United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cruz attacks Trump over his moonbat position on GW Bush
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cru ... p-for-attacking-george-w-bush/
Published: Feb 15, 2016
Author: Rebecca Shabad
Post Date: 2016-02-15 15:44:39 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 2112
Comments: 38
Sen. Ted Cruz on Monday said Donald Trump's openness to the idea of impeaching President George W. Bush for the Iraq war was "an extreme and radical position." Speaking to reporters ahead of a rally in Aiken, South Carolina, Cruz went after Trump's comments from the CBS News GOP presidential debate on Saturday night in which he attacked the former president. "On Saturday, one of the strangest moments was when Donald Trump repeatedly attacked George W. Bush and defended his position seeking to impeach George W. Bush," Cruz said Monday. "Now, when he was arguing for the impeachment of George W. Bush, that was not a reasonable position. That was an extreme and radical position and Trump on the debate stage said, well, he thinks George W. Bush made a mistake in Iraq." "Well, under the constitution, you do not impeach a president for a mistake. The constitutional standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors," Cruz added. At Saturday night's debate, moderator John Dickerson alluded to a CNN interview Trump did in 2008 in which he said he was surprised that Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, didn't try to impeach Bush, which Trump said, "personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing." Asked whether he still believes Bush should have been impeached, Trump did not answer the question directly and instead said he gets along with everyone as a businessman. "Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? Now, you can take it any way you want," he eventually said. "So George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We shoulda never been in Iraq." During the debate, Trump also pointed out that The World Trade Center came down under President Bush. On Monday, Cruz also attacked Trump's sister, Maryanne Barry, who he said was appointed by President Bill Clinton to be a federal appellate judge. "Donald's sister was a Bill Clinton-appointed federal appellate judge who is a radical pro-abortion extremist," Cruz said. "Indeed, she wrote an opinion striking down restrictions on partial birth abortion, saying that restricting partial birth abortion was irrational. Even among liberal judges, that position is extreme, and Donald said, his extreme, abortion-supporting sister would make a terrific Supreme Court justice." Trump backed away from that statement on Sunday, saying he suggested it as a joke. Cruz's comments come just days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suddenly died, and less than a week before GOP candidates compete in South Carolina's Republican primary on Saturday.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
In response to Jeb Bush who said in the debate: "While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of what he did." Trump jumped in with the harshest line: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign. Remember that." Truth hurts?
So? Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Trump is right about Bush, he was plainly an idiot or worse and daddy's money and influence put him in the job. The man could hardly put two words together without making himself an object of ridicule. It is convienent to forget that. The electoral system can produce a candidate from nothing because of the super delegate system. How this differs from producing a candidate behind closed doors in a party room I cannot fathom. An illusion of democracy and GWB was a product of that illusion. We will see whether this system yet defeats Trump
What threats did Bush ignore? He had vague threats that Osama Bin laden wanted to attack the US. Geez, anybody walking the streets knew that. He was never given any who, where, or when. There were no times, dates or places. And yet all you can offer is that he was a rich frat dumb frat boy type crap that I could see from everyone with a gender studies degree on DemcraticUnderground. You really think you are offering an intelligent viewpoint? Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Rafael Cruz (center) pro Fidel Castro activist, parades at the University of Texas Austin Cruz is a Castro commie from way back. He came to the US to raise funds for Fidel Castro and support his Cuban Revolution. . He held on to hope for a Fidel victory over the US until 2005, when he reluctantly became a citizen. Ted didn't give up his Canadian citizenship until 2013. I have been in favor of Trump, but you Paultard types are really making me see the error of my ways.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
My point was that Trump didn't just throw that out there. Trump said that in response to JEB'S! claim that his brother kept us safe while Trump was playing on his TV show. A very nice "f**k you" moment.
It hurts them.
