President's approval rating Sags

[Clare Whitbeck]

Originally posted by Ken King
Okay, finally got to the blank pages. Unsure of what they could possibvly state as they are truly blank with about 10 to 15 words remaining on the 28 pages. .

The New York Times had an article containing information from people who supposedly have seen the pages (no quotes). If you are interested, and if someone will tell me how to include an attachment, I'll send it along.
Clare

 

[Kain99]

Clare... I'd like to see it. Above the text box you will see an http:// button.

Click http:// In the first box type a line of text. "This is what I promised" etc.

When the second box appears delete the http:// that appears in the box.

Then paste the link.

 

[Ken King]

Why not just type the URL, select the check button below the text box saying "Automatically parse URLs: automatically adds and around internet addresses."

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
The New York Times had an article containing information from people who supposedly have seen the pages (no quotes). If you are interested, and if someone will tell me how to include an attachment, I'll send it along.
Clare

Is this it: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/26/national/26SAUD.html
Or this one: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-intelligence.html

 

[Clare Whitbeck]

It's the first one. Thanks for your help.
Clare

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by Ken King
Why not just type the URL, select the check button below the text box saying "Automatically parse URLs: automatically adds and around internet addresses."

Cause... that would make it easy.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
The New York Times had an article containing information from people who supposedly have seen the pages (no quotes). If you are interested, and if someone will tell me how to include an attachment, I'll send it along.
Clare

The 28 missing pages? As the report states the information in those pages was not tested for reliability or sufficiency. More importantly, for me, is that it was marked as highly classified and as such it shouldn’t be publicly discussed by those trusted to view it. I’m sure that there are reasons for the classification and thus the required protection of that material.

I have read reports before wondering as to why the information was classified. It wasn’t until it was taken into context with other bits of data that the reason became obvious. I already can imagine what some of those reasons are.

 

[Clare Whitbeck]

Congressional Report

Now the Saudi's want the entire report released. Hmmm. Interesting.
Clare

 

[Ken King]

Re: Congressional Report

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
Now the Saudi's want the entire report released. Hmmm. Interesting.
Clare

Probably so they can disprove the inaccurate information. Hell the team that put the report together said "this Joint Inquiry has made no final determinations as to the reliability or sufficiency of the information regarding these issues", why the hell was it even in there if they don't know if it is true?

 

[Clare Whitbeck]

Have you ever served on a committee where there was no agreement as to an issue? The language you described is the language you use if everbody can't agree. They didn't say the items weren't accurate either. They just chose not to say.
Now the Saudi's want them to say. As I said before, hmmmm.
Clare

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
Have you ever served on a committee where there was no agreement as to an issue? The language you described is the language you use if everbody can't agree. They didn't say the items weren't accurate either. They just chose not to say.
Now the Saudi's want them to say. As I said before, hmmmm.
Clare

Nope, every group I have been part of was always able to identify the issue(s), now as to solutions, that is a different story. The language that the report used is extremely clear that they neither had the authority nor the ability to ascertain whether or not the Saudi Arabian government played a hand in 9/11. I would say that it is unlikely that the Kingdom played an active role; this doesn’t mean that persons employed by the Kingdom didn’t assist. Of course the Saudis want to know what the inquiry team speculated, but I think that our President, with the advice of his staff (more than likely the State Department), did the right thing by censoring that information until it can be verified or proven false. Not having read it myself I can’t form an opinion one way or another as to how damning the 28 pages are or if they even shed any light as to any foreign nations involvement.

 

[Clare Whitbeck]

AlQeada

Hi Ken,

Originally posted by Ken King
Yep, we took an Al Qeada site northeast of Baghdad shortly after the war began. Many other links showing connections if you do a basic search.

Here's the information I've been able to find on the subject:
One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead to any subsequent contact that U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up. According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."
You and I are getting different facts. Can you tell me what the source of your information that Al Qeada camps were captured was?
Clare

 

[Ken King]

Re: AlQeada

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
Hi Ken,

Here's the information I've been able to find on the subject:
One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead to any subsequent contact that U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up. According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."
You and I are getting different facts. Can you tell me what the source of your information that Al Qeada camps were captured was?
Clare

The clearest and most direct source that comes to mind was carried within an interview conducted by Dan Rather with Tariq Aziz I believe about a year ago when Aziz stated that there were Al Qaeda members operating in the northern regions of Iraq.

The Director of the CIA, George Tenet, has testified before Congressional hearings that Al Qaeda is operating there and I would put more weight in his knowledge of what has or is taking place than that of Mr. Thielman. Any idea as to why Thielman is a former employee. Tenet is a carry-over appointee from the previous administration, any chance that there is a little animosity over being replaced?

