The long arm of the Patriot Act allows U.S. authorities to access the personal information of Canadians if it ends up in the United States or if it is held by U.S. companies in Canada, David Loukidelis concludes in his report.
"Our research and analysis led us to the conclusion that the USA Patriot Act knows no borders," he said at a news conference.
It's sick. I don't even get to vote against Bush, and he creates a law that affects me directly. Saddam might have been a screwed up man with a little power, but Bush is a totally messed up individual with way to much power and too low of an IQ. He should be flipping burgers at McDs, with supervision that is... he'd probably spit in every burger otherwise.
__________________
Canada based Web Design Forums. Join us in the fun today!
In a formal whistle-blower complaint filed last week, Greenhouse alleged the award of contracts without competition to KBR puts at risk “the integrity of the federal contracting program as it relates to a major defense contractor.” The contracts were to restore Iraq’s oil industry.
Among the evidence cited in the complaint was an internal 2003 Pentagon e-mail that says the Iraq contract “has been coordinated” with Cheney’s White House office.
The vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation from when he was Halliburton’s chief executive in the late 1990s, has steadfastly maintained he has played no role in the selection of his former company for federal business.
"
what is the reason we went to war again?, it keeps flip-flopping
you know what might be the disappointing part, oil prices didn't even go down
I mean the first thing we secured was the oilfields and the oil ministry, yet the prices still got higher WTF
All that tax money goes for an oil war and we don't even get to share in the spoils
Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
Quote:
Oct 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Quote:
Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
Quote:
Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Quote:
Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."
Quote:
Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Isn't Bush supossed to be good friends with the damn Saudis...
Meanwhile, gas is way over $2.00 per gallon. I feel bad for people with giant SUV's. I get >20 MPG and I pay almost $200 per month in gas.
Gee, sure seems to blow a hole in the this theory doesn't it.
Quote:
However, I look at something like that Saudi deal below, and I can't help but feel that we're being charitable. We've been saying Bush lied about the war (and he did) - but it turns out he lied about the war, compromised national security, and struck a deal with a terrorist-supporting state, a real one, for cheap oil prices near election time. The darkly insinuated (and stated) reason for offense at Kerry's "foreign leaders" remark was that Kerry was going to somehow sell out our national security for their support, that he'd promised them things if they'd just do things to support his presidential run.
True, isn't Kerry on the Senate Intellegence Committee? Of course, his record on that isn't quite the greatest now is it?
Quote:
Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).
please no matter what you say about kerry you just can't spin the iraqi war
there is no wmds
no link to bin ladin
you can't dispute it, you can't spin it
the president messed up and won't admit it
Oh, I see. So Kerry was a proponent of the war when it was politically appealling, but that is not a viable issue for you and your critical thinking. Kerry voted for the war, but again, not an issue, because it does not fit your version of the "facts". Kerry, as a member of the Senate Intellegence committee saw the same compelling evidence of WMD, and yet, he bears no blame for what you label as a mistake.
Perhaps if Kerry had moral clarity or at least a backbone to stand against the popular concensus at the time (keeping in mind he saw intellegence that we have not, nor will, as mere citizens), you may have a claim. Might I remind you that there are three branches of the goverment, and Kerry is running on the experience and judgement that he has gained as a member of the legislative branch. Are you suggesting that his position, his experience, and his statements to convince his constituates does not entitle him to any of the critism?
Amazing logic there. I guess using your logic we can say that Kerry just doesn't have the experience or fortitude for the job then.
we have president who comes from oil country, has run oil companies is funded by oil money, a vice president who ran a huge energy company backed by oil money, and Condi rice was a board member of chevron
we have 911 and after a little stint in Afghanistan, we invade a oil rich country, and give what a 6 billion dollar contract(of out tax money) to the vice presidents old company
I don't think it takes a conspiracy theorist to see a pattern there
first it was the wmds and bin ladin links
then it was to free the iraqi people
what will be when they hold elections and the Iraqis elect someone who tells us to get the hell out
I don't really care about Kerry's views as much as I want to punish the people who started the war, and get them the hell out of power before they cause more death and destruction, for corporate profit
Oh, I see. So Kerry was a proponent of the war when it was politically appealling, but that is not a viable issue for you and your critical thinking. Kerry voted for the war, but again, not an issue, because it does not fit your version of the "facts". Kerry, as a member of the Senate Intellegence committee saw the same compelling evidence of WMD, and yet, he bears no blame for what you label as a mistake.