Trump Vows Full Investigation Of 9/11 If He Becomes President
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I really doubt expressing an argument that Trump is a troofer is going to help him win.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
He held on to hope for a Fidel victory over the US until 2005 " But, I thought that Ted claimed that his dad was anti-Castro ? This does not seem to square. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
It's just plain wrong to blame Bush for 9-11 . He was in office for 9 months ;the 9-11 attack was planned for years . Don't forget ;when Bush got into office there was a wall that separated communication and cooperation between the various intelligence agencies and law enforcement agenciea . What the CIA knew could not be passed on . http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/ Earlier this month, as fears of new al-Qaida attacks mounted, the Justice Department announced new FBI guidelines that would allow intelligence and law enforcement agents to work together on terrorism investigations. An ACLU spokesman was quick to condemn the guidelines as creating the possibility of "an end run around Fourth Amendment requirements." I used to worry about that possibility myself. Not any more. Because the alternative is to maintain a wall of separation between law enforcement and intelligence. That's what we used to do. And on Sept. 11, 2001, that wall probably cost us 3,000 American lives. There's a quiet scandal at the heart of Sept. 11; one that for different reasons neither the government nor the privacy lobby really wants to talk about. It's this: For two and a half weeks before the attacks, the U.S. government knew the names of two hijackers. It knew they were al-Qaida killers and that they were already in the United States. In fact, the two were living openly under their own names, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. They used those names for financial transactions, flight school, to earn frequent flier miles, and to procure a California identity card. Despite this paper trail, and despite having two and a half weeks to follow the scent, the FBI couldn't locate either man—at least not until Sept. 11, when they flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. If we had found them, there is a real possibility that most or all of the hijackings would have been prevented. The two shared addresses with Mohamed Atta, who flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and Marwan Al-Shehhi, who flew into the South Tower. They were linked to most of the other hijackers as well. So August 2001 offered our last chance to foil the attacks. And if we want to stop the next attack, we need to know what went wrong in August 2001. Despite all the resources of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we did not find two known terrorists living openly. How could we have failed so badly in such a simple, desperate task? We couldn't find al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in August 2001 because we had imposed too many rules designed to protect against privacy abuses that were mainly theoretical. We missed our best chance to save the lives of 3,000 Americans because we spent more effort and imagination guarding against these theoretical privacy abuses than against terrorism. I feel some responsibility for sending the government down that road. In August 2001, the New York FBI intelligence agent looking for al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi didn't have the computer access needed to do the job alone. He requested help from the bureau's criminal investigators and was turned down. Acting on legal advice, FBI headquarters had refused to involve its criminal agents. In an e-mail to the New York agent, headquarters staff said: "If al- Midhar is located, the interview must be conducted by an intel[ligence] agent. A criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. This case, in its entirety, is based on intel[ligence]. If at such time as information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to the proper procedures and turned over for follow-up criminal investigation." In a reply message, the New York agent protested the ban on using law enforcement resources for intelligence investigations in eerily prescient terms: "[S]ome day someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' Let's hope the [lawyers who gave the advice] will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Usama Bin Laden], is getting the most 'protection.' " It breaks my heart to read this exchange. That "wall"—between intelligence and law enforcement—was put in place to protect against a hypothetical risk to civil liberties that might arise if domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence missions were allowed to mix. It was a post-Watergate fix meant to protect Americans, not kill them. In fact, in 1994, after I left my job as general counsel to the National Security Agency, I argued that the wall should be left in place because I accepted the broad assumption that foreign intelligence-gathering tolerates a degree of intrusiveness, harshness, and deceit that Americans do not want applied against themselves. I recognized at the time that these privacy risks were just abstract worries, but I accepted the conventional wisdom: "However theoretical the risks to civil liberties may be, they cannot be ignored." I foresaw many practical problems as well if the wall came down, and I argued for an approach that "preserves, perhaps even raises, the wall between the two communities." I was wrong, but not alone, in assigning a high importance to theoretical privacy risks. In hindsight, that choice seems little short of feckless, for it made the failures of August and September 2001 nearly inevitable. In 2000 and 2001, the FBI office that handled al-Qaida wiretaps in the United States was thrown into turmoil because of the heights to which the wall had been raised. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, the body that oversees national security wiretaps, had ordered strict procedures to ensure that such wiretaps were not contaminated by law enforcement purposes. And when those procedures were not followed strictly, the court barred an FBI agent from the court because his affidavits did not fully list all contacts with law enforcement. This mushroomed into a privacy scandal that set the stage for 9/11. In the spring and summer of 2001, with al-Qaida's preparations growing even more intense, the turmoil grew so bad that national security wiretaps were allowed to lapse—something that had never happened before. It isn't clear what intelligence we missed, but the loss of those wiretaps was treated as less troubling than the privacy scandal that now hung over the antiterrorism effort. The lesson was not lost on the rest of the bureau. According to a declassified Joint Intelligence Committee report on Sept. 11, "FBI personnel involved in FISA matters feared the fate of the agent who had been barred and began to avoid even the most pedestrian contact with personnel in criminal components of the Bureau or DOJ because it could result in intensive scrutiny by the Justice Department office that reviewed national security wiretaps and the FISA Court." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2003/12/wall_nuts. html By his own admission ,Bubba Clintoon said that on a number of occassions he had the opportunity to take out OBL ,and he declined because he had no 'legal standing ' to do so. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
No it is not. Bush was a horrible President. He lied about WMD. I knew it was bullshit. I was laughing when Ollie North was doing his gas mask routine. I knew nothing was going to happen chemical weapons wise. Saddam was letting the inspectors in. No Bush wanted the war. Fuck him. Fuck the dumb asses that supported it. They were some real dumb fucks that supported the war. Like Hillary the cunt. Like Bush the murderer. Like Rumsfeld the dumb ass. Like Tom Ridge the nazi wanna be. The establishment pukes supported it. That is why puke Bush is at such a low perecnt. People hate the Bushes for what they did to the country. Fuck Bush, Fuck everyone who carries Bush's water on these bullshit wars his piece of shit family gets us in. Pit.
