President Bush said Monday the United States is exploring whether Iran had any role in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a scenario discounted by the CIA.

"We're digging into the facts to see if there was one," Bush said in an Oval Office photo opportunity. Bush noted that acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has said that there was no direct connection between Iran and Sept. 11.

"We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved," Bush said. "I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all it's a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040719/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_iran_3

It's only one letter... anyone could have made the mistake... Will this man EVER stop? He's really losing his shit.

       

"Well, I *KNEW* it began with an 'I' though.." He lost his shit a long time ago..

The next thing you know, they'll have WMD and be an eminent threat to the US.. YES!!! Another WAR!!.. We need those votes come November!..

 

"After all it's a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."

I see some major shit hitting the fan if Bushy-Boi gets four more years. That sounds just like a reason for "liberating" that poor people; and who knows, maybe they have a couple of leftover mustard gas-filled shells from the Iran-Iraq war hidden somewhere in that big-ass desert. I mean they sure got their hands on some. Oh, and lest we forget - what about the "nuculear" weapons programme?

After retaliating for "He wanted to kill my daddy!!" he might be up for retaliating for the hostage crisis.

"Will this man EVER stop?"

I fear not - if he's re-elected.

"what about the "nuculear" "

It's actually a proper pronunciation of the word...

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nuclear

Fine, one for GWB. Important one, I might add.  

Lets spread that one out for all to see, shall we?

Main Entry: nu·cle·ar
Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a nucleus
2 a : of or relating to the atomic nucleus b : used in or produced by a nuclear reaction (as fission) c (1) : being a weapon whose destructive power derives from an uncontrolled nuclear reaction (2) : of, produced by, or involving nuclear weapons (3) : armed with nuclear weapons d : of, relating to, or powered by nuclear energy
usage Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in -ky&-l&r have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

As far as Iran is concerned, let's not forget that they were the reason that the Western powers, including the U.S. and France, I might add, helped Saddam in the early 80s. Just because they have kept a low profile over the last few years does not mean that they have turned into saints.

Charles

[Edited 2004-07-20 00:30:56]

The Iranians are saying about now "Bring it on!".

It would be funny to see Bush try to do something. He's not going up against a rag tag army like in Afghanistan. And he's not going up against an army which has basically rotted away due to a decade of sanctions.

I'm just waiting for the day that the Labor Party is elected into office, and then wait for the announcement that Bush is now investigating possible Australian links to 11 September 2001.

Here we go for another round. Soon we'll hear that Iran had WMD with an imminent threat to the United States. The GOP will shore up their religious base with people like Ann Coulter screaming that we should "take their oil and convert them to Christianity." Meanwhile, Bin Laden will still be on the loose.

Who is Ann Coulter?

The next thing you know, they'll have WMD and be an eminent threat to the US.. YES!!! Another WAR!!.. We need those votes come November

Iran is very close to becoming a bigger threat than Iraq ever was.Europe's use of 'soft power' in Iran doesn't seem to be producing any results given recent discovers of Iran's lies.



Who is Ann Coulter?

Somebody who makes B757300 look liberal 

Here comes the Draft ..... Or maybe Dubya can extend the duty of the guard for another couple of years...

"Iran is very close to becoming a bigger threat than Iraq ever was.Europe's use of 'soft power' in Iran doesn't seem to be producing any results given recent discovers of Iran's lies."

I really hope the EU will soon get a bit more active in regard to foreign policy. Maybe the constitution will, one day, become effective and there'll be a way for the EU to make a difference.

As for Iran itself, I think us Westerners shouldn't mess too much with that country - they're in trouble, but the ruling elite (read: religious fanatics) won't accept any deal that would make them appear weak - even though the mostly young population is slowly drifting away from things in one apparently endless intoxication. Well, what would one expect from young people who can't have any fun without being whipped.

Here comes the Draft ..... Or maybe Dubya can extend the duty of the guard for another couple of years...

Canada here i come! 

Honestly there will be a parade in the streets of my town if bush goes.

Who is Ann Coulter?

Ann Coulter is this psycho super ultra-hardcore right wing woman who made a bunch of money whining about liberals being whiny traitors. Shes also a nutty religious whackjob. She is known to have said before Iraq, "Take their oil and convert them to Christianity."

