Considering the links only, the last of the three (Lt. Smash) makes the most compelling argument for veracity.

CNN al Queta expert Peter Bergen's take on it, for what that's worth:

"Even if you accept the dubious proposition that every claim in the Standard report is true there is NO evidence of Iraqi involvement in attacks against American targets such as 9/11, the Cole or the embassy bombings.(Even Bush himself has now conceded that there was no link beween Saddam and 9/11). In short al Qaeda officials may have met with Iraqi officials, (particularly when al Qaeda was based in the Sudan in the mid-90s) but there was no OUTCOMES from those meetings. As we know ourselves from our own working lives we have many meetings with many different people and it is only sometimes that actions result from those meetings. Al Qaeda officials met with a wide variety of Pakistani, Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Sudanese officials at one time or another. The only governmental relationships that were important to al Qaeda were with the Sudanese from 91-96 and the Taliban from 96-2001."

from http://www.peterbergen.com/clients/PeterBergen/pbergen.nsf/Web00002Show?OpenForm&ParentUNID=014BC1145C7E116285256DE100764085

"Even Bush himself has conceded" that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11--well I guess you could put it that way, but it would be more fair to say "Bush never claimed that Saddam was involved with 9/11, and after months of words being put in his mouth, finally explicitly said that he had never had evidence for Saddma's involvement in 9/11 (which was why he never said it)."

Gabriel Even the mere mention of the non-statements by the President and his Administration lead some to believe that this is all part of a plot to protect the bin Laden family. How do you address those non-statement nay-sayers, when there is non-existent information of non-existent relationships?

The presidents words when asked a very rude question as to what he thought when he "brings fear and doubt to citizens, how does he feel about that"?

In stark contrast to the spirit of this question... the president answered.

"I love freedom. I love coming to a country where freedom to express yourself is possible."

IMHO, the president is trying out to be the Dalai Lama. I would have kicked the snot out of the guy.

I wish some of these people would mark my words. Freedom has a champion.

You really can't ever prove that something--like Bush's saying Saddam was complicit in 9/11--didn't happen. I have noticed that most people who accept as true something for which there is no evidence cannot be shaken out of it.

Bush is smart to ignore the small percentage of citizens out there who hate him. They have made it very clear that they will never ever be on his side, so why bother addressing them? He handles most questions very well, in true presidential fashion. The reporter asked an incredibly stupid question, and wasn't looking for an answer as much as a reaction.

I never supported the war based on Al-Qaeda connections, so when people attack that aspect of it I just shrug my shoulders. Bush attracts more straw men than anyone I can recall in American history, and has more false quotes attributed to him. Liberals are so blinded by their hatred that they can't think critically about what they hear, and assume anything that supports their worldview is true.

Bush doesnt have to take on his haters, they manage to shoot themselves in the foot everytime they open their pie holes. Its easier to trip a fool than to knock him down. Saying the president is Hitler and a terrorist and all that other garbage just makes 85% of the country tune you out immediately.

Everyone has seen that big list of stupid stuff Bush was supposed to have said before he was President--and not one of those things on that list was said by him.

They were, however, all said by Dan Quayle.

Mark Buehner

That 85% that tune out - would they correlate with the 85% who believed there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection? The President has the ear of the nation. Surely some fireside chats would have allayed this groundless fear. If as Gabriel Hanna has implied, Bush never believed there was a connection, why not reassure a worried nation? Why leave a concerned public in limbo when he "never had any evidence"?

dirk That would be 'Need to Know'.

I found a little piece of the puzzle, which I thought that I would note. Seems even the AP thinks we need to know more about the conditions of life under the Mullahs. This from Suadi Arabia on the subject of the perseqution of its citizens first and foriegners afterward, much farther down.

I know that some of you are christian and I have spoken about the perception of persecution of christians in this country, would it serve us to compare what type of life a christian has under the rule of islam? I have heard many agnostics complain that they feel the same type of pressure from the 'Religious Right' in this country. If there is ever going to be a change in perceptions about feeling the need to lead a moral life and its benefit to society, we need to be better at getting out the message that we are not these people.

"Larry, 39, a computer programmer from the Philippines who gave only his first name, said he had been jailed for a day on three different occasions, including once for possessing a Bible.

"I told them that Christianity is my parents' gift to me and they let me go" after confiscating his Bible, Larry said.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-saudi-religious-police,0,4681212.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

Sunami I heard on the radio yesterday of the burning of thirteen Churches in Nigeria. Just thought it might add to the perspective.

"That 85% that tune out - would they correlate with the 85% who believed there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection? "

Keep an eye on this sentiment. I promise you that after Bush sweeps this election, the 'stupidity' the left secrectly believes of the American people is going to be front and center.


"The President has the ear of the nation. Surely some fireside chats would have allayed this groundless fear. If as Gabriel Hanna has implied, Bush never believed there was a connection, why not reassure a worried nation? Why leave a concerned public in limbo when he "never had any evidence"?"