Don't forget Bush and his people wanted a new pearl harbor and wanted to attack Iraq prior to 911.
There's a quiet scandal at the heart of Sept. 11; one that for different reasons neither the government nor the privacy lobby really wants to talk about. It's this: For two and a half weeks before the attacks, the U.S. government knew the names of two hijackers. It knew they were al-Qaida killers and that they were already in the United States. In fact, the two were living openly under their own names, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. They used those names for financial transactions, flight school, to earn frequent flier miles, and to procure a California identity card. Despite this paper trail, and despite having two and a half weeks to follow the scent, the FBI couldn't locate either man—at least not until Sept. 11, when they flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. If we had found them, there is a real possibility that most or all of the hijackings would have been prevented. The two shared addresses with Mohamed Atta, who flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and Marwan Al-Shehhi, who flew into the South Tower. They were linked to most of the other hijackers as well. So August 2001 offered our last chance to foil the attacks. And if we want to stop the next attack, we need to know what went wrong in August 2001. Despite all the resources of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we did not find two known terrorists living openly. How could we have failed so badly in such a simple, desperate task? We couldn't find al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in August 2001 because we had imposed too many rules designed to protect against privacy abuses that were mainly theoretical. We missed our best chance to save the lives of 3,000 Americans because we spent more effort and imagination guarding against these theoretical privacy abuses than against terrorism. I feel some responsibility for sending the government down that road. In August 2001, the New York FBI intelligence agent looking for al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi didn't have the computer access needed to do the job alone. He requested help from the bureau's criminal investigators and was turned down. Acting on legal advice, FBI headquarters had refused to involve its criminal agents. In an e-mail to the New York agent, headquarters staff said: "If al- Midhar is located, the interview must be conducted by an intel[ligence] agent. A criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. This case, in its entirety, is based on intel[ligence]. If at such time as information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to the proper procedures and turned over for follow-up criminal investigation." In a reply message, the New York agent protested the ban on using law enforcement resources for intelligence investigations in eerily prescient terms: "[S]ome day someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' Let's hope the [lawyers who gave the advice] will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Usama Bin Laden], is getting the most 'protection.' " It breaks my heart to read this exchange. That "wall"—between intelligence and law enforcement—was put in place to protect against a hypothetical risk to civil liberties that might arise if domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence missions were allowed to mix. It was a post-Watergate fix meant to protect Americans, not kill them. In fact, in 1994, after I left my job as general counsel to the National Security Agency, I argued that the wall should be left in place because I accepted the broad assumption that foreign intelligence-gathering tolerates a degree of intrusiveness, harshness, and deceit that Americans do not want applied against themselves. I recognized at the time that these privacy risks were just abstract worries, but I accepted the conventional wisdom: "However theoretical the risks to civil liberties may be, they cannot be ignored." I foresaw many practical problems as well if the wall came down, and I argued for an approach that "preserves, perhaps even raises, the wall between the two communities." I was wrong, but not alone, in assigning a high importance to theoretical privacy risks. In hindsight, that choice seems little short of feckless, for it made the failures of August and September 2001 nearly inevitable. In 2000 and 2001, the FBI office that handled al-Qaida wiretaps in the United States was thrown into turmoil because of the heights to which the wall had been raised. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, the body that oversees national security wiretaps, had ordered strict procedures to ensure that such wiretaps were not contaminated by law enforcement purposes. And when those procedures were not followed strictly, the court barred an FBI agent from the court because his affidavits did not fully list all contacts with law enforcement. This mushroomed into a privacy scandal that set the stage for 9/11. In the spring and summer of 2001, with al-Qaida's preparations growing even more intense, the turmoil grew so bad that national security wiretaps were allowed to lapse—something that had never happened before. It isn't clear what intelligence we missed, but the loss of those wiretaps was treated as less troubling than the privacy scandal that now hung over the antiterrorism effort. The lesson was not lost on the rest of the bureau. According to a declassified Joint Intelligence Committee report on Sept. 11, "FBI personnel involved in FISA matters feared the fate of the agent who had been barred and began to avoid even the most pedestrian contact with personnel in criminal components of the Bureau or DOJ because it could result in intensive scrutiny by the Justice Department office that reviewed national security wiretaps and the FISA Court." That is all establishment puke propaganda. They puke this stuff out. I think it's dusgusting and you eat it and want seconds. Dumber then a box of rocks.
