' Of course, it had nothing to do with the domestic surveillance program, but the public won't differentiate.

How can you expect Bush to kill off the unions if he stops illegals from coming in?

So how far along was this sinister plot anyhow? Was it just in the early planning stages, a plan that may never come to fruition, or were asian men with smoldering shoes pulled from airplanes on the tarmac?

keeping all these thwarted plots a secret makes people get complacent
but at the same time, announcing them all could tip off the terrorists as to how we're able to thwart them

The less people that know the better. I would have preferred no one to be have to told this. Hopefully the people who leaked the NSA program will have to spend time in jail.

Why? This alleged plot was not foiled because of the illegal NSA wiretapping. Of course, thats what Bush would like the carbon blobs to get out of this. I assume the terror alert will be raised now as well? -rolleyes-

keeping all these thwarted plots a secret makes people get complacent
but at the same time, announcing them all could tip off the terrorists as to how we're able to thwart them
:hscratch: Because our ability to tap phones is a secret? I didn't realize the terrorists were that stupid. Especially since we know that at least one of them (OBL) was trained by the CIA.

Why? This alleged plot was not foiled because of the illegal NSA wiretapping. Of course, thats what Bush would like the carbon blobs to get out of this. I assume the terror alert will be raised now as well? -rolleyes-
Oh, this calls for at LEAST chartreuse, if not yellow.

Why? This alleged plot was not foiled because of the illegal NSA wiretapping. Of course, thats what Bush would like the carbon blobs to get out of this. I assume the terror alert will be raised now as well? -rolleyes-

:rolleyes:

Wow, this is much ado about nothing, especially when one simply takes the time to read the President's remarks in context.

This LA plot thing wasn't some big revelation, but rather just a part of a longer speech, with other examples, to a bunch of National Guardsmen about how the War on Terror is going. It wasn't mentioned in reference to the NSA thing in any way shape or form, and again, this isn't even really "new news".

Reading this in context, one must wonder... Bush is getting criticized... for this? It just goes to show that the man will get jumped on by liberals for breathing.

I encourage anybody that thinks there's anything here to simply read Bush's speech in context and judge for themselves. The intellectually honest will simply move on. The not-so-intellectually honest will jump back onto DailyKos and others for their new marching orders, surely...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html

President Discusses Progress in War on Terror to National Guard
National Guard Building
Washington, D.C.

President's Remarks

In Focus: National Security
In Focus: Defense
10:03 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for that warm welcome. I'm delighted to be here with the men and women of the National Guard Association of the United States. For 128 years, the National Guard Association has been fighting for the citizen-soldiers who fight for America. I appreciate your service, and I appreciate you supporting those that America depends on in times of crisis. Our nation is safer because citizens are willing to put on the uniform and defend our freedom.

The first thing I want to tell you is America is grateful for the service of our Guardsmen and women, and I'm proud to be their Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)

I thank Brigadier General Bob Taylor for his service and for his introduction. I appreciate Congressman Jim Gibbons, who is with us today, from the great state of Nevada. Thanks for coming, Congressman; I'm proud you're here, thanks for supporting the Guard.

I thank Brigadier General Steve Koper, retired president of the National Guard Association of the United States. General, thank you for greeting me. I'm proud to be here with Major General Roger Lempke. He's the president of the Adjutant General Association. I thank my friend, Lieutenant General Danny James. One of the interesting things about my life, I've been the Commander-in-Chief twice -- today and when I was the Governor of Texas. And Danny and I worked together for the good of our state. Thanks for coming, Danny; glad to see your brought your beautiful wife.

I want to thank Lewis King; he's the Chief Warrant Officer, retired. He helped raise the money for this box, and I appreciate it very much, Lewis, and all those who contributed to it. I want to thank Charles Parks, the sculptor. Charles caught me before my hair went gray. (Laughter.)

I also want to thank Lanny McNeely for joining us today. He's the head of the 147th Wing Guard at Ellington, where I used to serve. And I appreciate you coming, Colonel; thanks for being here; thanks for greeting me when I arrived there, on Air Force One there at Ellington -- checking on my mother and father on a regular basis. I also want to thank Chuck Rodriguez, who's the TAG of Texas. When you're a Texan you always got to make sure you pay attention to your fellow Texans.

And thank you all for having me. I want to share with you some thoughts about the war on terror. Before I do, I want to remind our country that the Guard has been fighting for America since before America was a nation. From your "First Muster" in 1636 to today's global war on terror, Americans have counted on the Guard to protect our land and defend our way of life. The role of the Guard in our military is unique. It's the only part of the Armed Forces that serves both the state and the nation. And in the past year, Americans have witnessed the courage of our Guardsmen and women at home and abroad.

When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast last year, more than 40,000 Guardsmen and women rushed to the impact zone -- it was the largest stateside deployment in National Guard history. They conducted search and rescue operations, distributed food and water, provided emergency medical care, protected communities from criminality, and worked around the clock to repair homes and restore power. Guard units from all 50 states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia provided assistance -- and together, they saved lives and helped evacuate over 175,000 people stranded by the storm.

When the Pennsylvania National Guard came to repair the roof of a Louisiana woman, she said this to the soldiers: "That's a long way to come to help us. We're really grateful ... you boys are going to heaven, I tell you." (Laughter.) When tragedy strikes, Americans know they can count on the men and women of the National Guard.

As you protect your neighbors from natural disasters, you're also protecting the American people from terrorist dangers. Since September the 11th, 2001, more than 260,000 members of the National Guard have been mobilized for various missions in the war on terror. At this moment, Guardsmen and women are training the Afghan National Army, standing watch over the world's most dangerous terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and taking the fight to the enemy in Iraq. Across the world, and on every front, the men and women of the Guard are serving with courage and determination -- and they're bringing us to victory in the global war on terror.

Your service is vital to the security of the country and the peace of the world -- and that service would not be possible without the support of the Guard families. Guard loved ones miss their husband and wife or son and daughter; they worry when our Guards people are deployed overseas. By standing behind our Guardsmen and women, the families of the Guard serve our country as well, and America appreciates their service. Our nation also depends on the commitment of the employers of the Guardsmen and women. In offices and schools and factories across America, organizations do without the talents of some really fine people that have been called upon to protect our nation. Businesses that are putting patriotism ahead of profit deserve the gratitude of all Americans.

Each of the Guardsmen and women have stepped forward to defend our country, and our country owes them something in return. We've taken a number of steps to improve the call up process, so it's more respectful to the Guardsmen and women and their families. In most cases, we're now giving you at least 30 days notification before mobilization, so that you and your families have time to make arrangements. We're working to give you as much certainty as possible about the length of mobilizations, so you can know when you will be able to resume civilian life. We're working to minimize the number of extensions and repeat mobilizations. We're working to ensure that you and your families are treated with the dignity they deserve.

We're also taking steps to improve the quality of life. We've expanded health care benefits for Guard and Reserve forces and their families, giving you access to the military's TRICARE system. We're also expanding access to education for America's citizen-soldiers. I was proud to sign legislation providing our Guard and Reserve forces between 40 and 80 percent of the education benefits available to active duty forces -- depending on the length of their mobilization in the war on terror. We've also tripled the amount that can be paid for re-enlisting in the National Guard or Reserve. The last month, I signed into law a new retention bonus for Guardsmen and Reservists with critical skills needed in this war on terror. Our Guardsmen and Reservists are standing up for America, and you need to know that this administration supports you in your efforts.

We're working to give you the tools and resources you need to prevail in the war on terror -- and meet state and homeland security missions, as well. Our 2007 budget that I just submitted to the Congress increases funding for our men and women of Armed Forces by $28.5 billion. That includes vital funds to help the National Guard meet its responsibilities during this war.