Congress also declared that Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq and specifically stated so in PL 107-243 when they authorized the President to use military force against Iraq.

I really find your tactic boring, as well as naïve. Do you honestly think that we, the public, have been made privy to all the data and information concerning the activities and associations of Al Qaeda or Iraq? I sure don’t. I think that with the ongoing war on terrorism a lot of information is being withheld for obvious security and operational concerns.

BTW I noticed that you immediately jumped on the wagon when speculation and innuendo were directed at Saudi Arabia and yet at the same time you adamantly discredit the connection with Iraq. Care to explain that? Why do you ignore proof in one instance and require none whatsoever in another?

Prove me wrong if you can, I can be swayed with facts and truth. At this point in time I am not buying into this conspiracy theory that you and many, that for no other reason that I can perceive other then they hate Bush, are trying to advance.

 

[Clare Whitbeck]

Hi Ken,
This may come as a surprise to you, but I am not trying to prove you wrong. I really don't know anything about national and international politics. I am receiving information and trying to sort it out. You are very helpful.
As to Saudi Arabia, I agree with the Saudi's. How can they defend themselves when they (andwe) do not know what the charges are? It appears that in the past Saudi charities were making some odd contributions that wound up with Al Qeada. Their foreign minister said that after the redacted report was made public. But he also said they have changed their laws in an attempt to curtail such activity.
One more thing - if the public cannot be allowed to know the facts, how are we supposed to make our choice when it's time to vote? Richard Nixon made it clear that we cannot always believe our elected officials, and Clinton put another nail in that coffin. On what basis are we to chose elected officials?
Clare

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
One more thing - if the public cannot be allowed to know the facts, how are we supposed to make our choice when it's time to vote? Richard Nixon made it clear that we cannot always believe our elected officials, and Clinton put another nail in that coffin. On what basis are we to chose elected officials?
Clare

I'll be honest.... I'm floored! You Clare, do not have a "Need to Know" You're level of curiosity does not supersede, United States National Security. You do not now - nor have you ever been afforded the luxury of reading Top Secret Information. The argument you make is ridiculous.

As for your question regarding choosing you're elected official..... Do what you've always done. Vote your party line.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Kain99
Do what you've always done. Vote your party line.

*whew*

Clare, I'd prefer you voted for John Kerry rather than jeopardize our national security.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Clare Whitbeck
As to Saudi Arabia, I agree with the Saudi's. How can they defend themselves when they (andwe) do not know what the charges are? It appears that in the past Saudi charities were making some odd contributions that wound up with Al Qeada. Their foreign minister said that after the redacted report was made public. But he also said they have changed their laws in an attempt to curtail such activity.

The Saudis have nothing to prove, the report disqualified itself as being speculative in nature and unverified. Releasing the pages could adversely affect our war against terrorism and may disclose ongoing investigations or operations against active terrorists.

One more thing - if the public cannot be allowed to know the facts, how are we supposed to make our choice when it's time to vote? Richard Nixon made it clear that we cannot always believe our elected officials, and Clinton put another nail in that coffin.

There is a time and place for our knowing which will be after the information is no longer classified. It is obvious that some Saudi nationals have a desire to injure/destroy us, but not all of them. There is a major radical movement within the Muslim world but not all Muslims are part to it. Those that choose violence are being systematically hunted down. After the Riyadh bombings the Saudis realized that they are not immune to the diabolic desires of these menaces.

We are in a time of changing foreign diplomacy. When it comes to terrorists Bush is right, you’re with us or against us. No middle of the road crap. 9/11 was a dropping of the gauntlet by the extremists, the nation, not just Bush, picked it up. Something that has been long overdue.

On what basis are we to chose elected officials?

I always select them based on how they match my expectations of how the government should be involved in our lives. Learn as much as you can about them and the things that matter to you. I would hope that it was a differing standard for all but far too many kowtow to the party instead of deciding for themselves.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King
The Saudis have nothing to prove, the report disqualified itself as being speculative in nature and unverified.

So what you're saying is that it will be revealed in next years state of the union address?

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
So what you're saying is that it will be revealed in next years state of the union address?

What I suspect will happen is that several, if not all, of the Democratic candidates for the Presidency will be falling all over each other to leak the classified information to anyone and everyone (including our enemies). In the process I am sure that they will hail it as factual even if the report itself indicates that it is only speculation at best.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King
In the process I am sure that they will hail it as factual even if the report itself indicates that it is only speculation at best.

They were taught by the best. After 8 years of Clinton and 4 years of Bush, this should now be second nature.