Another puke eater.
But, I thought that Ted claimed that his dad was anti-Castro ? This does not seem to square. Hondo just makes stuff up. It is not an honest person.
You were replying to a post about 9/11 yet mentioned everything but.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
I suspect Bush or at least the CIA of being involved in 911. There I said it. I said I suspect I don't know. Way to many inconsistencies. Also I never heard of Al Qaeda prior to 911. No one can ever show me them mentioned anywhere prior to 911. The soldiers who fought in Iraq fought honorably. But honestly what did we gain from it? Even Bush said there were no WMD's.
Raffie didn't formally renounce his foreign allegiances until 2005 when he became a US citizen. Prior to that his el presidente was Fidel Castro. It took him over 50 years in the US, before he let Fidel go. Presumably Ted would still be a happy Canadian if he hadn't decided to run for president of the US in 2013. It took him over 50 years to renounce his allegiances to Canuckistan. The evil SOB even laughed and made jokes about it. (Scroll to 5:05 in the video) Eff Bush and the mindless sycophants who supported him then, and still do now. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much No one can ever show me them mentioned anywhere prior to 911. You just weren't paying attention during the good ole days of the Clintoon reign . When the 2nd plane hit the towers I turned to a co-worker and said "I bet Bin Laden did it" . 1993 AQ set off a car bomb in the WTC parking garage .6 killed and over 1,000 injured . August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa, entitled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," Feb 1998 he issued a 2nd fatwa against the US 1998 AQ bombs 2 American embassies in Africa . 200 people killed and 5,000 injured 1999 AQ fails an attempt to bomb LAX 1999 AQ attacks US Cole 17 killed 39 injured . Before that the CIA was monitoring OBL in Sudan 1991 -1992 1996 the CIA already had a special Bin Laden unit . Based on a review of the Lexis-Nexus database, the term al-Qaeda is first mentioned in the mainstream media August 14, 1996 by UPI . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I was paying very close attention. I always have.
Then you should be to show me a mainstream news article dated in 1993 that used the word al qaeda. Why can't you find an article like that? I wonder why that is.
Ok. I buy that.
Someone bombed them. Show me an article from that time period that mentions al qaeda. You can't why is that?
Someone bombed the Cole. Show me where Al Qaeda was mentioned in that time period. Oh you can't do that. I wonder why.
Can you provide me a link. I can never find anything.
“Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” [NIE 2002 ] The 2004 Silberman-Robb Commission concluded that it was the intelligence agencies advising the President about WMD that were wrong . The Commission also found no evidence of political pressure to alter intelligence findings. The same intel was given to Congress before the war . Evita said in 2002, “In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.” JFKerry, said, “I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” The Swimmer Ted Kennedy said, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Other Democrats who said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction include Bubba Clintoon,the Goracle , Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, John D. Rockefeller, Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt, and Henry Waxman. On December 21, 2002, CIA director George Tenet and his top deputy, John McLaughlin, went to the White House to brief President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. When the president pressed Tenet on the quality of the intelligence, the CIA director reassured the president that “it’s a slam dunk case” that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell,hardly a neo-con war hawk ,who advised Bush that if he broke Iraq he'd own it , spoke before the United Nations on February 5, 2003. In preparing his speech, Powell spent several days and nights at CIA headquarters to ensure his claims about Saddam’s WMD were accurate. Germany opposed the invasion . Still Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, “I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.” In fact virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD AND to a man ,all of Saddam's Generals believed that they had them. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
How much did you have to pay your co-worker for losing the bet? FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” Oh, and by the way...America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Oh, and by the way...America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group better polish your tin foil hat . it is beginning to tarnish . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Typical response from a programmed Bush-bot who has no knowledge other than what is fed to him by the controlled mainstream media propaganda outlets who constantly regurgitate the "official" fed.gov narrative. Bet you didn't even bother to read anything at the links. Typical. The fact remains - the FBI ADMITTED that they have “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”. Educate yourself and check it out. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I see you was unable to substantiate your claim that Al Qaeda was mentioned prior to Spet 11, 2001. FAIL!