The Army National Guard currently has about 330,000 soldiers -- and my 2007 budget funds the Guard at that level. As the Guard recruits above that level, we'll make certain that there is funding in place for every citizen who steps forward to wear the uniform. (Applause.) And to ensure that the Army and our Air National Guard are ready for any challenge, my budget more than doubles funding for equipment and modernization over the next five years. (Applause.) Any time we've got folks in harm's way, they deserve the best -- the best pay possible, the best training possible, and the best equipment possible. It's a commitment this administration has made since I've been the Commander-in-Chief, and it's a commitment we will keep. (Applause.)

We remain a nation at war. I wish I could report, you know, a different sentence to you. But my job as the President of the United States is to keep the American people fully informed of the world in which we live. In recent months, I've spoken extensively about our strategy for victory in Iraq. Today, I'm going to give you an update on the progress that we're making in the broader war on terror: The actions of our global coalition to break up terrorist networks across the world, plots we've disrupted that have saved American lives, and how the rise of freedom is leading millions to reject the dark ideology of the terrorists -- and laying the foundation of peace for generations to come.

On September the 11th, 2001, our nation saw that vast oceans and great distances could no longer keep us safe. I made a decision that day -- that America will not wait to be attacked again. (Applause.) And since that day, we've taken decisive action to protect our citizens against new dangers. We're hunting down the terrorists using every element of our national power -- military, intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and financial. We're clarifying the choice facing every nation: In this struggle between freedom and terror, every nation has responsibilities -- and no one can remain neutral.

Since September the 11th, we've led a broad coalition to confront the terrorist threat. Four weeks after the attacks, America and our allies launched military operations to eliminate the terrorists' principal sanctuary in the nation of Afghanistan. I told the world that if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists. And when an American President says something, he better mean what he said. I meant what I said. (Applause.)

We removed a cruel regime that oppressed its people, brutalized women and girls, and gave safe haven to the terrorists who attacked America. Because we acted, the terror camps in Afghanistan have been shut down -- and 25 million people have tasted freedom, many for the first time in their lives. Afghanistan now has a democratically elected President, a new national assembly, and the beginnings of a market economy. Women are working and starting their own businesses, boys and girls are back in school. The Afghan people are building the institutions of a lasting democracy and the foundations of a hopeful future for their children and their grandchildren.

Afghanistan still faces serious challenges, from illicit drug trafficking to continued violence from al Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban regime. So the international community is working together to help Afghanistan's young democracy succeed. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Tony Blair hosted over 40 nations and nine international organizations for a conference in London, where they pledged $10.5 billion in aid to Afghanistan. (Applause.) With the help of 35 nations, NATO is leading the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

The United States, Britain, Norway, Germany, Italy, Spain, Lithuania, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand are all leading provincial reconstruction teams. These teams are helping the Afghan government extend its authority and provide security in provinces across the country. Our coalition has trained nearly 27,000 Afghan soldiers and more than 56,000 Afghan police -- so they can take the fight to the terrorists and eventually provide for the security of their own citizens. Afghan forces are risking their lives to fight our common enemy -- and coalition forces are proud to serve along with such courageous and bold and determined allies.

Our coalition is also working to root out and destroy terrorist networks all around the world. More than 90 nations --nearly half the world -- are now cooperating in a global campaign to dry up terrorist financing, hunt down terrorist operatives, and bring terrorist leaders to justice.

Some said that an aggressive strategy of bringing the war to the terrorists would cost us international support, would drive nations from our coalition. The opposite has happened. Today more governments are cooperating in the fight against terror than ever before. And in one of the most significant developments of this war, many nations that once turned a blind eye to terror are now helping lead the fight against it.

A little over four years ago, Pakistan was only one of three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Today, Pakistani forces are risking their lives in the hunt for al Qaeda; President Musharraf has faced several attempts on his life since his courageous decision to join the war on terror. Before September the 11th, terrorist supporters were operating with relative ease in Saudi Arabia, where fundraisers and facilitators were providing money and logistical support to al Qaeda. Since the Riyadh bombings in May of 2003, the Saudi government has recognized that it is a prime target of the terrorists. And in the past two and a half years, Saudi forces have killed or captured nearly all of the terrorists on their most wanted list, they've reduced the flow of money to terror groups, and arrested hundreds of radical fighters bound for Iraq.

These governments are taking important steps to confront terror -- and as they do, we will continue to encourage them to take the path of political reform. By respecting the rights and choices of their own people these nations can marginalize the extremists, strengthen their societies, and eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism.

These and other governments around the world are stepping forward to fight the terrorists because they know the lives of their citizens are at stake. President Musharraf said something interesting: "Terrorism threatens to destabilize all modern societies. It cannot be condoned for any reason or cause. The people of Pakistan have suffered from terrorism . [and] we are making our contribution to the fight against terrorism." President Musharraf is right. In the war against terror, there is no separate peace -- and no nation can stand on the sidelines.

By standing together, the United States and our partners are striking real blows against the enemy. Since September the 11th, 2001, our coalition has captured or killed al Qaeda managers and operatives in over two dozen countries. That includes many of al Qaeda's operational commanders -- the senior leaders responsible for day-to-day planning of terrorist activities across the globe. In November 2001, our coalition forces killed Mohammed Atif with an air strike in Afghanistan. In March 2003, his replacement -- Khalid Shaykh Mohammad -- was captured in Pakistan. In May, 2005, the man who took over for him -- a terrorist named al-Libi -- was captured in South Asia.

The terrorists are living under constant pressure -- and this adds to our security. When terrorists spend their days working to avoid death or capture, it's harder for them to plan and execute new attacks on our country. By striking the terrorists where they live, we are protecting the American homeland. (Applause.)

Since September the 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots -- including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example. In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.*

Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September the 11th, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad sought out young men from Southeast Asia -- whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion. To help carry out this plan, he tapped a terrorist named Hambali, one of the leaders of an al Qaeda affiliated group in Southeast Asia called "J-I." JI terrorists were responsible for a series of deadly attacks in Southeast Asia, and members of the group had trained with al Qaeda. Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan. Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack.

Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted. Our efforts did not end there. In the summer of 2003, our partners in Southeast Asia conducted another successful manhunt that led to the capture of the terrorist Hambali.

As the West Coast plot shows, in the war on terror we face a relentless and determined enemy that operates in many nations -- so protecting our citizens requires unprecedented cooperation from many nations as well. It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot. By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets; by working together we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland.

Across the world, our coalition is pursuing the enemy with relentless determination. And because of these efforts, the terrorists are weakened and fractured -- yet they're still lethal. We cannot let the fact that America hasn't been attacked in four and a half years since September 11, 2001 lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared. They have not. Just last month, we heard Osama bin Laden declare his intention to attack America again. Our military, law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence professionals take those threats very seriously -- and they're working around the clock day and night to protect us. We are safer for their efforts -- but we're not yet safe. America remains at risk -- so we must remain vigilant. We will stay on the offense, we will hunt down the terrorists, and we will never rest until this threat to the American people is removed. (Applause.)

We will continue to take the fight to the enemy. Yet we must also recognize in the long run, victory will require more than military means alone. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by spreading the hope of freedom to troubled regions of the world. The terrorists have an ideology; they share a hateful vision that rejects tolerance and crushes all dissent; a world where women are oppressed and children are indoctrinated; and those who reject their ideology of violence and extremists are threatened and often murdered.

The terrorists have aims -- they seek to impose their heartless ideology of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder. Their stated goal is to overthrow moderate governments, take control of countries, and use them as safe havens to launch attacks against America. When an enemy states a goal and a strategy and tactics, we must take their word seriously.

To achieve their aims, the terrorists need popular support. We know this from the terrorists' own words. In a letter to his chief of operations in Iraq, the terrorist Zawahiri wrote that popular support is, "a decisive factor between victory and defeat. In the absence of this popular support the ... movement would be crushed in the shadows." He went on to say, "... Therefore our planning must strive to involve the Muslim masses in the battle."