Ah, this meme again. I only remember about 50 times the administration specifically denying the 911 connection. But of course what Bush actually said bears no relation to what he is attributed to have said.

I don't have much patience for those who say the "religious right" in this country is anything approaching a theocracy of any kind... but I haven't much patience for those who insist Christians are being "persecuted". I agree that not allowing prayers at high scholl graduations is an infringement of religious liberty, but it's not persecution.

When a lynch mob shoots a religious leader in jail, a a religious leader in jail for no crime--that's persecution. I don't think Joseph Smith was a prophet--I guess I don't think anyone was-- and I don't think he was particularly holy or righteous. But he undoubtedly did nothing to deserve his murder, and his followers were persecuted quite unjustly.

The book club I belong to is sending me David Limbaugh's book on "persecution of Christians in America" and I intend to give a it a fair hearing; I expect to be unconvinced.

Gabe,

I think we could consider that a relative point. By this point, I imagine my particular bias in this area is well known, and while I agree with you that Christians could not be considered "persecuted" in the truest sense of the word, as in some of the examples that Sunami gave, I think Christians in this country are facing infringements on personal religious liberties that are unprecedented in our country's history.

In addition, it seems that Christians are uniquely the target of this kind of bias. No one would consider telling a jew that they couldn't wear a Star of David in public. But that's exactly what happened in Kentucky to a librarian about the wearing of a cross. She had to sue to keep from losing her job over it.

These are, in comparison to the suffering of Christians in Africa, or say, Pakistan, minor, but it seems clear to me that it gets worse every year. Things have happened this year in addition to the example I gave above that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. I find it a somewhat disturbing trend. I haven't read Limbaugh's book, either. I'd be interested in your opinion on it.

Duly noted Gabe and Johnnymozart.

I fall between the two of you in both categories, however my thought was that something needs to be expressed that does not equate religion with intolerence. Would it serve us better if we asked why the media seems to project the image that cultures with a common morality inevitably result in conditions which are now threatening the world with religious extremism? If the lie is told often enough by so many, then it becomes a common fact. In other words, the idea of a pluralistic society, and one which we classify as 'liberal' or libertarian seems to characterize religious liberty with a lowering of standards of morality and relativism. (I know that it was a mouthful, but as an idea whose time might be arriving along with its need, it becomes more set in concrete once it has outlived its usefulness).

There was a time in America, when you could walk along main street and not see anyone from another denomination but almost every possible political persuation. What was a civil unifier was the religion which we all shared. Women wore hats with optional veils, beautiful dresses and heels and men wore suits and hats with polished shoes. What difference was between them and thier individuality was known to those who loved and cared much about them; behind doors and protected by the commonality of privacy. Much has changed to revolutionise society since that time and individulisation, sectarianism and hyphenization became the lexus of the nation. The individual whom most could point to as being the most individualistic for much of these last fourty years was until recently Michael Jackson.

As an observer of the last fourty years of life in America, I have seen much along with the decline of morality. One of the things most often harped upon by those who wished not to see the decline of morality was the culture of the Cult of Personality. The entire media is designed today to cover his every movement and whim, and if he leads an immoral life, the more shocking the more he sells, the better for the media - and the better for us?. The media IS the marketplace of ideas.

We few, who have shut off the tap so to speak, do not find it necessary to watch 24-7 coverage of OJ, Michael Jackson or Winona Ryder to know that it is a mistake to follow a cult which worships personality. Rush Limbaugh listeners seem to know that people fall, that they get up and that it is difficult and appreciate that it does not need to be in our face, or concern our daily lives. Believe me, Rush understands this and is on the road to recovery from his fall, having learned that he too is all too human.

But that is not what this is all about; it is about the differnce of knowing who is taking personal responsibility for thier actions and the responsibility of thier fate and transforming themselves to meet the challenges, individually and bringing those changes into the world and changing it - individually, and as a movement.

After the Dems have thier hats handed to them in the congress, the governorships and the Executive; when it all comes crashing down around so many, as morally responsible citizens, we need to have the plan and the answers which will rebuild this society and make it something worthwhile for our brave soldiers and the families who support them to come home to.

I am suggesting, that we use our religious and spiritual insight to understand this and be ready to make religion once again a unifying force in civil society. I guess that I am asking how we should go about it, to first discuss it, to debate it and ultimately to deliver the world from this evil.

George W. Bush once said; "I am a uniter, not a divider." and lo, the world becomes first The One Amoung the Many and out of that The Two. I believe with all of my heart that we should look toward reaching The One.

Its about being principled but not arrogant, kind but not weak, strong but compassionate. This is the America we know and stand up for. Would it be so hard if we find a way to say that God controls and only God knows what this all will lead to?

Maybe?