She is known to have said before Iraq, "Take their oil and convert them to Christianity."

Actually, her exact words were "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2001/091301.htm

Sorry but President Bush never said Saddam was involved in September 11th. He said he had ties to terrorism including groups linked to Al-Qaeda as well as members of Al-Qaeda. (Ansar Al-Islam, the group led by al-Zarqawi, has ties to Al-Qaeda and was given protection by Saddam years before the war and September 11th.)

Oh and remember, President Bush said that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were the "Axis of Evil" -the three primary state sponsors of terrorism throughout the world.

Pack your bags 757300 your on you way to Iran dude .... HAHAHAHA

As far as Iran is concerned, the Iranians themselves hate their government.

The views of some on here remind me of the "human shields" who went to Iraq to protect the dictatorship there. Then when they got there, most of them left when they got a real look at what the government was like in Iraq.

And how do you know that Kellmark ??? Lots of people in the US sure do hate their own government too ....

President Bush never said Saddam was involved in September 11th

Vice-President Cheney and SecDef Rumsfeld though have repeatedly said that.

Are they lying?

September 14, 2003 - NBC's Meet The Press - VP Cheney : "Iraq was the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11".

October 1, 2002 - SecDef Rumsfeld interview : "There is bulletproof evidence of close ties between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda members who attacked us on September 11".

The Iranians are saying about now "Bring it on!".

It would be funny to see Bush try to do something. He's not going up against a rag tag army like in Afghanistan. And he's not going up against an army which has basically rotted away due to a decade of sanctions.

I agree.

Do not under estimate Iran. In world ranking of Gross Domestic Product Iran is ranked #19 compared to Iraq at #66 (Afghanistan does not even show)
Economically, Iran is about 9 times the size of Iraq.

(source : http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2003_0.html

All that money buys a lot of weapons and a lot of training for the army.

As far as Iran is concerned, the Iranians themselves hate their government
It is true that most of the "educated" Iranians hate the government. Sadly, they are in the minority. The majority will follow the word of the mullahs unquestionably. They are the ones that form the "human waves" that Saddam Hussein's army faced in the Iran-Iraq war.
A US invasion of an Iran would be catastrophic for all concerned.


[Edited 2004-07-20 05:01:48]

[Edited 2004-07-20 05:02:38]

DC10guy. The difference is that in the US you can hate the government and not get put in jail for it, or have your family forced to pay for the bullets for your execution. And you can demonstrate against it as well as demonstrate for it. Try demonstrating against the government in Iran.

If you want to defend the present Iranian government and try to make the US government its equivalent, you are simply flat out blind to the real situation.

In fact, in America, some people are attacking those that are trying to defend same people. Instead of attacking those who are attacking the way of life and freedoms that we enjoy. If it were up to them the Taliban and Saddam would still be in power, able to threaten us and the rest of the world.

Some people seem to think that because we liberated Iraq, that we are an imperialist power and that we somehow want something for ourselves.

We have pulled our troops out of more countries than most people imagine. Look at Iwo Jima. 10,000 US casualties. Who owns it today? The Japanese.

And of course, we are not occupying France, even though it cost us tens of thousands of dead to liberate them from the Nazis.

The Germans don't want us to leave there. The South Koreans don't want us to leave there, even though we would love to. It costs us billions every year.

The bottom line is that if 9/11 had never happened, where over 3,000 innocent people were killed in one blow, then Afganistan and Iraq would never have happened. But now that they have, it is a good thing that those dictatorships have been eliminated from the world.

Good points Kellmark, Its funny that when people paint this glorious picture of how great America is they forget about Vietnam. Greed is what motivates this great country. That's all. Oil greed is why we are in Iraq. All the excuses we come up with for doing what we do are sad really.

We are NOT invading another country.

We are NOT invading another country.

Give George Bush another 4 years, and we will have another conflict somehwree else. I'm convinced of that. And seeing he has troops on either side of Iran, it makes an interesting scenario, doesn't it.

Pack your bags MD90, Your going to get to fight for Dubyas oil !!! Ignore the facts if you must ... But the draft is coming back.

Not only that.... 4 more years will see Syria brought up on charges and justified to bombed as well.