So a key part of the terrorists' strategy is to feed public resentment by convincing people across the Muslim world that the future holds just two choices: One of Islam, holiness, and virtue -- and one of Western decadence, immorality and imperialism. They use every opportunity to promote this false choice. Sometimes they spread blatant lies about America. Other times, it is American mistakes -- like the abuses of Abu Ghraib -- that give them ammunition in their campaign to foment anti-Western sentiment, and rally Muslims to support their dark ideology.

The problem for the terrorists is they cannot hide the inhumanity of their ideology. Because they lack the military strength to challenge us directly, they have turned to the weapon of fear. They seek to break our will with stunning acts of violence. They don't understand America. They cannot shake our will. We will stay on the hunt, we will never give in, and we will win this war on terror. (Applause.)

In the terrorists' campaign of violence and destruction, the majority of their victims since 9/11 have been innocent Muslims. When the people in the Arab world see al Qaeda murdering Iraqi children or blowing up mourners in an Iraqi mosque, their outrage grows. And as the terrorists spread violence in places like Riyadh and Istanbul and Sharm el-Sheikh and Jakarta and Bali -- the people of those countries are starting to turn against the terrorists.

After terrorists bombed a Palestinian wedding at a hotel in Amman last November, thousands of Jordanians took to the street and rallied against al Qaeda. One protester carried a sign that read "Jordan's Nine-Eleven." Others chanted "This is not Islamic, this is terrorism!" The outrage even reached the Jordanian town of Zarqa -- birthplace of the terrorist Zarqawi, who heads al Qaeda in Iraq and who was the mastermind of the Jordan bombing. A cousin standing outside the al Qaeda leader family home said this: "We hate him even more than other people do now." Zarqawi was even expelled by his own tribesmen, hundreds of whom declared in a letter to a Jordanian newspaper: we "renounce his actions, pronouncements or whatever he approves of r. We disown him until judgment day."

Before the bombings, most Jordanians reportedly sympathized with al Qaeda. Today only a minority sympathize with al Qaeda, and most Jordanians say its activities are not in conformity with the teachings of Islam. Similar shifts in public opinion are beginning to appear in other parts of the Muslim world. From Pakistan, to Indonesia, to al Qaeda's former home base of Afghanistan, more people now say they oppose the terrorists and their tactics.

These are positive signs -- but we still have a long way to go. So we'll continue to oppose the terrorists' ideology by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. We're working to spread the hope of liberty across the broader Middle East because we've learned the lessons of history: Free nations don't wage wars of aggression; they don't give safe haven to terrorists to attack other democracies. Free nations are peaceful nations. And when democracy takes hold, nations replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes this country safer -- so across the world the United States of America is acting boldly in freedom's cause.

We're standing with the brave people of Iraq as they risk their lives to build a strong democracy in the heart of the Middle East. And their courage is changing their country, and it's changing the region, and it's changing the world. Before the January 2005 elections, the terrorists threatened anybody who voted with death. The Iraqi people defied these threats, and went to the polls in that election and two other elections last year, each with larger and broader participation than the one that came before. Iraqis are rejecting terror, they're rejecting the violence; and they want to replace terror and violence with openness and democracy. They have made their decision, and the world saw their decision. They're showing the world that the terrorists' ideology cannot compete on a level playing field with the ideology of freedom.

Iraqis still face challenges, and they're serious. The terrorists and Saddamists continue to sow violence and terror, and they will continue fighting freedom's progress with all the hateful determination they can muster. The Iraqis still have to overcome long-standing ethnic and religious tensions, and they must build the institutions of a free society that will serve all the people, not narrow political or religious interests. These challenges ahead are complex and difficult, yet the Iraqis are determined to overcome them -- and our coalition is determined to help the Iraqi people succeed.

We're carrying out a clear strategy for victory in Iraq. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased, and the insurgency marginalized. Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts and helping Iraqis build a modern economy, so all Iraq's citizens can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets, we're after the terrorists; and at the same time we're training Iraqi forces which are becoming increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. The Iraqi forces show courage every day. We are proud to be the allies in the cause of freedom. As Iraqis stand up, America and our coalition will stand down.

Many of you are concerned about troop levels in Iraq. Those decisions will be made based upon conditions on the ground, based upon the recommendations of our military commanders -- not based upon politics in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

The courage of Iraqis is inspiring others across the broader Middle East to claim their freedom, as well. And the message is going forth from Damascus to Tehran that the future of the Middle East belongs to freedom. As liberty spreads in this vital region and freedom produces opportunity and hope for those who have not known it, the terrorist temptation will start to fall away. And as more nations claim their freedom, we will gain new allies in the war on terror, and new partners in the battle for peace and moderation in the Muslim world.

Before that day comes, there will be more days of testing. The terrorists remain brutal and determined -- and they still have some resources at their disposal. The attacks in London and Madrid and other cities are grim reminders of how lethal al Qaeda remains. Money is still flowing to radical mosques and madrassas, which are still turning out new terrorist recruits. Some countries, like Syria and Iran, still provide terrorists with support and sanctuary. And the terrorists are sophisticated at spreading propaganda, and using spectacular attacks to dominate our evening news.

Yet from the vantage point of a terrorist sitting in a cave, the future seems increasingly bleak. Consider how the world looks four-and-a-half years into the war on terror: The terrorists have lost their home base in Afghanistan, and no longer have control of a country where they can train recruits and plot new attacks; many of their leaders are dead or in custody, and the rest of them are on the run; they've been reduced to using messengers to communicate; they're running low on funds, and have been forced to beg the terrorists in Iraq to send money; countries that once allowed them free reign are now on the hunt.

Their efforts to the divide the West have largely failed, and the vast majority of the world's governments are standing firm and working together in the fight against those terrorists. Iraqis are forming a unity government, instead of giving into disunity, instead of fighting the civil war the terrorists hoped to foment. Iraqi Sunnis are joining the political process. The success of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is inspiring calls for change across the region. And the terrorists' strategy of attacking innocent Muslims is beginning to backfire and expose them for what they are: murderers with no respect for human life and human dignity.

Despite the violence and the suffering the terrorists are wreaking, we're winning the war on terror. Yet victory will require more courage and sacrifice. In this war, we have said farewell to some very good men and women -- including more than 360 heroes of the National Guard. We hold their loved ones in our hearts and we lift them up in our prayers. These brave Americans gave their lives for a cause that is just, and necessary for the security of our country. And their sacrifice is sparing millions from lives of tyranny and sorrow.

And now we will honor their sacrifice by completing the mission. And in this long run, we can be confident in the outcome of this struggle -- because we've seen the power of freedom to defeat tyranny and terror before. And because we have on our side the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world: the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

One of the great strengths of our military is that it's an all-volunteer army, and all-volunteer force. And since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, nearly 1.5 million Americans has stepped forward to put on our nation's uniform -- including nearly 290,000 who have joined the National Guard. Nearly 1.3 million more American troops have made the courageous decision to re-enlist and stay in the fight -- including more than 350,000 members of the National Guard.

These brave Americans saw the future the terrorists intend for us, and they said, "Not on my watch." (Applause.) Four-and-a-half years into the fight, America's Armed Forces are determined, experienced and ready for any challenge -- and our nation is blessed to have such brave defenders. All of you are bringing honor to the uniform, and pride to our country, and security to the American people. America will always be grateful for your service in the cause of freedom.

Thank you for letting me come today. God bless you and your families, and may God continue to bless our country. (Applause.)

END 10:41 A.M. EST

*The believed target was *Library* Tower in Los Angeles, California.

Again, much ado about nothing.

This was a small part of a much larger speech to the National Guard about the War, and just one example used to make his point. It was not even "new" information - it was in the 9/11 report, and it wasn't said in the context of anything relating to the NSA thing in any way shape or form. I'll bet the President is surprised people picked this out to run with out of this long speech. It probably had more to do with the LA Mayor's reaction than the actual content.

