We were very tied to Saddam right up to the Gulf War. See: the Glaspie papers (if they'll let you) for full details. Or just check the public accounts. Our ties to Saudi Arabia are, of course, not BECAUSE of Bush, though both Bushes have enjoyed especially cozy relationships with them. But previous administrations enjoyed shady PRE-9/11 ties. In the spirit of this thread I say that asking the president to stop hiding SA connections to 9/11 does not constitute overzealous "grilling." Especially when he simultaneously pushes fictitious connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
The personal ties between the Bush Family and the house of saud are well documented. They've had a close relationship with them dating back to the 1980's mostly initiated by and through Prince Bandar, the saudi foreign minister, who has said that he regards George and Barbara as a second mother and father. Bandar has since lost influence both at home and consequently abroad, and the US saudi relationship has deteriorated (which I think is just fine, the house of saud are a bunch of thieves) but we still take steps to protect them, such as the blacked out portions of the intelligence report that was widely condemned by Senators from both parties. We should stop protecting them. They will fall eventually anyway, and they are not helping us now.
I didn't know that you were one of FDR's handlers! Was he really a nice man, like they say?! Why in the world would the US continue hand-holding with Saudi Arabia while holding the information in that report? Is it possible that they wanted to string it along for purposes unknown to you? I am not touting anything about the way that FDR responded to anything. I am remiss that an Administration is not allowed to do it's job without political opportunism and journalistic hedonism forcing their way to the forefront at every opportunity. I doubt that such action is serving our country well. The glory of our greatest generation was my observation and it was not focused on any president but on the people who sacrificed and believed and loved their country <b>not</b> on those who see the sky fallling with every setback.
Yes, until it was clear that he had lied before a Grand Jury. A better and more pertinent example is this: were Al Gore president at this time, I cannot imagine myself dogging his every move the way some have President Bush. We need solidarity in a time of crisis. The enemy is far-flung, fanatical yet patient.
hhmmmmmm that would be uuuummmmmmm THE REAGAN ERA quite a opportune time for the Rep. . . . then they can just blame the liberal media Rocket River
I'm glad you're not prejudiced... He's not talking about privileged knowledge. He's talking about historical precedent which I'm still convinced he was accurate about. rimrocker provided a short list of activities perpetrated by the military as they reviewed their "failure."
I'm sorry but Ollie Lied about things far beyond DNA on a BLUE DRESS things that put our military a risk . . IRAN CONTRA! some lies *ARE* worse than others Rocket River
In that case, GWB did not receive that much scrutiny (post 9/11) until we attacked Iraq using "technically accurate" information that was used to mislead the American public. He was treated with kid gloves for a solid year after 9/11 and was only slammed once he started doing things that 9/11 did not justify.
Actually, Germany attacked many of the ships we sent over to our allies for years before Pearl Harbor. We stayed out of the war until we were justified in fighting it. How does any of that have to do with the things that GWB is being lambasted for? Bush is being slammed because of the things he has done to deserve it.
Ollie's lies, ironically enough, was fully investigated by the indepedent Tower Commission, which was appointed by conservative messiah Ronald Reagan, no less, and which proved surprisingly valuable in both gathering evidence for criminal prosecutions and identifying the flaws in the NSC apparatus.
OK, you are trying to say that fighting a country that has attacked us is exactly the same as terrorists who may have been supported to some extent by a nation attacking us. A serious analogy would be us providing the Afghans with arms and assistance to fight off the Russians in the 80s. That is much more like terrorists who may (or may not) have been supported by one or another country. And need I remind that most of the men on the planes were Saudis and NONE were Iraqi. Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban was openly defying us in hiding members of the terrorist organization that actually had something to do with 9/11. That war, Gulf War I, was won in the same year and weapons inspectors were allowed in for a time to enforce the terms of the treaty. Saddam kicked them out and then let them back in and if they had been allowed to do their jobs, would probably have found about as much evidence of WMD as we have so far. This war was started by Bush and Rumsfeld and the kickbacks are going to Haliburton and Brown & Root.
I must be out of touch of things, I mean, when did Iraq launch a Pearl Harbour styled attack on U.S. to warrant a WWII comparison?
That is what I have been asking, too. Unless I missed something, Iraq has never directly or indirectly attacked the US.
The issue is that many of the people and much of the press are not rising above common politicking while we are engaged in a War on Terror. I think it is a sad commentary about our times.
So, were you similarly saddened when the Republicans spurred on a partisan witch hunt after the first world trade center bombing? Were you one of the people yelling about Clinton wagging the dog? The War on Terror, IMO, did not have a logical connection in Iraq. You would have been able to make a much better case to me for attacking Saudi Arabia than Iraq, as their citizens were actually ON the 9/11 planes. Your whining about "common politicking" dredges up memories of the Johnson and Nixon administrations when they were saying the same thing about Vietnam. It is our duty as citizens (and it is even more the duty of the press) to question our leaders when we think they are going down the wrong path. Bush got a free pass on Afghanistan because they were actively supporting the terrorist network that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We did give W a LOT of slack on every issue (both domestic and foreign) for over a year after 9/11 and now it is time for his policies to stand on their own merit.