But as for Iran, where over 65 percent of the country is 25 and under and they are not thrilled with the clerics or their Islamic regime. They would be torn between repelling an American Invasion or letting the Islamic Republic go down in flames. The said part is again.. a shotload of innocent people will get slaughtered in the process.. I don't care what the Pentagon says!

But Dubya had his chance... in Iraq.

He wanted it.. he got it.

No matter how much they try to project 'It's now their Iraq'... it's still his mess, it will be his legacy.. as it should be. Because the Iraq could still, very likely revert to a brutal dictatorship (which all bets suggest). And it will all be for naught.


BN747

DC10guy. I don't forget Vietnam. We were right to fight that war, but not right to lose it. Communism has been such a success. Over one hundred million people died under communist rule, simply for political reasons. Hundreds of millions more fled those regimes (and are continuing to flee today). Look at North Korea today. And Vietnam would be much better off if it had a truly democratic regime. Look at South Korea as an example. It is prospering, especially compared to some of its communist neighbors.

And as far as the oil thing, that really gets old. The US went into combat in Somalia, in Bosnia, and in Kosovo, in the first Gulf War and now in Iraq again. All of these were intended to help save Muslims from being killed or starved or abused, many by their own people. There is no oil in Somalia, nor in Bosnia, nor in Kosovo. There was oil in Kuwait but it was about more than just the oil, although I will agree that part of that war was about the oil that would be controlled by Saddam. The last war in Iraq was not about oil. If it were, why didn't we just invade Mexico? They have oil and are right next door. That is because the situation in Iraq was considered to be a grave threat. The oil in Iraq is being used to help the Iraqis. It was certainly not used to help them when Saddam was in power. But it allowed him to build his palaces.The Iraqi war has cost us casualties and billions, not made us anything. But it has gotten rid of a serious threat. And we have been building schools, hospitals and tried to rebuild a shattered economy. And if you look at 50 million people being freed fropm despotic regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, then that is a worthwhile goal.

Pack your bags MD90, Your going to get to fight for Dubyas oil !!! Ignore the facts if you must ... But the draft is coming back.

Please present me these "facts" because I sure as hell would love to see them.

Please present me these "facts" because I sure as hell would love to see them.

He doesn't have any as usual unless of course he wants to cite the two Democrat sponsored bills that were created to bring back the draft.

He doesn't have any as usual

Yep, sure sounds like just about everything else he does... no facts.

Kellmark, Your unquestioning patriotism shines thru dude. I just can't see how anyone would believe that George W would have invaded Iraq if they didn't have oil ??? Let alone say "we where right to fight the Vietnam war " 58 k Americans dead. 200k Vietnamese dead for what ??? Communism ??? My ass. How many millions have died from American Greed ???

All of these were intended to help save Muslims from being killed or starved or abused, many by their own people

Oh... well that's a shit argument, and it's last on the list W. made before attacking Iraq.

DC10Guy. I don't think you get it. First of all, being a patriot is a very good thing, but only if it is for the right reasons. I certainly do not apologize for it. I am for the freedom of speech, the right to vote for whom I choose, right to associate with whom I choose, freedom of religion, and all of those freedoms that the US constitution guarantees. I think that all of those things are worth fighting and dying for if necessary. And I also am for your right to have the same freedoms. I am not unquestioning. In fact, I am for the freedom of being able to question. I do not agree with GW on everything. But he did the right thing in Iraq, for the right reasons.

You say that Iraq would not have been invaded if they didn't have oil. But then why did we go into Bosnia, and Kosovo, and Somalia? According to your analysis, the only acceptable analysis is that it is about oil in Iraq. Again, we didn't need to go into Iraq for the oil. But you just ignore that. Just by repeating something that is a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

About Vietnam. Yes, we lost 58k lives there. And there were far more than 200.000 Vietnamese casualties. More like millions. But it was for the right cause, to prevent the spread of a totalitarian regime, which when they took over eliminated any vesitige of the freedoms that the US enjoys. That is why it was the right thing to do.

You seem to say that no fight is worth it. If we all felt that way then slavery would still exist in the US, as the civil war would never have been fought where over 500,000 Americans died in a population of only 20 million. And there would still be a Nazi regime in Germany, and a Fascist regime in Japan and Italy. We lost over 400,000 killed in that war. It was a high price to pay, but I can't think of anyone who would say that it wasn't worth it in the end. And as far as communism, that cost us dearly, in Korea, Vietnam and many other places. But in the end it was worth it too. Whether won or lost, it is the principle that counts.

To say that all wars that America fights is about greed just doesn't hack it and shows a real lack of depth of understanding about what the struggle in the world is all about. It is not about greed. It is about power and right and wrong. There are people in the world who want to take your rights away and have power over you or kill you. The present US government is trying to prevent that. And I support it.

Well, if I was drafted, they'd probably place me with my strengths and I'd wind up in one of the military bands. Preferably the USMC Band or the Heritage of America AF Band. 


Still, a draft is slavery to the state. And slavery is always wrong.

Oh... well that's a shit argument, and it's last on the list W. made before attacking Iraq

Along that same line:

From Paul Wolfowitz in an interview, taken from the Defense Department transcript http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html (at the very end of the page if you want to read the whole thing):

Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

[Wolfowitz answers a phone call]

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

[another phone call pause]

Wolfowitz: To wrap it up.

The third one by itself [Saddam's humanitarian record], as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

So, it wasn't a good enough reason before, but now it is!  

It never ends. First Iraq has ties to 9/11, now Iran does. Next, North Korea!!! Fighting billion dollar war after billion dollar war, all the while cutting taxes and incresing the deficit. Guess who's going to have to pay for it all? It's the next generations. Because nobody else is going to help him out this time. The "Coalition of the Willing" isn't going to be so willing anymore after what has become a complete fiasco in Iraq. Iran is no cakewalk. And if he gets four more years, we WILL invade Iran. Stop the madness now.

Tell me something:

A lot of people are saying about how Iran is next on the list, and that if Bush is elected then a war against Iran is at least possible.

Would he be able to get away with that? Seriously, I mean? Would public opinion tolerate it in the US? Especially after the intelligence for Iraq ended up so wide of the mark.

I'm pretty sure that there's no way Blair would be able to get the UK involved without some pretty clear and obvious evidence - like Iran nuking a city for example - because his credibility after Iraq has been so damaged.

What about the other countries? Would Australia be prepared to back the US again? Eastern Europe? I really struggle to see how the US could go it alone politically if their allies from Iraq said no.

Banco, you seem to forget that GWB is a saint and everything he does is basically the work of the Lord, so why even bother with those stupid other nations? They should be happy they were allowed to join the US in Iraq!  

Wouldn't a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities(a la Iraq) be a better bet?

A lot of people are saying about how Iran is next on the list, and that if Bush is elected then a war against Iran is at least possible.

Would he be able to get away with that? Seriously, I mean? Would public opinion tolerate it in the US? Especially after the intelligence for Iraq ended up so wide of the mark

I think he would. And that's a damn shame. Plenty would question it, sure, but he can always pull the National Security card out, and the neo-cons would start going nuts for war and "defend the homeland" and "support the troops and the president" and all that, and plenty of people would get swept away in the furor. Now, if there was a draft, that's another story. And Bush has this attitude of "I'm going to do what I think is right, and screw everyone else" that would be hard to stop. He is the most powerful man on Earth.

What about the other countries? Would Australia be prepared to back the US again? Eastern Europe? I really struggle to see how the US could go it alone politically if their allies from Iraq said no.

Therein lies the problem. We'd definately be going it alone (and actually alone, I don't see any other countries jumping on) this time, and that makes the expense more, the losses more, and in general is going to be very bad. But, as I mentioned above, Bush has his outlook on things, and it wouldn't stop him.

Reading about stuff like this is getting really REALLY dull... Why don't GWB start war on every single country that has ever supported a terrorist in any way? Soon enough I expect that there will be a connection between OBL and Sweden (he spent two summers here as a child), and that we are going to be invaded by the US for harboring a terrorist....

I hope this clown gets thrown out come November...

I have a feeling that Israel would bomb Iran before the United States do.

-Delta767300ER

Re: Hundreds of millions more fled those regimes (and are continuing to flee today).

Hundreds of millions ? Er, no - hundreds of thousands maybe. And if Communism is such a scourge on humanity (I'm not a fan, but seriously, calm down), how come the US hasn't invaded China, or at least stopped kissing ass so much ?