But once again, more proof that Bush's critics can find fault where there clearly is none.

Try again, guys.

Wow, I didn't realize we had members on here that know all about national security secrets and exactly how long the president is supposed to wait until going public with the information. This place is amazing! :up:

Try again, guys.

Don't worry, they will keep committing political hari-kari as usual.

Wow, I didn't realize we had members on here that know all about national security secrets and exactly how long the president is supposed to wait until going public with the information. This place is amazing! :up:

The timing of the release wasn't bad, was it?

Bush may not be the brightest nickle on the block, but he's not stupid either. He, or maybe Carl Rove, realizes how this will play with the public. He doesn't have to say that the attack was prevented by the NSA surveillance program - the people will not discern the difference - not all of the people but a bunch of them - including ones that really matter - soccer moms.

I think this thread accidentally stumbled upon the point that there isn't much going on in Washington in the way of real policy or anything else that any group whose vote matters really cares about.

The timing of the release wasn't bad, was it?

Bush may not be the brightest nickle on the block, but he's not stupid either. He, or maybe Carl Rove, realizes how this will play with the public. He doesn't have to say that the attack was prevented by the NSA surveillance program - the people will not discern the difference - not all of the people but a bunch of them - including ones that really matter - soccer moms.
Well it's nowhere near November and this announcement won't change anyone's mind doing the wiretap investigation.. so.. the timing of this annoucement really doesn't mean squat to anyone - except those that normally browbeat his every move.

Well it's nowhere near November and this announcement won't change anyone's mind doing the wiretap investigation.. so.. the timing of this annoucement really doesn't mean squat to anyone - except those that normally browbeat his every move.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the impact. This was timed for effect. They're trying to influence public opinion. You know who watches public opinion? Senators and Congressmen, especially those up for reelection (and especially Republicans) and who might have to vote on wiretapping investigations or the lack thereof. A shrewd move looking at it from a strictly political view. Things are not going the President's way these days, but he still has a few cards in the deck and he just played one with these comments.

Timing?

"Announcement?

What announcement?

Did you read the statements in context? This was just a bit of a much long speech to a bunch of National Guardsmen, talking about the War on Terror. The information is not new, this is no "announcement" of any sort, it is not placed in context of anything having to do with the NSA thing, and the information perfectly fits in context of the speech in what he's talking about.

There's no "funny business" going on here, and I'll bet the President's people are surprised that some bit of old news like this got pulled from an obscure place in a long speech and treated as if it were some kind of "revelation".

Sooooooo, now you're saying what Bush said is irrelevant and not important?

Sooooooo, now you're saying what Bush said is irrelevant and not important?

I think anybody who actually heard or read the speech, would wonder what in the hell all the fuss is about, yes.

It was all in context with what he was saying about how the War on Terror is going, it didn't make mention of the NSA thing either explicitly or by hinting, and it simply referenced one of our successes to a bunch of National Guardsmen that he is briefing on the War - a success that is old news, I might add, and known to the public for a long time.

That this little bit of the speech, old news buried in a long speech along with loads of other old news, is getting attention as some kind of revelation, announcement, or distraction is beyond absurd, and illustrates far more about Bush's critics than anything this normal-to-the-core bit of speechmaking illustrates about Bush.

I hope this news bumps his poll numbers up a little. :nopanic:

It's amazing that in that huge speech, the media has latched on to this one section and is playing it off as Bush making a play about the wiretapping. How's that for convenient timing? :)

It's amazing that in that huge speech, the media has latched on to this one section and is playing it off as Bush making a play about the wiretapping. How's that for convenient timing? :)
To many people, when Bush clears his throat it means he's making a play about something.

or it's just another pretzel.

Why? This alleged plot was not foiled because of the illegal NSA wiretapping. Of course, thats what Bush would like the carbon blobs to get out of this. I assume the terror alert will be raised now as well? -rolleyes-

Neither here no there, but I saw yesterday a snipet about the 9/11 commission's take on NSA wiretapping. Quite interesting.

I think anybody who actually heard or read the speech, would wonder what in the hell all the fuss is about, yes.

It was all in context with what he was saying about how the War on Terror is going, it didn't make mention of the NSA thing either explicitly or by hinting, and it simply referenced one of our successes to a bunch of National Guardsmen that he is briefing on the War - a success that is old news, I might add, and known to the public for a long time.

That this little bit of the speech, old news buried in a long speech along with loads of other old news, is getting attention as some kind of revelation, announcement, or distraction is beyond absurd, and illustrates far more about Bush's critics than anything this normal-to-the-core bit of speechmaking illustrates about Bush.

Answer "yes" or "no" to this question: does Bush's story make it likely that more of the public would be less against wiretapping American citizens as a strategy for stopping terrorist attacks? (even though they made no mention of wiretapping as being the reason for stopping this particular attack...IF there in FACT was one planned)

In order to change public opinion with propaganda, it is ill advised to smack people over the head with huge announcements or complete speeches about your topics. Even people that are 90% tuned out see through this. Instead, you make small announcements and proclamamtions over a long period of time that eventually sink into the public conscience. The way this administration convinced so many people that Iraq had a 9/11 connection is a perfect example of this.

They did not give major policy speeches, but it was mentioned over and over again in small snippets within other speechesand statements. Evetually, it was mentioned enough times that it became considered a fact, even though there was no evidence to support the claim.

Be afraid, be very afriad. This administration is beating the war drums once again and we must not allow it to happen. The NSA wiretap leak was purposeful, as it places national security at the forefront of discussions.

This adminstration is currently trying to influence public opinion on two fronts. First, they are once again trying to scare us into believeing that we are in constant danger of attack, as this is the only way the republicans can keep from getting sent packing in November. Second, they are trying to gain support for military action against Iran. I believe I read a poll that almost 60% of Americans believe Iran is a direct threat to the US. Obviously the first example greatly helps with the second example as well.

I am sure this post will be flamed, but this administration has used this method over and over again on every issue. For what they lack in Governing skills, they sure make-up for in getting their message out and controlling public opinion. They are by far the most efficient administration ever at controlling public opinion.

announcement: The act of making known publicly.

It was an announcement!

The White House says that 'it was just a coincidence' that it was announced at this time. Does anyone really believe that?

I think anybody who actually heard or read the speech, would wonder what in the hell all the fuss is about, yes.


Please. You are really stretching now. The general populace doesn't watch these speeches in their entirety nor do they read the transcripts. They see the snips on he evening news. The Bush team knew EXACTLY which portions would be salient.

:lol:

Please. You are really stretching now. The general populace doesn't watch these speeches in their entirety nor do they read the transcripts. They see the snips on he evening news. The Bush team knew EXACTLY which portions would be salient.

:lol:


At least Carl Rove knew it. ;)

To many people, when Bush clears his throat it means he's making a play about something.
He is the most powerful man in the world. People usually pay attention to stuff people like that do.

Oh, I see some members believe the "liberal media" should have glossed over little tidbits like Bush naming the target and the explosive shoes. Other small details like southeast Asians. Yet, its the left turning this into something it was not. C'mon, it was an innocent speech! rotfl

At least Carl Rove knew it. ;)
What I don't understand is why the Repubs here are so upset that it's being made known about the terrorist plot bust. Whatever the motives, it helps your guy's case. The average American is not going to disect the underlying political motives behind the statement, they will just see the reinforcing view that Bush is the almighty protector. It's his strong point and it's smart that they're going back to that. As c-man said, the soccer/security mom's will take notice.

I don't understand their reluctance to accept facts either. The last poll I saw showed that 58% of Americans approved of the domestic spying program or foreign surveillance program - whatever name you choose.

Because they feel dirty? ;)

I don't know about feeling dirty, but I think they have to feel that they've been 'used' a little. ;)

Oh Ok. So let's talk about that then.

