UPDATE…

….but don’t you worry none, ’cause O’Bumbler and McSqueek know exactically what’s going on…
http://fedpapers.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-military-advisor-blame-bush-for.html
….NOT!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

ACTUALLY, IRAN MAY HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK…

LISTEN

READ

See also HERE, and . . .

. . . the official 9/11 report, HERE (pp.240-241)

Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al Qaeda
. . . .
In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence—that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers.127
. . . .
We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.

In other news…. ANOTHER OBAMA TERROR CONNECTION REVEALED

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Cletus, the invasion of Iraq was legal under UN 678 and 687 as well as the subsequent resolutions that “recall” those two. The invasion was also legal as the 1991 Cease-fire had been broken before the UN could even ratify or accept it, and the difference between a cease-fire and a peace agreement is that a cease-fire is temporary cessation of hostilities that’s void as soon as one party or the other starts shooting whereas a peace agreement is a binding agreement to end the conflict completely. It’d be completely illogical to have a cease-fire, and then every time it’s broken expect the UNSC to get together, debate, write a new resolution, approve it, and prepare a response all the while the people being shot at have to sit and wait for authorization from the entire world. Nah, Saddam had 12years to comply w the terms of the cease-fire, and he only complied with 1 of those terms, and never completely satisfied a single UN resolution.

btw The occupation was mandated by UN 1483 sec4 and subsequent ones that extended it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

STUPID LYING LEFTISTS

…you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they — as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we’re going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we’re going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat. — John (Breck Girl) Edwards (a month BEFORE the war began)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug, The Washington Post lied about her stance on linking Saddam with Al Qaeda. This wasn’t just a misquote, it was just put in as fact. The quote they are trying to use is her saying Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Everyone knows Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
——-
I’m sure 90% of the intellegence agencies in the world were stumpted when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. I know it as the First-Strike option, which was born at the begining of the Cold War. Kennedy threatened to use the nuclear warfare version during the Cuban Missile Crises and Reagan used the convention warfare version when he ordered the invasion of Grenada and Panama. CBS, Fox and the Washington Post have all labled Bush’s policy as the First-Strike Doctrine.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great point.

Some other points on topic that debunk this whole lame attack:

1. The Bush Doctrine has various and ephemeral definitions among the lefties, which certainly are in accord with Palin’s implicit understanding of the Bush Doctrine, for example:

Frank Rich, NY Times, April 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2080286/posts?page=285#285

and

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, January 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2080441/posts?page=35#35

2. Hillary Clinton actually supported what some consider to be a major plank of the Bush doctrine when she spoke from the well of the Senate on September 12, 2001
Senator Clinton on 9/12/2001:

“…We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not…”

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235656

**NB: Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were 9 days BEFORE Bush ever expressed that same sentiment:

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Comments for which Bush has been harshly criticized ever since (e.g. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E1DC1331F93AA25750C0A9629C8B63).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You’re right Missy.

They don’t have to be really strong to cause chaos.

9/11 was brought to us by 19 of their members.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You missed the point, Scott. Yeah, the Bush Doctrine is “We don’t need no stinkin’ imminent threat”. So Palin didn’t answer the question. If Iraq was considered an imminent threat, our invasion would be justified by international law. Instead of making the argument for ‘imminent threat’, the Bush Doctrine was born.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

al Qaeda is still in Iraq, they are still involved in the fight. al Qaeda is no longer as strong, thanks to President Bush, General Petraeus, John McCain and all our troops, they are almost wiped out, but al Qaeda can still sting.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Because unchecked and ignored propaganda is dangerous

Like or Dislike: 0  0