Saddam had No Links to Al Qaida

"There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the late terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or with al-Qaida, the Senate Intelligence Committee says in a new report.

The partially declassified review of U.S. intelligence in Iraq prior to the toppling of Saddam Hussein refutes several claims made by the Bush administration.

Republicans dismiss the report as "old news," but Democrats say the report destroys the administration's case for going to war. The report also raises questions about the role of former CIA director George Tenet in making the case for war.

Release of the committee's report comes more than two and a half years after Democrats on the panel demanded a probe into the use or abuse of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Only the first two parts of that probe are in today's report. The most explosive elements of the findings compare pre- Iraq war intelligence with what was learned later.

No Republicans who serve on the committee were on hand to comment on the findings. But the panel's Democratic vice chairman, Jay Rockefeller, declared on the Senate floor that the document shows the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq "exploited a deep sense of insecurity" Americans felt following the 9-11 attacks.

"The administration, in its zeal to promote public opinion in the United States for toppling Saddam Hussein, pursued a deceptive strategy prior to the war of using intelligence" that was either unreliable, inaccurate or fabricated, the Sen. Rockefeller said.

Fellow Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan said that despite evidence to the contrary, President Bush last month continued to insist that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the recently killed leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

The report cites other intelligence reports from both before and after the war that raised serious doubts about Iraq's ties to al-Qaida. It also relates how former CIA director George Tenet issued a statement that bolstered the case for war just before Congress voted on authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- even though the CIA had found unlikely the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein planned to use weapons of mass destruction.
White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the report, saying, "We'll let people quibble over three years ago."

"The important thing to do," Snow said, "is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the month after and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won."

NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5952990

Why the Hell is the USA still in Iraq?

All comments are welcome.

National Security: What Would the Democrats Do?

Frankly, I do not believe National Security would have been the focal point or shall be the focus of a Democratic administration.

I wrote this post in anticipation of the Congressional elections of 2006 and the Presidential election of 2008 in hope of persuading more Republicans to vote for Democrats. If at all for the purpose of restoring political balance back within the government of our great nation.

The nearest example of what the Democrats would do is clear in the 8 year jubilee led by the Honorable President Bill Clinton of Arkansas. This is too long ago to remember so I give an example of a current great world leader.

I would ask for those of you who sincerely have no clue of what a Democrat would do too visualize Tony Blair. While Great Britain has been bombed and has foiled terrorist attacks, do you know what the focus of Honorable Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration is?

Tony Blair’s focus is on Anti-Social Behavior. On the other hand his approach to the War on Terror is through law enforcement.

This is how the Democrats would govern.

They would focus on Domestic needs of the American people first while realistically providing for the National Security.

I know I’m not making this up because I remember how Bill Clinton placed an emphasized and invested more money into law enforcement and the War he did pure in Kosovo, we went in did our job and left. And while doing so the USA engaged in international corporation, and utilized the UN, NATO, and troops from other countries. I vaguely remember John Kerry also speaking of a more law enforcement approach to fighting the War on Terror.

This is how the Democrats would govern and it worked then and is working in Great Britain.

Now back to Tony Blair. He is seeking to have teachers pick up on signs of anti-social behavior in children in order to ward off such actions early on.

At the same time our President George W. Bush is giving numerous speeches about the War on Terror and staying the course in Iraq.

Why not does Great Britain, nor Russia, nor China, nor France, nor Germany have 100,000 plus troops in Iraq?

Why then is the USA draining its economy in the Middle East?

The American people are crying out against this War in Iraq, worried about the economy, the government is negligent on Domestic needs: Faith Based and Community Grants, Schools, Energy Prices, Social Services, the response to Natural Disasters, jobs, benefits and wages, healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare and other general cost of living.

Healthcare in the USA simply must be reformed. When someone who has employer insurance still has little access and options, what of that person whom does not have this benefit? Money must be removed from the equation.

How dare those in Washington D.C. state the federal government has little role in responding to such events as last years Hurricane Katrina. If our government fails the people in such a basic need, my lord. Then what is the role of government? The question is what are the priorities of this administration? And are these priorities in line with the desires of the American people?

These are the bread and butter issues. How much more sacrifice does the Bush Family and the countless other rich families in America want for the working class to make before these policy cease?

President George Washington dedicated his life to the creation of our great nation in order to provide for the common good of the free people of the United States of America. Now George W. Bush and his ‘administrators’ are seeking to rewrite the book itself.