Why were those two details left out until now?

Oh wait. Because those details were...

TOP

SECRET

:eek:


rotfl

And Bush is mentioning it AGAIN, because he's reaching for justification for his War On Something.

Again I say he needs to take a trip to the Mexican-US border.
So...basically your admitting your subject line and commentary are misleading at best. He did tell us; you just didn't care to pay attention. Those two new details "do not a huge story make."

Those two new details "do not a huge story make."

:lol: Yet its the headline on every paper in the country.

I'm not denying that Bush made public this information that nobody really knew about before - and yes, I think it's newsworthy. I also think he releases tidbits like this to help his image. Why not? I agree with all that. However my issue is with those that were pointing out that the timing of this was somehow suspicious which I still think is complete bunk.

However my issue is with those that were pointing out that the timing of this was somehow suspicious which I still think is complete bunk.
Suspicious would mean that there's something underhanded going on. I don't personally think that, but I do think he's trying to further his agenda, which I don't happen to agree with, but that's what I expect a professional politician to do. He's just doing his job from his perspective. I don't think it's suspicious, it's more timed to effect the debate going on; an important debate about Executive powers. Maybe we're just mincing words here. I dunno.

:lol: Yet its the headline on every paper in the country.
These two details are the headline on every newspaper in the country? That's funny. The story can be found as a small link at the bottom of Washington Post's website, and I do not see the aforementioned new details in the headline. The same is true with the NY Times.

keeping all these thwarted plots a secret makes people get complacent
but at the same time, announcing them all could tip off the terrorists as to how we're able to thwart them

I'm fairly certain the terrorists already know that they did not blow up a building in Los Angeles in 2002 by hijacking a plane with shoe bombs.

I'm fairly certain the terrorists already know that they did not blow up a building in Los Angeles in 2002 by hijacking a plane with shoe bombs.

The important question is though do they know how the plans were thrwated?

In order to change public opinion with propaganda, it is ill advised to smack people over the head with huge announcements or complete speeches about your topics. Even people that are 90% tuned out see through this. Instead, you make small announcements and proclamamtions over a long period of time that eventually sink into the public conscience. The way this administration convinced so many people that Iraq had a 9/11 connection is a perfect example of this.

More paranoia from the left.

They did not try to convince people Iraq had a connection with 9/11, subtly or not. In fact, Bush said himself DIRECTLY, several times that there was no evidence Iraq had anything to do with planning 9/11, and going into Iraq wasn't about that.

If one is trying to convince the American people of something through subtle means, it's not a good idea to come out and say the exact opposite clearly and repeatedly, is it?

Democrat revisionism...

Bush gave many reasons, after the first one didn't prove to be true, for going into Iraq. :lol:

Answer "yes" or "no" to this question: does Bush's story make it likely that more of the public would be less against wiretapping American citizens as a strategy for stopping terrorist attacks? (even though they made no mention of wiretapping as being the reason for stopping this particular attack...IF there in FACT was one planned)

It is irrelevant.

This kind of thing is perfectly natural to put in such a speech - do you expect the President NOT to tout successes when talking to the troops about the War on Terror?

Now you gusy are faulting him for talking about our successes - and "revealing" old news! In the body of a speech were much "old news" was revealed no less.

And this is hardly "new". Bush has been (quite understandably) touting successes in the War on Terror in speeches about it long before the wiretapping stuff came out. It's only natural, isn't it?

So he's not even doing anything different than normal. He's not doing anything any other President wouldn't do. He's not revealing new information all of a sudden. And he's not doing anything wrong, either, by continuing to mention successes we've had in the War on Terror when making a speech about the same...

You guys need to pick your battles better than this.

This is coming off as quite ridiculous.

Bush may not be the brightest nickle on the block, but he's not stupid either. He, or maybe Carl Rove, realizes how this will play with the public. He doesn't have to say that the attack was prevented by the NSA surveillance program - the people will not discern the difference - not all of the people but a bunch of them - including ones that really matter - soccer moms.

Sort of like how Bush made a lot of statements about Iraq and 9/11 that were technically true, but misled most people into thinking Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11.

More paranoia from the left.

They did not try to convince people Iraq had a connection with 9/11, subtly or not. In fact, Bush said himself DIRECTLY, several times that there was no evidence Iraq had anything to do with planning 9/11, and going into Iraq wasn't about that.

If one is trying to convince the American people of something through subtle means, it's not a good idea to come out and say the exact opposite clearly and repeatedly, is it?

Democrat revisionism...Oh B.S. The administration (mostly through Cheney) stated many times that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, whom we all know equals the guys behind 9/11.

Sort of like how Bush made a lot of statements about Iraq and 9/11 that were technically true, but misled most people into thinking Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11.

Of course he did. I saw a poll the other day where a majority of the American people thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

You have to be very naive or a total Bushite not to accept the fact that Bush's comments on the thread topic had a political motive behind it.

Be afraid, be very afriad.

:lol: You certainly are. I think paranoid might be a better word, though.

This administration is beating the war drums once again and we must not allow it to happen. The NSA wiretap leak was purposeful, as it places national security at the forefront of discussions.

Making a charge like this is serioius, and one shouldn't do so unless they have some sort of evidence to back them up. You have posted none, and I'd bet you have none. You shouldn't post explosive charges as if they are fact when they are nothing more than paranoid supposition. Typical DailyKos style tactic, though...

The NSA leak has been extremely dangerous and harmful to our intelligence gathering ability in the War on Terror. It is a very serious thing, and many rightly consider it as being treason.(especially if it is found legal, which is likely will be) To say that the leak was intentional by the administration without any evidence to support that is just irresponsible.

This adminstration is currently trying to influence public opinion on two fronts. First, they are once again trying to scare us into believeing that we are in constant danger of attack, as this is the only way the republicans can keep from getting sent packing in November.

They don't have to "try" and convince us we're under the threat of constant attack. Our enemies in Al Qaeda outright SAY so at every opportunity, and try to DO so often. We have thwarted over 10 major terrorist attacks since 9/11, including three on our soil(this was as of last year, so it's probably more now) - just read the 9/11 Commission report. Or just read some of Al Qaeda's statements. Or look at other places all over the world that continue to get attacked, from London, to Madrid to Bali to elsewhere.

To act like we're somehow out of danger of attack is just silly. Tens of thousands of people trained at CAMPS for the express and stated purpose of killing as many Americans as possible. In fact, it is their highest religious calling to do so, and they've acted on that belief and continue to act on that belief. So why act like the danger has passed? Why should Bush? That would be a lie, and for what reason?

Second, they are trying to gain support for military action against Iran. I believe I read a poll that almost 60% of Americans believe Iran is a direct threat to the US. Obviously the first example greatly helps with the second example as well.

I don't think they need to do much convincing on Iran. Aren't Iran's actions quite enough to justify military action if necessary? Or are you arguing that it is some kind of "manufactured" threat by Bush? That's what you seem to be arguing. Even France and the rest of the weenies at the UN are talking very tough on Iran, unlike they did with Iraq.

Iran is actively thumbing its nose at the world and trying to build a nuclear weapon - and they're admiiting it! And their new President has said provocative things such as Isreal should be "wiped off the map" and other war-like statements. Combine this with the fact that their new President is start of a sect that believes that if they can create enough Chaos and strife in the world that they can hasten the return of the "hidden Imam", who will bring about a whole Islamic World, and you've got a very scary situation when this guy is building nukes despite what the rest of the world says. Their sect believes they can bring about the return of the "hidden Imam" in two years by creating Global strife...

Iran is very serious. If Bush is trying to make that known to the publice, then GOOD. It's absolutely true. And he's talking no different than Jacque Chirac and other world leaders on this one.