How many times are we going to hear this spew about Kerry voting for the war. Bush's words when requesting authorization:
Quote:
If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force
So Kerry gives him that, and then Bush turns it around on him. Damn Kerry for trusting in the leader of the country to do what is right and what he says... to "keep the peace".
Quote:
Originally Posted by niceguyeddie
Perhaps if Kerry had moral clarity or at least a backbone to stand against the popular concensus at the time (keeping in mind he saw intellegence that we have not, nor will, as mere citizens), you may have a claim. Might I remind you that there are three branches of the goverment, and Kerry is running on the experience and judgement that he has gained as a member of the legislative branch. Are you suggesting that his position, his experience, and his statements to convince his constituates does not entitle him to any of the critism?
If you think that Kerry or anyone has the same information and intelligence that the President and his inner circle of advisors have you are clueless. That's just not the case. So Kerry and everyone else gets whatever the President decides to let them see. Give me a break.
I don't think it takes a conspiracy theorist to see a pattern there
Right, and the lunar landing was a goverment sponsored hoax because the Kennedy's held stock in the new "Tang" company. It's about as credible as suggesting that Bush conspired with terrorist to kill 3000+ people so that he could eventually invade Iraq, not for cheaper oil for the US, but for the contracts to rebuild Iraq.
Quote:
first it was the wmds and bin ladin links
then it was to free the iraqi people
what will be when they hold elections and the Iraqis elect someone who tells us to get the hell out
Sorta like they did in Afghanistan, right? Our intellegence said Iraq was trying to acquire WMD's. It was stated by the 9/11 commission, British intellegence, as well as Russian intellegence. They even used WMD's on their own people not so long ago, if memory serves.
Also, Al queada is no where near Iraq right now are they? Seems to me that Bin Sauder was a player in one of the Afghanistan camps, but don't let the obvious slow you down from your delusions.
As far as freeing the Iraqi people, you state yourself that they are going to hold elections. I suppose that's never a noble side effect.
Quote:
I don't really care about Kerry's views as much as I want to punish the people who started the war, and get them the hell out of power before they cause more death and destruction, for corporate profit
Problem is Kerry did have a hand in the invasion. Kerry did support the war. Kerry is one of the people in congress that supported the war and convinced his constituates that it was the right thing to do. He represents the great state of Mass, and thus represents the people's view.
I'd have some respect for him on the matter if he would have the courage to stand up for his convictions at the time, rather than changing when the political tea leaves state the opposite.
Last edited by niceguyeddie : 10-29-2004 at 08:07 PM.
How many times are we going to hear this spew about Kerry voting for the war. Bush's words when requesting authorization:
I posted quotes alllllll the way back to the Clinton administration, but instead you only talk about Kerry giving Bush what he wanted. If he opposed the war and the people of his state opposed the war, then he had a duty to show some courage in his convictions (at least his convictions of right now) and vote against it, as well as speak out against it. Did he? No, he supported it, and campaigned for it to a national audience.
Quote:
If you think that Kerry or anyone has the same information and intelligence that the President and his inner circle of advisors have you are clueless. That's just not the case. So Kerry and everyone else gets whatever the President decides to let them see. Give me a break.
Well, then how is it that their Jurisdiction states this:
Quote:
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Iraq was trying to acquire WMDs? Big deal. Let them try. Point is, they DIDN'T HAVE ANY. Haven't found a single thing. And with inspectors in Iraq, they surely weren't about to create any. It was also stated in the 9/11 commision that there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda. bin Laden feels that Saddam is a bad Muslim and did not consider him an ally by any means. The British intelligence was incorrect and that has been admitted.
You are correct about him using WMDs against his own people. One guess who gave him the materials/means to create those weapons.
As for the elections, think they'll be as fair as those just held in Afghanistan? Where 15 of the 16 candidates protested irregularities in voting that favoured US-backed Karzai.
