XPost: alt.terrorism.world-trade-center, soc.culture.usa, alt.dear.whitehouse   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq   
   From: al953@xyz.com   
      
   "Z"  wrote in message   
   news:102g32qf5mof501@corp.supernews.com...   
   > If you keep repeating the liberal "Big Lie" enough times you will believe   
   it   
   > as "truth".   
   >   
   > Z   
      
      
   You sound like a chipped record. Get a life, fuckwit!   
      
      
   > "al953"  wrote in message   
   > news:JmjVb.196018$6y6.3902217@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...   
   > >       Eight Questions for George W. Bush   
   > >       02/06/2004 @ 11:25am   
   > >       E-mail this Post   
   > >       Tim Russert, the Grand Inquisitor of Sunday morning, is scheduled   
   to   
   > > have George W. Bush in the witness chair for a full hour on the next   
   Meet   
   > > the Press. He's a lucky man--Russert, that is. This will be high drama,   
   as   
   > > the nation's politerati--and millions of others--watch to see if Russert   
   > > gives Bush the hot-seat treatment.   
   > >   
   > >       There is, of course, much to ask Bush about. Did he decided to use   
   > > military force against Iraq before 9/11? Where are the WMDs he insisted   
   > were   
   > > there? Why is he using phony budget numbers? Did he engage in   
   > > less-than-proper business dealings before he entered politics? Why he   
   has   
   > > misled the public while promoting his policies on stem cells research,   
   > > global warming, and missile defense? Why has he opposed certain homeland   
   > > security measures and not adequately funded others? It's a long list,   
   and   
   > > I'm sure Russert is busy preparing his own queries. But in an   
   unsolicited   
   > > act of kindness, I have crafted eight questions for Russert--several on   
   > > matters in the news, a few on issues that have received less attention.   
   > And,   
   > > Tim, since you always like to display your source material when you ask   
   > the   
   > > tough questions, feel free to call me, and I'll send you the citations   
   or   
   > > the clips. Unlike many of Bush's WMD assertions, these questions are   
   based   
   > > on real evidence.   
   > >   
   > >       * In October 2002, during a speech in Cincinnati, you said that   
   > Saddam   
   > > Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But the   
   National   
   > > Intelligence Estimate on Iraq did not report there was any "massive   
   > > stockpile" of bioweapons in Iraq. And this past Thursday, CIA director,   
   > > George Tenet said, "We said we had no specific information on the types   
   or   
   > > quantities of [biological] weapons, agent, or stockpiles at Baghdad's   
   > > disposal." So if the CIA did not say there was a "massive stockpile" of   
   > > biological weapons in Iraq, what was your basis for asserting a   
   stockpile   
   > > existed? Did you know something the CIA did not? Did you overstate the   
   > > intelligence?   
   > >   
   > >       * In December 2002, you said, "We do not know whether or not   
   > [Hussein]   
   > > has a nuclear weapon"--a remark suggesting that Hussein might have one.   
   > But   
   > > the National Intelligence Estimate said that he did not have a nuclear   
   > > weapon and that it would take Iraq five to seven years to produce a   
   > nuclear   
   > > weapon--and then only if its nuclear weapons program was "left   
   unchecked."   
   > > This past week, Tenet said, "We said Saddam Hussein did not have a   
   nuclear   
   > > weapon." Was it not misleading to tell the public that "we don't know"   
   > > whether Iraq had a nuclear weapon, when, in fact, we did know?   
   > >   
   > >       * Before the war, you said Hussein was "dealing" with al Qaeda. On   
   > May   
   > > 1, you called Hussein an "ally" of Al Qaeda. At a press conference in   
   July   
   > > 2003, you were asked to provide evidence to back up your claims that   
   > Hussein   
   > > had been working with al Qaeda. You replied,   
   > >   
   > >       "Yes, I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there   
   > for   
   > > 90 days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I know in   
   > our   
   > > world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of   
   instant--instant   
   > > news and you must have done this, you must do that yesterday, that   
   there's   
   > a   
   > > level of frustration by some in the media. I'm not suggesting you're   
   > > frustrated. You don't look frustrated to me at all. But it's going to   
   take   
   > > time for us to gather the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence,   
   > > literally, the miles of documents that we have uncovered. "   
   > >   
   > >       That is, you said that investigators were still looking for   
   > evidence.   
   > > But the question was, what evidence did you have at the time that you   
   made   
   > > those prewar claims that al Qaeda and Hussein were in cahoots? You did   
   not   
   > > answer that question then. Can you tell us what evidence you had for   
   > saying   
   > > that Hussein was an "ally" of al Qaeda?   
   > >   
   > >       * In July 2001, US intelligence produced a warning that read,   
   "Based   
   > > on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we   
   believe   
   > > that UBL [Usama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack   
   > > against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack   
   will   
   > > be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S.   
   > > facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will   
   > > occur with little or no warning."   
   > >   
   > >       This was less than two months before the horrific 9/11 attacks.   
   > > According to the final report of the joint inquiry on 9/11 conducted by   
   > the   
   > > House and Senate intelligence committees, this warning was prepared for   
   > > "senior government officials." The committees did not publicly say who   
   > > received the report, and they said this was because the CIA would not   
   > permit   
   > > them to tell the public which "senior government officials" were warned.   
   > The   
   > > committees were angry about being gagged this way. But committee sources   
   > did   
   > > tell reporters that this report was sent to the White House.   
   > >   
   > >       Why wouldn't your administration tell the public who saw this   
   > warning?   
   > > Did you or any of your national security team see this report? If so,   
   what   
   > > did you or they do in response? If this report did not make it to you or   
   > > your senior aides, wouldn't you consider that a terrible mistake and   
   want   
   > to   
   > > find out who was responsible for that?   
   > >   
   > >       * In your Air National Guard records, your annual performance   
   > review,   
   > > dated May 2, 1973, says that you did not report for duty to your home   
   base   
   > > for an entire year. When this was disclosed during the 2000 campaign,   
   your   
   > > campaign said that you had spent part of that time doing service at an   
   Air   
   > > National Guard base in Alabama. But the commander of that base said--and   
   > > recently confirmed--that you never showed up there. In 2000, your   
   campaign   
   > > promised to produce the names of people whom you served with in Alabama   
   > and   
   > > who could vouch for your presence at the base there. It never did so.   
   Why   
   > > not? Can you now give us names of men or women with whom you served in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)