I am sure this post will be flamed, but this administration has used this method over and over again on every issue. For what they lack in Governing skills, they sure make-up for in getting their message out and controlling public opinion. They are by far the most efficient administration ever at controlling public opinion.

:lol:

REALLY? Gee, I guess they WANT the President to have low approval ratings for six months, then?

I'm sorry, but your post was long on paranoid ravings but short on any actual evidence or common sense to back them up.

announcement: The act of making known publicly.

It was an announcement!

How can Bush "make known publically" something that is ALREADY KNOWN PUBLICALLY and has been for two years?

Are you guys serious with this stuff?

At least Carl Rove knew it. ;)

It's KARL Rove.

And this is about the most paranoid bit of "controversy" I've ever seen you guys come up with...

What I don't understand is why the Repubs here are so upset that it's being made known about the terrorist plot bust. Whatever the motives, it helps your guy's case. The average American is not going to disect the underlying political motives behind the statement, they will just see the reinforcing view that Bush is the almighty protector. It's his strong point and it's smart that they're going back to that. As c-man said, the soccer/security mom's will take notice.

I don't have a problem with something like this being made known.

I think Bush has every right to tout successes, as every President has for anything. Bill Clinton was a master at this - he couldn't make a single speech without rattling off a bunch of stuff about how much he'd "increased funding for this" and "started an agency for that", etc.

So what? And yes, especially when the media, the entertainment industry, and others keep pounding negative on the War on Terror, one has every right to defend that War by telling some of the positive aspects about it as well.

If Bush had "announced" this as a brand new thing right now I wouldn't think there was anything bad about it, as it would certainly be his right to try and counter all the doom and gloom from the left with some of the positive facts as well, wouldn't it?

So I'm not "upset" that this was said, I'm perplexed that you gusy are making such a big deal about it - both because of what I just wrote above, but also because this very clearly, if you read the actual speech, was not an "announcement" of any kind.

One can't "ANNOUNCE" something that everybody has known for two years!

I and others already knew about this - it wasn't "news" to us. Probably because we don't screen out our successes in the War on Terror and only let the negative stuff filter in.

:lol: Yet its the headline on every paper in the country.

Duh.

You remember that whole proven-by-multiple studies and polls "liberal media" thing, don't you?

Bush gave many reasons, after the first one didn't prove to be true, for going into Iraq. :lol:

More nonsense.

He gave many reasons both BEFORE AND after the WMD thing proved faulty intelligence.

He made entire speeches about bringing Freedom to the Middle East as a goal - speeches that made that the centerpiece and barely mentioned WMD, BEFORE the invasion.

But there you guys go again, trying to rewrite history because you're not very good at paying attention, as in this current thread as well.

Oh B.S. The administration (mostly through Cheney) stated many times that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, whom we all know equals the guys behind 9/11.

And what's the problem there? There WAS a clear connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That's absolutely true, and was a reason for going to War.

But Bush even said, before the invasion, multiple times in speeches and interviews, that he is NOT saying that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. What he IS saying was that Iraq had a connection with Al Qaeda.

He made the distinction plainly, and flat out, multiple times on national television.

The Administration even corrected Ted Kennedy one time when Kennedy was ranting there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, like the administration was "claiming" - they said that they weren't and hadn't claimed that at all, had in fact said the opposite, and made the distinction that they were saying Iraq had a connection to Al Qaeda, NOT 9/11.

I don't see how one can fault Bush on this.

It seems to be yet another case of faulting Bush, even though he told the truth and even made distinctions, because some people weren't paying attention.

Bush gave many reasons, after the first one didn't prove to be true, for going into Iraq. :lol:
Absolutely untrue. It's been posted again and again and again on here the pre-war speeches that showed all the reasons for going in. Perhaps you need to refresh your classic memory.

A simple yes or no from General Zod, natesfortunate, and the other Bushites on this forum:

Do you believe the Congress of the United States would have given Bush a war resolution if they knew in advance that there no WMDs in Iraq & didn't have an active nuclear program underway? Do you seriously believe that the the Congress of the United States would have given Bush a war resolution simply to bring freedom to the Middle East?

Do you believe Bush would have sought a war resolution if he knew in advance that...?

Do you believe Bush would have sought a war resolution if he knew in advance that...?

:hscratch:

Apparently a few folks on this forum do, because they're now giving 'to bring freedom to the Middle East' as the reason for the invasion.

Half the american population believed that Saddam/Iraq were responsible or had a connection with 911. The Bush admin, although they never stated a direct link and might even have said that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, did a very effective job of constantly blurring the line between 9/11, Al Quaeda, and Iraq. That was a major part of the sell job for the Iraq war the Bush admin did to the American people and the rest of the world. To argue that this wasn't done on purpose or that Americans were supposed to go and find speech transcripts after the fact, fine comb and analyze every word and sentence and then come to the conclusion that no connection was ever made or implied is just silly.

As for the current issue, I'm gonna have to go with who cares. That's just what politicians do.

So I'm not "upset" that this was said, I'm perplexed that you gusy are making such a big deal about it -
Who has more posts in this thread? Someone obviously DOES think this is a big deal. ;)

both because of what I just wrote above, but also because this very clearly, if you read the actual speech, was not an "announcement" of any kind.

One can't "ANNOUNCE" something that everybody has known for two years!

I and others already knew about this - it wasn't "news" to us. Probably because we don't screen out our successes in the War on Terror and only let the negative stuff filter in.
I hadn't heard about this before the speech the other day. Maybe that's because I get my news from the lefty liberal media, but so does Joe Six Pack. Not everyone pours over conservative news sources like Republicans on this board, so given that it wasn't in mainstream news media, it's now news to the general public. I don't claim to speak for the carbon blobs, I'm just one of them throwing out my take from my experiences and I hadn't heard of this before it hit the media the other day.

Bush has said numerous times that there were no links between Iraq and 9/11(which is true)

Bush has also said there were links between Iraq and Alquida(also true).

People in this thread appear to have short memories or selective amnesia.

As for the current issue, I'm gonna have to go with who cares. That's just what politicians do.

I agree, but the Bush folks on this forum seem to believe, or at least say they do, that Bush's remarks weren't politically motivated, when a blind man can see the political motivation behind the remarks.

A simple yes or no from General Zod, natesfortunate, and the other Bushites on this forum:

Do you believe the Congress of the United States would have given Bush a war resolution if they knew in advance that there no WMDs in Iraq & didn't have an active nuclear program underway? Do you seriously believe that the the Congress of the United States would have given Bush a war resolution simply to bring freedom to the Middle East?

No, I don't.

But what is this question supposed to prove? Everybody, including Bush and Congress, though Iraq DID have WMD.

So what were they supposed to do?

A simple yes or no from General Zod, natesfortunate, and the other Bushites on this forum:

Do you believe the Congress of the United States would have given Bush a war resolution if they knew in advance that there no WMDs in Iraq & didn't have an active nuclear program underway? Do you seriously believe that the the Congress of the United States would have given Bush a war resolution simply to bring freedom to the Middle East?
No.

Nor do I think Bush would have pushed so hard to go into Iraq if he truly didn't feel they were a threat. I've been very consistant about this. I think with the overwhelming evidence pointing to Iraq having WMD's by our own intelligence, and the intel from other countries, I honestly feel Bush felt we had to go in to Iraq to protect ourselves and our allies. I don't deny there was intel showing the contrary, but it was anecdotal in comparison. Add in Iraq booting out the inspectors, the lack of proof Iraq was REQUIRED to provide showing they destroyed weapons, and Saddam's cat and mouse games and I firmly believe Bush had every good reason to go in. To Bush's credit he DID cover his bases in explaining in his pre-war speeches that it wasn't just about wmd's it was also about bringing freedom to the people, stopping Saddam from killing more innocent people (plastic shredding stories come to mind), etc. It was all in there.

I'm not a Bush 'fan'. I HATE his border amnesty policies and his wild spending habits. However I thought his decision to go in was a damn good one at the time, and I don't think it's fair to take what we know today and try it apply it to what was known then.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1602195

Malaysia holding LA's al Qaeda plotters
Reuters
ISLAMABAD - Malaysia is holding several members of an al Qaeda suicide cell that U.S. President George W. Bush says planned to launch a September 11-style attack on Los Angeles, a security official familiar with the case told Reuters.

The plot to hijack a plane and fly it into Los Angeles' tallest building was set in motion a month after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, and was thwarted in early 2002, according to Bush.

A Southeast Asian intelligence official said at least three members of a Southeast Asian cell earmarked to carry out the attack on the West Coast were being held in Malaysia under the Internal Security Act, which allows detention without trial.

"One guy was given money to go for pilot training," said the official, who has proven reliable in the past.

He said the would-be pilot, Zaini Zakaria, was arrested in 2002, and the others were probably chosen to play supporting roles in the hijacking.

Members of the cell fled to Malaysia from Afghanistan after the United States began bombing al Qaeda and Taliban forces there in October 2001.

"They were told to... await instructions. They were supposed to meet up again to carry out a second (suicide airliner) operation," the official said.

MALAYSIA HOLDING 66

Diplomats say security agencies in mostly Muslim Malaysia were very cooperative in sharing counter-terrorism intelligence information with their U.S. counterparts after September 11, 2001.

Malaysia is holding 66 detainees suspected of links to al Qaeda and its Southeast Asian branch, Jemaah Islamiah.

The Malaysian government declined to comment.

"We don't comment on detainees or divulge information concerning detainees," a spokesman for the office of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.

According to Frances Townsend, Bush's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, the West Coast plot was initially to have been part of the September 11 attacks.

But al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden decided to focus on the East Coast as it was too difficult to get operatives for both.

The planned attack on Los Angeles was hatched by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, who was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and is in U.S. custody.

The hijack team was recruited by Jemaah Islamiah commander Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, who was arrested in August 2003 near Bangkok and is also in U.S. custody.

The hijackers were to use bombs hidden in shoes to breach the cockpit door of an airplane before flying it into Los Angeles' 1,017-feet (310-meter) high Library Tower, now the US Bank Tower.

The cell was broken and the arrests made between 2002 and 2003.

MORE ALERT TO ARABS

"It was a legit plot," said Ken Conboy, a Jakarta-based security expert who has written several books on defense, intelligence and security issues. "Whether they would have been able to get these guys actually in the States is another deal.

"It was envisioned as a second wave after 9/11, and he (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) wanted to use Southeast Asians because he thought they could get into the U.S. and hijack the planes more so than Arabs because the U.S. would be more on alert to Arabs after 9/11," Conboy said.

In December 2001, Malaysia made its first breakthrough against al Qaeda in Southeast Asia with the arrest of Yazid Sufaat, a former Malaysian army captain, who recently returned from Afghanistan.

Sufaat hosted two of September 11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, when they passed through Kuala Lumpur almost a year before the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

He is also believed to have supplied money and travel documents in Malaysia to Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan descent who was arrested in the United States before the September 11 attacks.

Moussaoui denies he was to have participated in the September 11 strikes but says he was part of a broader conspiracy to conduct subsequent attacks.

(Additional re[porting by Jerry Norton in Jakarta)


Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures


Hope they don't bust out of jail, but rather die of 2 self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head.

:hscratch:

Apparently a few folks on this forum do, because they're now giving 'to bring freedom to the Middle East' as the reason for the invasion.

As one of the reasons for the invasion, sure. Because it was. What's wrong with that?

Must one only have one singular reason to undertake any action?

And who's more correct? Those of us that acknowledge that there WERE other reasons stated for invading Iraq? Or those of you who act as if those other reasons weren't mentioned until AFTER the WMD thing didn't pan out, which is verifiably untrue?

I agree, but the Bush folks on this forum seem to believe, or at least say they do, that Bush's remarks weren't politically motivated, when a blind man can see the political motivation behind the remarks.

Well duh! Of course it's politically motivated.

Half the american population believed that Saddam/Iraq were responsible or had a connection with 911. The Bush admin, although they never stated a direct link and might even have said that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, did a very effective job of constantly blurring the line between 9/11, Al Quaeda, and Iraq. That was a major part of the sell job for the Iraq war the Bush admin did to the American people and the rest of the world. To argue that this wasn't done on purpose or that Americans were supposed to go and find speech transcripts after the fact, fine comb and analyze every word and sentence and then come to the conclusion that no connection was ever made or implied is just silly.

As for the current issue, I'm gonna have to go with who cares. That's just what politicians do.

You are correct - half the people thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11. But it's not Bush's fault that so many people simply don't pay attention.

He said multiple times, not just buried in speeches, like the item we're talking about here, but in Nationally televised interviews when directly asked by big name journalists, that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. What more does a guy have to do?

No, I don't.

But what is this question supposed to prove? Everybody, including Bush and Congress, though Iraq DID have WMD.

So what were they supposed to do?

That's untrue. Everybody most assuredly didn't think Iraq had WMDs. There were a number of people on this forum (maybe it was the other forum then) who didn't believe they existed, and so posted their beliefs.

I'll admit my reason for opposing the war wasn't that I didn't believe he had some WMDs, I did. I just didn't believe the threat from Saddam was that great and that immediate; and, I so posted that, a number of times, on this forum.

And who's more correct? Those of us that acknowledge that there WERE other reasons stated for invading Iraq? Or those of you who act as if those other reasons weren't mentioned until AFTER the WMD thing didn't pan out, which is verifiably untrue?

Those of us who believe that those were the reasons used to sell the war and not the real geo-political reasons. Of course this made perfect sense because you'd have a hard time selling a war to the masses when the reaction to your stated reasons is "huh?". :)

Those of us who believe that those were the reasons used to sell the war and not the real geo-political reasons. Of course this made perfect sense because you'd have a hard time selling a war to the masses when the reaction to your stated reasons is "huh?". :)

Why didn't Bush opt to bring Democracy to Africa?

Why didn't Bush opt to bring Democracy to Africa?

Is this a trick question or are you trying to support my position? :)

Why didn't Bush opt to bring Democracy to Africa?
Who's being called "black and white" thinkers again?

Who's being called "black and white" thinkers again?

It has something to do with black - oil is black.

It has something to do with black - oil is black.

Are you serious?

Do you want to go through(yet again) the reasons we had to attack Iraq and not Africa. And how have we benefitted one whit from Iraq's oil post-invasion?

How about the reasons we know, versus the paranoia you're making up as reasons... Here's just a few:

1. Iraq was in violation of our cease fire agreement and treaty terms with them - Africa was not.

2. Saddam had invaded two other countries - Africa had not.

3. The Middle East is the region we're trying to change. Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East, in a strategic place, right next to Iran, and we had other reasons to attack it as well. Africa doesn't fit this criteria.

4. Iraq had used WMD before. Africa has not.

5. Iraq had violated 17 UN resolutions, no country in Africa, as far as I know, had done the same.

6. Iraq was a terror sponsor - training camps at Salmon Pak, Ansar Al-Islam in the North, and paying the parents of suicide bombers in Israel. Some nations in Africa had helped terrort, but not to this extent, and none had the other "reasons" as well - aside from Libya, which disarmed after our invasion of Iraq, and said that our invasion of Iraq was their reason for doing so.

7. Hussein had openly celebrated the 9/11 attacks, and had links with Al Qaeda.

8. Our own intelligence, and the intelligence of every other major nation, thought Hussein still had WMD.

9. Iraq was not cooperating with the UN investigation into their WMD program, throwing the inspectors out and not complying fully even with threat of invasion.

I could go on, as you know, but you already knew all these reasons.

Iraq not only had WMD as far as we knew, but also had many other strategic reasons to attack it as well as many reasons to justify doing so.

Africa did not fit these criteria.

Well said nate.

Not only that, not everything is a nail that requires the hammer of the US military.

This admin(according to a Tony Blair interview in Time 7/05) is tying reforms in Africa and improvement of people's lives to the aid that Africa receives. This over the long haul will help more than just throwing more money at the corupt leaders over there.

Is this a trick question or are you trying to support my position? :)

I support your position.

Africa (central) doesn't produce oil. The Persian Gulf produces a bunch of it. Central Africa is not in the national interest of the United States. The Persian Gulf is a vital national interest of the United States. Reason - oil. I certainly hope Bush follows an interest driven foreign policy. His father most assuredly did.

We wouldn't have fought a war in central Africa regardless of who invaded who. We did fight the Gulf War. Why?

There's a hell of lot more killing being done in Africa than Saddam ever thought about doing in Iraq.

Anyone who believes that our primary interest in the Persian Gulf is not oil is smoking something.

Anyone who believes that our primary interest in the Persian Gulf is not oil is smoking something.
Sure it is. But it's not what we were talking about, which was going into Iraq. And it was NOT our primary reason for going in there reguardless of what your god, Michael Moore, may say ;)

You're reaching.

Bush has also said there were links between Iraq and Alquida(also true).

Yes, just like there's a link between you and me (DVDTalk forum members, doctors). While "true", it tells you nothing about the nature of our link, nor that we have COMPLETELY opposite views.

There's also a link between the U.S. and Iraq. U.S. and Osama Bin Laden too. So your point is...?

Oil interests may not have been the direct cause in the Iraq invasion. But preservation of our oil interests in the Mid-East was certainly the factor that allowed it to happen vs. central Africa. That's the small but important distinction I believe classicman is getting at.

The identical situation could have occurred in central Africa and we would not invade because there is not the supporting oil interest.

As an example:
I go to McDonald's to get a cheeseburger because I'm hungry. Now I could have gone to Burger King as well... I mean, I'm hungry, and Burger King has food. But I went to McDonald's because they were running a 39 cent cheeseburger special. I was hungry either way and the driving factor that led me to invade the McDonald's menu instead of Burger King or eating at home was the 39 cent special. Now, just because the 39 cent special gave me the runs and has turned into a nasty mess, that doesn't mean I have to immediately run out to Burger King. I will get hungry again, but the insurgency of the cheeseburger has left a bad taste in my mouth and a stress on my bowels and I'd rather stay home for a while.

Would it have been better to invade the Burger King menu? I mean, I was hungry! But alas... burger king doesn't have the 39 cent offer to tempt me out of my own kitchen. So while the situation (hunger) is the same, I am not necessarily inclined to give aid to BK because there isn't much else for me.

Now, Michael Moore may say we went to McDonald's for the hunger alone and that the 39 cent special was just a fabricated excuse. Well, that's Michael Moore. (whew, I worked it in somehow!)

The Bush admin, although they never stated a direct link and might even have said that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq

:hscratch:

Cheney: "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney again: "We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

And again: "With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.


Note: The Prague connection was immediately and overwhelmingly debunked. Cheney still won't admit he propped up the lie.

Sorry, there should be two "might" in my statement, not just one. But it's really irrelevant to the point I was making. Direct or implied, these links were certainly used to sell the war in Iraq.

Don't confuse our Bush can do no wrong friends with facts. :lol:

Don't confuse our Bush can do no wrong friends with facts. :lol:
I don't know if this whole thing was about oil. At least not the leading reason. I think these folks around Bush really drank the kool aid that we can reshape the ME with the might of the US military. That, if you have good intentions, an offensive war can do good things for people. I don't think the majority of the Congress of the American public would agree with those ideas, but I honestly believe they (the hawks in the admin) did feel that way.

I don't know if this whole thing was about oil. At least not the leading reason. I think these folks around Bush really drank the kool aid that we can reshape the ME with the might of the US military. That, if you have good intentions, an offensive war can do good things for people. I don't think the majority of the Congress of the American public would agree with those ideas, but I honestly believe they (the hawks in the admin) did feel that way.

But why would we want the ME to be a Democracy and friendly to the US? So we can keep the oil supply running AND so they could buy our goods and services. It all comes back to the oil - not altruism.

VinVega,

You sound like Pharoh. ;)

Of course one can argue the reason that George W. was so pissed-off at Saddam for trying to kill his daddy, that he invaded the country. ;)

Seriously - I do believe George H. W. did have some influence on George W. about Iraq, since he just possibly came to believe that he left the job undone at the end of the Gulf War, and left it to George W. to correct that mistake.

Of course one can argue the reason that George W. was so pissed-off at Saddam for trying to kill his daddy, that he invaded the country. ;)

Seriously - I do believe George H. W. did have some influence on George W. about Iraq, since he just possibly came to believe that he left the job undone at the end of the Gulf War, and left it to George W. to correct that mistake.
There's something to that, I agree.

But why would we want the ME to be a Democracy and friendly to the US? So we can keep the oil supply running AND so they could buy our goods and services. It all comes back to the oil - not altruism.
You know the Republic of Venice in the Middle Ages believed war was an extension of commerce. At least they were honest about how they felt. ;)

:hscratch:

Cheney: "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney again: "We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

And again: "With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.


Note: The Prague connection was immediately and overwhelmingly debunked. Cheney still won't admit he propped up the lie.

You're not telling the truth, CRM.

The Prague connection was neither "immediately" nor "overwhelmingly" debunked. In fact, what Cheney said was absolutely true, and honest - "we just don't know", but there was strong evidence for it, especially at the time.

We didn't get to the point of there being "doubt" about it until in 2004 - well after the invasion. But even so, that doubt is mostly based on us not being able to find out definitively, mostly because of a leak.

But we still know this - Atta was in Prague at least twice, and possibly three times. He was captured on Closed Circuit TV while there, and seen by witnesses, at least one of whom says they saw him with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He staid at an uknown private residence his second trip there, and just days after his visit tens of thousands of dollars were transferred into his American and German bank accounts.

The CIA is convinced that Atta’s terrorist group must have been led by professionals from an intelligence service, perhaps Iraq’s. U.S. experts believe that during the two aforementioned Prague visits, the execution of the terrorist action was to be confirmed. Atta was to visit Prague a third time in April 2001. The Czech secret service received from one of its informers a warning that Al-Ani, the Iraqi consul, was to meet with a “distinguished Arab student” from Hamburg—this is information that up until now was top secret. BIS monitored the meeting: The men met in a Prague restaurant on the evening of April 8. To this day, it remains unclear whether this “Hamburg student” was Atta. Yet again, three days after that meeting, $100,000 arrived in Atta’s Florida account.

In his report a year ago, Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general of the U.S. Justice Department, rejected the possibility of Atta’s April visit. In the document, he asserted that two days before the supposed Prague meeting, Atta flew from Virginia Beach to New York and, 70 hours later, was again in Florida. Atta could have managed the Prague meeting only with difficulty. Yet, according to new and as yet unpublished information from U.S. security services, there exists no record of Atta’s movement from the beginning of March 2001 to the end of April of that year.

“At first we checked only two days around April 8, when Al-Ani had the meeting with the supposed student who is believed to be Atta. Considering new information from the United States about Atta’s six-week disappearance, we have broadened our inquiry to an extended time frame; that means checking tens of thousands of records of airplane passengers and hotel guests,” a BIS operative asserts. “Atta could have simply come here a lot sooner than when he met with Al-Ani. He could have had a series of meetings in Germany and then in Prague, where the final details of the action were worked out,” he adds.
The Capture of Al-Ani

On July 9 of this year, the Americans captured Ahmed al-Ani in Baghdad, and he has been held since then in a temporary jail at the Baghdad airport. “Al-Ani refuses to make a statement. We have information that he was an intelligence officer with the power to