I recount how Bush talked about Saddam Hussein in saying “he tried to kill my father”. And how far fetched it may sound I think of how Bush tried to take my Social Security.

Where is the common good in policy where everything is private? There is reason and purpose for government in providing for its citizens. It seems that some are seeking to establish a state where the benefit of being an American citizen is no different than being a citizen of Afghanistan.

Just today President Bush gave another speech on the War in Iraq where he repeated exactly the same things he has been saying for years.

Our country has been gravely misdirected and it has been far too many Bush years passed a time for change.


Blair’s campaign against Anti-Social Behavior:
http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=40791

Election Day: Primary Results!!!

The Winners Are!!!

Governor

Jim Davis

Wins Democratic nomination with 47%

Charlie Crist

Wins Republican nomination with 63%

U.S. Senate

Katherine Harris

Wins the Republican nomination with 50%

FL-Congressional District 13

Christine Jennings wins the Democratic nomination with 64%

Vern Buchanan wins Republican nomination with 32.3%

CFO

Tom Lee-R 56%

Attorney General

Skip Campbell-D 65.7%

As of: 10:40pm 09/05/06, reporting based on the Florida Dept. of State

http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/

DEMS must Call Out the Republicans

To Win, Democrats especially in Florida must step outside of their comfort zone and challenge Republicans head on.

This “Democratic comfort zone” has not won elections since Bill Clinton. The Progressives of the Party may not necessarily turn out to vote and if they do they may vote for a 3rd party candidate. The Progressives of the Democratic Party most definitely in this year’s election cannot be counted on because they may not vote for a candidate who supports the Iraq War.

In addition, the Republicans have sucked up yes small but strategically significant demographics such as business and religious interest within the Hispanic and African American communities.

The DEMS must then grow its base.

Democrats must articulate their position on the following:

The Iraq War
Immigration
Homeland Security
The Economy

Changes to current Immigration Policy in reality is not of great concern to the majority of DEMS, however it is to Republicans. This is where the DEMS can win not just swing votes but the support of those who usually vote for the GOP.

I personally believe that in light of the current political climate if a Democrat runs solely on these 4 issues presenting a better plan than their Republican opponent they will win.

I've attended many Democratic functions and have heard folk say “democrats will always win on the issues". The fact is the DEMS have not won in Florida.

It is apparent that after loosing 2 important consecutive elections that a more coherent message along with directly calling out the Republicans will win for the Democratic Party.

This calling out is not the same as negative campaign tactics attacking your opponent.

Christians & War

The Christian Church should not be concerned with Islam, it must be concerned with spreading the word of our Church. This was the calling left to the disciples. Jesus did not teach to promote Christian values through Wars of bombs but a spiritual warfare of faith.

What a world this would be if Christians alone strayed from Jesus’ example of Peace and embraced Lucifer’s tools of War. The Bible in Luke 2:14 says “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth, good will towards men.”

Those claiming to be Christians within the United States are today becoming agitated by certain Muslim beliefs. Such beliefs as those that call for the killing of ‘infidels’.

The answer to such beliefs is certainly not continued War.

Christians are not alone; there are various faiths, and non believers whose values have no moral foundation. So I ask if the Christians will not be advocates of Peace within the World, then who shall be?

13 Senators to End the Iraq War.

On June, 2006 the Senate had the opportunity to End the War in Iraq however they rejected two separate proposals, one by Kerry and another by Levin. There are Only 13 Senators standing firmly against the War.

It took 13 Colonies to birth our great nation. 13 Senators to end this War in Iraq.

Report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13477664/

Its Iraq Stupid.

I don't tend to give advice to Republicans, but here's some: You will loose the House in 2006 because of Iraq.

Iraq: Why are we really there?

In 2002 Mr. G.W. Bush said 'Saddam tried to kill my dad'.

Maybe this is the real reason. What do you think?

Reports:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734315453.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0304-05.htm

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

I heard someone describe the War in Iraq as "reinforced failure".

Observing this whole situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East, one cannot ignore the Administration at fault.

Our presence in the Middle East is tantamount to putting our face into a nest of hornets.

The G.W. Bush Administration is utterly plagued with failures and lack of skill. In 7 years Bush has almost gambled away the respected reputation of the United States of America.

I propose this: besides supporting Israel the U.S. should completely leave the Middle East, bringing home the military by 2007.

Its time for change.