Re: But as for Iran, where over 65 percent of the country is 25 and under and they are not thrilled with the clerics or their Islamic regime. They would be torn between repelling an American Invasion or letting the Islamic Republic go down in flames.

There lies the rub - I suspect that most of those 25 years olds, pro or anti-cleric, wouldn't hesitate for a heartbeat to rush round and beat the crap out of the US aggressors. National and religious pride is a powerful force - look at Iraq - nobody's arguing that the Saddam regime wasn't truly evil, but were the US invaders liberators welcomed with open arms ? Not so much...

As for there being a Coalition of the Duped supporting a US invasion of Iran/Syria, I sincerely doubt it, after the Iraq debacle. Iran is in defiance of no UN resolutions, the only issue being a disagreement with the IAEA on the scope of Iranian civilian nuclear developments - hardly grounds for an invasion.

IMO and I did not build it up last night, Iran is the perfect and logic name on the agenda. It comes out of necessity.
There is no (serious) Iranian issue actually, but for (mainly) domestic reasons
the US admin has to play the "entertain the fear" card, if only to retain their grip for another four years.

The Iraq story (i.e. drama) is a big mess. By the will of the smart team in charge of the most powerful land on the planet, this country went from a dictatorship (pretty liveable if one follows the rules) to total chaos (no more rules), 12,000 paid with it their lives and there are scores more to follow, and last but not least, its future is only predictable in term of minutes.
Baath party followers (you know, the scum) and National Guard members (you know, Saddam's feared soldiers) have joined the new Police.
Religious games of power are now in full swing and the Kurds are smartly keeping the score. Perhaps even so smartly that they might envisage the creation of their own state at a later but not so distant stage, with the beginning of a new nightmare including this time Turkey (you know, the big US ally), Syria (evil) and Iran (evil). Guess what.
Uncle George (or the brains behind him) gave a kick in a nest of red ants.
Now he expects them to behave in a democratic way.

Iran has to show on the headlines and subsequently your brains must be moulded to accept the next chapter and be prepared to praise your leader...again.

OBL can be satisfied, he won the first six rounds and the fight keeps developping his way.

He (and consequently yourself) is the good one, they are the bad ones, remember !

Kuddo Wellhung, even the NY Times agrees with you!

Last year, Ali G asked James Baker III, the Bush I secretary of state, if it was wise for Iraq and Iran to have such similar names. "Isn't there a real danger," the faux rapper wondered, "that someone give a message over the radio to one of them fighter pilots, saying 'Bomb Ira-' and the geezer doesn't heard it properly" and bombs the wrong one?

"No danger," Mr. Baker replied.

Well, as it turns out, the United States did bomb the wrong Ira-.

President Bush says he's now investigating Qaeda-Iran ties, and whether Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers.

Whoops.

The full article is here (member only).

The New York Times. Right. They are so unbiased. Nothing but the truth out of them.

Yeah, lets send troops to Iran. But we have no troops left. They're too busy finding empty shells in Iraq and making prison porno.

However, I have a great idea on who to send: First in line should be the pro-war, pro-Bush a.net armchair warriors of fighting age. You know who you are.

Time to get off your duffs, do some basic training, say a long goodbye to your inflatable doll girlfriends and go kick some Nukoolar Mullah ass !

Daddy aint gonna get you out of this one...

My my. aren't we getting testy and personal to boot. That's right, when you can't find a good reason to support the terrorists who want to kill you, attack those who are trying to protect you.

When the nuclear bomb that they smuggle in goes off in your town, you will blame Bush again.

"When the nuclear bomb that they smuggle in goes off in your town, you will blame Bush again."

Who smuggles?
Ira. N? or Ira. Q?
Or is it just some bloke named Ira?
And how will Ira be smuggling this bomb? In his carry on? Or will he be hiding it up his ass? Do tell.

So, save us al, a.net teenage warriors. Go sign up for the war. Uncle Sam wants you to go defuse a few Mullah Missiles. REal ones this time !! I bet its a LOT more fun than playing Sega and slapping on a Bush-Cheney sticker on your Daddy's SUV !!

You have our FULL support ! Your inflatable girlfriends will be waiting for you. Remember, that plastic is not biodegradable !

Hell, we should just send our troops everywhere. That way nobody will attack us. Oh, wait.

Alex.