Gabriel & johnnymozart I believe you both know how I feel on the matter of religious freedom. I don't mention what I consider 'intolerance' for your sake, but for anyone else who might read these words.

Until the late 1920's in this country, Catholics suffered at various times and places, a great deal of 'intolerance'. Look up the A.P.A. It is something that has slipped into our past, and forgotten - because it is better oftentimes, to recognize that our country and what it stands for, has been been down this road with Catholicism. There are many who would liberalize our beliefs for the sake of 'getting along'. It isn't really about getting along. And unless and until there is a realization that we all have the right to wear our religious beliefs on our sleeve in this Society, even if it is only the person that we are to our neighbor, we will continue to fall further away from what matters to us all. Freedom. I do not mind that my neighbor is a Muslim. I do not mind that my neighbor is a Pagan, nor do I mind that any other faith is at least practiced. What I do mind, and what I condemn, is that in our Christian effort to be tolerant, we are oftentimes not doing or saying what we ought in the public forum. As a Christian I don't feel I should have to defend my faith whilst also defending the government which I have, in part, chosen. I do not like it, nor do I think it right that I must shed my beliefs in order to hold or perform the office for which I have been selected. I also do not like it that a person who has chosen to practice his faith in the execution of his office, whether it be Judge or jury, is ridiculed for attempting to uphold his office with an eye to a higher Authority. That is just plain wrong.

I agree Cap'n. As usual, of course. I do think that something is lacking, and heartily agree that you having to put your beliefs somewhere else than on your sleeve, as a member of public office, could possibly be one of societies greatest evils. That religious beliefs should not be shared at all in the marketplace of ideas, I believe decrees the decline of morality and even common civility.

We both have seem many examples of the problem here on these pages many, many times over. As soon as a reference to a personal belief system is mentioned, inevitably the hyperbole, hyperventilation and personal attacks start. As if to say; "Oh, you are one of THOSE people. Here, let me give you a nice kick for starters on what you deserve!!!"

Where in hell does that come from? I can see one having a difficult time with a Metaphysician, but I cannot see how they could be so typed in this day and age!

Incredible, aint it?

johnny mozart--you make an excellent point when you say that when religious liberty is infringed upon it is invariably Christianity--last year a New York school district forbade Christmas symbolism but allowed what they called "secular symbols"--and the examples given were crescents and menorahs! (But, as P J O' Rourke said, anyone who has had sex with an elementary ed major knows exactly what is wrong with education in this country.)

AS for the Cap'n and Sunami, while the trials they suffer in the practice of their faiths pale in comparison to those suffered by other in other places and times, the One to Whom they are accountable is taking note of it--and I am sure He will not be displeased.

God Bless You All.

But limit your animations to whatever is required to communicate the necessary information. Avoid annoying animations that discourage ease of use. Ask yourself, "What do I need to show the user, and what is the cleanest way possible to achieve that?" A good example is the Mail application for Mac OS X. Whenever a new message arrives, the Dock icon changes appearance to indicate a changed state.

Adopt Sheets. I really like the use of Sheets in OS X. The use of Sheets lets me know which window my dialogue belongs to without hijacking my system.

For my Paint application, I created a series of icons to simulate a rendering algorithm. While the application is performing this CPU-intensive task, you can always see the status of the document by the icon changing in the Dock.

To put my money where my mouth is, in each new article I'll build a hypothetical application that illustrates the guidelines I'm covering. Today's application is called "Paint" and will be based on the photo-illustrative icon I created in my last article. Together we will complete each step, and by the end of the project we should have a well-designed, 95%-100% Aqua-compliant application. I'll leave some room for personal preferences and the fact that Apple changes the OS every few months.

But limit your animations to whatever is required to communicate the necessary information. Avoid annoying animations that discourage ease of use. Ask yourself, "What do I need to show the user, and what is the cleanest way possible to achieve that?" A good example is the Mail application for Mac OS X. Whenever a new message arrives, the Dock icon changes appearance to indicate a changed state.

Not quite as entertaining as Shrek, but Dock animation can be an important and useful function in your application. For example, Dock animation is a helpful way to indicate the status of your application.

BUSH IS A SECRET JEW.
9-11 WAS GENERATED BY SECRET JEWDOM.
A SECRET JEW, D.ROCKEFELLER OF CFR IS THE MASTERMIND.


These are the result of my research on 9-11 as shown in the below website.:-
http://homepage1.nifty.com/shkaiseigi/dmt_files/meanwhile.htm

Then, a European company suddenly suspend payment of sales commission for the past business. Why? Any third party influencing the company to do so? Trying to squeeze me? B’NAI B’RITH? ADL? Unification Church? I strongly protest to DMT, S.A.,France for its extremely unreasonable behavior. DMT’s major client is a Rockefeller company.

A SHAME OF FRANCE
http://homepage1.nifty.com/shkaiseigi/dmt_files/index.htm

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: