Dear Editor:
I would like to offer a little advice to the next leader of our nation.
LETTER: Advice for new president
No matter that many said it was logistically impossible for the illegal population to diminish and most return home, it has happened. Since our economy has had a slowdown most of the “cash only” jobs which free people from the chains of tax withholdings are gone. With that disappearance, we have seen a drastic decrease in possible illegal aliens.
Now the advice to go with the observation.
Since Mr. Obama wants to enact the New Deal, Old Deal, Resurrected Deal, I hope he revives the CCC first. The Civilian Conservation Corps could readily build the fence needed along our Southern border. This would provide better security, slow down drug trafficking and provide a means for well meaning immigrants to come here legally.
I bet the CCC camps could build the fence better, quicker, and cheaper than any other agency or contractor hired by the government.
We’ve got four years we might as well get the best out of them.
Maybe we can actually channel some energy to accomplish good and not completely bankrupt the future for our kids.
Just a thought (some may say very little thought.)
Sincerely,
Mike Stowers
Nicholson
Now the advice to go with the observation.
Since Mr. Obama wants to enact the New Deal, Old Deal, Resurrected Deal, I hope he revives the CCC first. The Civilian Conservation Corps could readily build the fence needed along our Southern border. This would provide better security, slow down drug trafficking and provide a means for well meaning immigrants to come here legally.
I bet the CCC camps could build the fence better, quicker, and cheaper than any other agency or contractor hired by the government.
We’ve got four years we might as well get the best out of them.
Maybe we can actually channel some energy to accomplish good and not completely bankrupt the future for our kids.
Just a thought (some may say very little thought.)
Sincerely,
Mike Stowers
Nicholson
I am all for his way,attitude,forth rightness,mannerisms,,,the whole nine yards ,I think he will do a very good job.
Mr. Obama is in his honeymoon period and we all pray for his success. I am beginning to see signs that the entire Democrat party is now happy with having a strong executive and Mr. Obama will probably change very little of the policies that brought Mr. Bush the hatred of the left and the safety of the people of the United States.
Just because the left says something loud enough and long enough makes it true. Right? And Jaques Chirac, former Prime Minister of France should be believed even though the UN's oil for food program was allowing Saddam Hussein to put money in his personal bank account, thus blocking American action in Iraq.
As long as you can say it's George Bush's fault everything will be ok.
Thank you. I stand corrected. I'm sure the Democrats will just abandon all of the policies of the Bush administration because they were so misguided. And that loose credit. That's not Barney Frank and the Democrat's fault that credit was issued to non-credit worthy folks who will never pay their bills, thus sending the world into a possible depression. Thank God we have George Bush to blame for a few more days.
But it has been clearly disproven that any of the 9/11 terrorists ever met with Saddam Hussein's "intelligence men." That is an outright fabrication. Please cite a reference for the 9/11 hijackers meeting with Saddam's intelligence men. And don't make it up this time. As you said, just because someone says something loudly, doesn't make it true. That holds for your delusional deceptions as well.
Since Mr. Libservative loves to toss out mistruths like candy at halloween, I guess we know how much to trust anything he has to say.
Yes, the enemy of our enemy is sometimes our friend but later on we did what we should have done to S. Hussein. Rumsfeld mismanaged the war. But hindsight in both cases is 20-20.
www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock/200406030932.asp
The above link is just one of thousands discussing the alleged meeting with S. Hussein's secret police. It has not been "clearly disproven" by anyone.
So, look it up buddy. Why do I have to do your work for you?
***
Your link above to the National Review article led to an error message. No such link. Hence -- no evidence from you that you know what you are talking about.