That means that I am smarter then all the intelligence agencies put together. So you should worship everything I say and discard everything coming from the government.
No wonder why you hate Trump. You are the establishment. Don't worry thought I don't' think Trump wants to kill you guys.
I'm just playing devils advocate with these questions. You just accept stuff. I need prof.
"During the debate, Trump also pointed out that The World Trade Center came down under President Bush."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
Trump jumped in with the harshest line: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign. Remember that."
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
(Edited)
So Bush was out to lunch ignoring the threats
#4. To: paraclete (#3)
So Bush was out to lunch ignoring the threats
#5. To: no gnu taxes, loves Bush, Cuba Libres, and Fidel Castro too (#0)
The Political Education Of Rafael Cruz
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: hondo68 (#5)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
"So?"
#8. To: misterwhite (#1)
Truth hurts?
#9. To: no gnu taxes, hondo68 (#6)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#4)
He had vague threats that Osama Bin laden wanted to attack the US.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#11. To: Deckard (#9)
#12. To: hondo68 (#5)
" Cruz is a Castro commie from way back. He came to the US to raise funds for Fidel Castro and support his Cuban Revolution. .
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
#14. To: tomder55 (#13)
It's just plain wrong to blame Bush for 9-11 .
#15. To: tomder55 (#13)
Don't forget ;when Bush got into office there was a wall that separated communication and cooperation between the various intelligence agencies and law enforcement agenciea . What the CIA knew could not be passed on .
#16. To: tomder55 (#13)
Earlier this month, as fears of new al-Qaida attacks mounted, the Justice Department announced new FBI guidelines that would allow intelligence and law enforcement agents to work together on terrorism investigations. An ACLU spokesman was quick to condemn the guidelines as creating the possibility of "an end run around Fourth Amendment requirements." I used to worry about that possibility myself. Not any more. Because the alternative is to maintain a wall of separation between law enforcement and intelligence. That's what we used to do. And on Sept. 11, 2001, that wall probably cost us 3,000 American lives.
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#4)
He was never given any who, where, or when.
#18. To: Stoner (#12)
" Cruz is a Castro commie from way back. He came to the US to raise funds for Fidel Castro and support his Cuban Revolution. . He held on to hope for a Fidel victory over the US until 2005 "
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#20. To: redleghunter (#19)
You were replying to a post about 9/11 yet mentioned everything but.
#21. To: Stoner, reluctant Americans (#12)
(Edited)
I thought that Ted claimed that his dad was anti-Castro ?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#22. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, no gnu taxes, tomder55 (#20)
Even Bush said there were no WMD's.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#23. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#20)
(Edited)
Also I never heard of Al Qaeda prior to 911.
#24. To: tomder55 (#23)
You just weren't paying attention during the good ole days of the Clintoon reign
#25. To: tomder55 (#23)
1993 AQ set off a car bomb in the WTC parking garage .6 killed and over 1,000 injured .
#26. To: tomder55 (#23)
August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa, entitled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," Feb 1998 he issued a 2nd fatwa against the US
#27. To: tomder55 (#23)
1998 AQ bombs 2 American embassies in Africa .
#28. To: tomder55 (#23)
1999 AQ fails an attempt to bomb LAX 1999 AQ attacks US Cole 17 killed 39 injured .
#29. To: tomder55 (#23)
Based on a review of the Lexis-Nexus database, the term al-Qaeda is first mentioned in the mainstream media August 14, 1996 by UPI .
#30. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#20)
Even Bush said there were no WMD's.
#31. To: tomder55, A K A Stone (#23)
When the 2nd plane hit the towers I turned to a co-worker and said "I bet Bin Laden did it" .
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#32. To: Deckard (#31)
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
#33. To: tomder55 (#32)
better polish your tin foil hat . it is beginning to tarnish .
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: tomder55 (#30)
#35. To: tomder55 (#30)
he 2004 Silberman-Robb Commission concluded that it was the intelligence agencies advising the President about WMD that were wrong .
#36. To: tomder55 (#30)
#37. To: tomder55 (#34)
#38. To: tomder55 (#23)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]