The 9/11 Commsission Report clearly disproved your myth. This is what they said in their report:
[The Commission] concluded 15 of the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks were from Saudi Arabia, but found no evidence the government of Saudi Arabia conspired in the attacks, or that it funded the attackers. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the attacks, was from Egypt. 2 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates, and 1 was from Lebanon. According to the Commission, all 19 hijackers were members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, led by Osama bin Laden. In addition, the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks."
and also this:
"Czech and American intelligence officials are unable to confirm any meeting between al-Qaida operative Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer, identified as Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani."
and this:
"Czech President Vaclav Havel denied there was any evidence to confirm reports that Mohammed Atta, a leader of the 9/11 attacks, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague in April, 2001, five months before the attacks. American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach in early April 2001, and DCI George Tenet told Congress in testimony after 9/11 that the CIA could find no evidence to confirm that the Prague meeting took place."
So you see there are accurate statements in a very serious report that overwhelmingly disprove your statement.
If you go to this link:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1577
you'll find an article by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting that shows how Fox News and their libservative friends try to spin the 9/11 Commission Report determination in just the way you have above. Your spin is just more blather. Sorry.
The things Saddam Hussein did that are indisputable are:
1. Paid terrorists' families big cash bonuses if their family member committed a suicide bombing inside the State of Israel. These attacks are documented and Americans were killed during these attacks. Because they happen to be Jewish Americans makes them no less Americans.
2. We were continually having to fly military flights over Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking the Shites in the south and the Kurds in the north. While on patrol our pilots were being shot at daily.
3. Arabs attacked us. Saddam Hussein ran a terrorist-supporting Arab nation. It was a time when most Americans were still mad as hell and rightfully so for the 3,000 dead civilians on 911. (Actually, I'm still a bit cranky about it.)
Hindsight is always 20-20. Most Americans were behind the war when it started. George Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton administration and CIA head, said it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We all knew Iraq had used WMD's on the Iranians and the Kurds. Saddam Hussein, in order to keep his enemy neighbors afraid of him, never denied having WMD's and apparently tried to make it look like he did have them so to deter an Iranian attack. He only submitted to U.N. inspections to prevent an invasion by the Americans in the months leading up to the war. Even with these inspections he seemed to be deceptive.
During this same time frame, our old nemesis Col. Moammar Qaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program and paid the survivors' families of the Lockerby Scotland Pan Am terrorist bombing financial compensation to prevent another bombing of his house like he suffered from Ronald Reagan. I like to call this a collateral benefit.
You see William, we now have an ally and democracy in the middle of the Arab Middle East on the border with Iran, our latest, if not greatest nemesis. Libya wants us to like them again. It will be a long time before an Arab country wants to try our patience again. You have to look at the big picture and not focus so much on each detail in order to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein's secret police met with Atta. (We only do this in America in a criminal trial, not in a war.) It very well could have happened. The 911 commision was highly politicized by the two parties trying not to take any blame for the 911 atrocity. Sandy Berger, the Clinton administration national security advisor, was arrested and convicted for stealing and destroying files that could have helped the 911 commission come to a more accurate conclusion. We'll never know will we? (the press is very quiet concerning this matter, still to this day.)
The biggest mistake George Bush probably made was keeping George Tenet and all of his extreme leftist associates that tried to topple the Bush administration from day one with the Valerie Plame affair where she funded her husband to go to Africa to try to discredit the president during one of the most difficult times a president has ever worked through. Isn't it nice to know that our tax dollars were being used to deliberately try to discredit the president during a time of war?
Considering everything, including the left-wing extremist press in this country, it's quite amazing that George Bush accomplished anything at all. There's a line between aggressive reporting and outright treason and that line was crossed during a time when the nation was at war and it is shameful. How many more years were added to the war because the terrorists thought that America was losing its will to fight because of the left-wing in this country? How many more Americans died because of their anti-American activities?
You can't blame George Bush for everything William.
I did point out ONE of the mistruths you continue to spread: that the 9/11 terrorists met with Saddam Husein's Intelligence men. I also followed up with the U.S. government's official findings that support my version of the facts and discount yours. I'm satisfied with that. You offer no support for your statement. All you seem to do is offer diversions and distractions when you are called out on anything you say. Anyone who follows these threads can see you for who and what you are.
But enough of you. It's an historic day, and I celebrate our turn from the darkness of the recent past into the light of our bright future.
May God bless us all.
I enjoyed our little debate except where you just give up. It's more fun when your adversary just says anyone reading this can tell... blah blah blah. I usually treat valid points with a little more respect but enjoy your ignorance.
But I do agree we can celebrate the day. We are all Americans.
I called you out on just one statement you made: "I suppose his intelligence service was just having tea with the 911 hijackers." American intelligence officials have said that this is not true. The Czechs have said the same. The 9/11 Commission report says the same. But rather than offer up anything supporting your statement you go on to other topics. That is the diversion and distraction that I am talking about. It's the way you operate. On this one point you are obfuscating and wrong. You can offer no proof, and nothing else to support your statement. You imply that more than one of the 9/11 hijackers met with Iraqi intelligence before the attack. There is no evidence of this.
It's not that I give up on the debate -- it's that you change the subject and move on to other things, rather than admit to your error. You are no fun -- mostly just an irritation -- and we can't get anywhere if you just keep changing the subject from the topic at hand.
I countered your point concerning the 911 report with the fact that Sandy Berger, the Clinton administration national security advisor destroyed documents pertinent to the 911 investigation. I did this so you could know that the 911 report is incomplete and proves nothing. In other words, you can't use this report in that it is contaminated by politics. And so, I can tell you that in response to your statement that the meeting between Sadaam Hussein's intelligence men and the 911 terrorists did happen and has NOT been clearly disproven as you claim. This is not changing the subject. This is continuing the debate. You were the one that made the point that the meeting was clearly disproven. Now I have countered that your evidence is lacking my friend.
Please cite a reference for this to support your statement. One that has not been subsequently refuted. The CIA, the NSA, Dick Cheney, and numerous media outlets have agreed that there is no evidence this meeting ever took place. What is this inside scoop that you have. Are you one of THEM?
The reason it matters of course, is that this is one of the stated reasons we went to war with Iraq. This reason, and all of the others that linked Iraq with Al Qaida, have been discounted. We went to war on false pretenses; we have wasted nearly a trillion dollars and too many innocent people have died as a result. And yet you keep spreading the big lie.
At least we know where he's coming from. In his piece that you provided a link for, Murdock sprinkles his prose with phrases like "He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too." or "perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta." Murdock's source for these statements is the same Czech intelligence officers who have subsequently determined that no meetings took place between Atta and Samir al-Ani. This was also confirmed by the CIA, the NSA, and even Dick Cheney on Meet the Press. Murdock's claims just evaporate in the light of newer, non-speculative information, which was referenced in an earlier post.
Phrases with "suspected," "most likely," and "perhaps" sound more speculative than factual. I'm prone to believe our State Department, U.S. Intellignece reports, and people like Tim Russert over someone like Murdock who seems to think that torture is a good thing. My moral compass does not point in that direction.
The proof will be in the attacks we will now suffer secondary to the Obama administration tying the CIA's hands. And you can be sure I'll be waiting to tell you I told you so. But let's play nice. Maybe they will start to like us and leave us alone. I remember Carter playing nice. The Russians invaded Afghanistan, the Iranians took over our embassy and held our people 444 days. At least it had a good outcome with Carter only serving 4 years.
I think the problems with history ARE being taught in our schools. We all should know lynching was evil as well as slavery. Anyone who hasn't learned these lessons by now truly is an evil, ignorant person and is easily identified by his striped paints with his plaid shirt, teeth missing and poor grammar. Smart people don't think like this any longer.
We are all Americans and that's why we argue. In most places on earth it's not really allowed or appreciated. We're just sorting things out. I learn as much from those I disagree with as those I agree with. Some people just like a good debate and will sometimes switch sides to make it more interesting.
Some people, like Kathy above don't really bring anything much to the table. She is entirely ignorant of the meeting with the 911 terrorists with Saddam Hussein's secret service men and refuses to learn, even when given a link to read it. Some people just like staying ignorant. Not much any of us can do about that.
Restraint in the drama department is also not a strong point of Lib's.
Whatever....today is a good day in America!!!!