The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

nice sig DeHog!!!!!!!

Thank you sir, I feeling a little feisty this week.

DEHog wrote:Thank you sir, I feeling a little feisty this week.

I noticed!

It's cool tho.

Very Nice DE - I dig it man!
The Truth?! You Can't Handle the TRUTH?" - man I love that full screen, XCU of Nicholson, spraying his lines.

NC, you're probably right - I usually come here to blast folks that hate the President... mainly because I have a lot of respect for the man and believe he's doing a good job. I don't agree with everything he does - mainly he hires bafoons to do his PR and statements to the American public. He could do a better job of explaining things. I think he's brighter than people give him credit for - and like I said he had my vote 9/12/01.

Larry Brown HOF, and more -
Scooter

I saw on the news today that the 9-11 commission report stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda DID have meetings, to the point where Saddam offered Bin Laden refuge in Iraq if he ever needed it.

I also read today that Alan Greenspan, the chairmen of the Federal Reserve said that Bush's tax cuts PREVENTED a SEVERE RECESSION. Remember, tax cuts DON'T cause deficits, excessive spending by congress does.

As far as the Big Dig, from what I've seen and heard on the news, Kerry has some explaining to do.

Brandon777 wrote:I saw on the news today that the 9-11 commission report stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda DID have meetings, to the point where Saddam offered Bin Laden refuge in Iraq if he ever needed it.

Oh yeah?

CNN wrote:The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.

Just this week Bush and Cheney have made comments alleging ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry said, "the administration misled America."

"The administration reached too far," he told Detroit radio station WDET. "They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions."

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

The report said that Atta was in Virginia on April 4 -- evidenced by video that shows him withdrawing $8,000 from an ATM -- and he was in Florida by April 11 if not before.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... ommission/

Sounds like you listen to BS news.

Clinton had a report in 98 that terrorist were planning to hijack planes now Berger stealing documents...

Lucy you've got some splaining to do!!

Bush had a report in August of 2001 stating that terrorist were planning to hijack planes and attack American soil.

The report also stated that attack could happen at anytime.

I agree.....Lucy does have some explaining to do.

August of 2001??? Was this something Clinton handed him at his inguration??

Damn it people this is not about blaming our own country. The terrorist did this. NO ONE Republican or Democrat did one thing to stop it. If you are blaming them, blame the head of the CIA, the head of the FAA, the owners and operators of the Airports. Didn't you see that tape? A few of the terrorists set off the alarms at Dulles, yet they still got through. As a country we screwed up. And everyone is so ready to point the finger so we don't have to feel bad about being wrong.

And Tsaler when was that article you posted from, we all know how the commision went back and forth with this info. I'd listen to the info in the final report, which BTW if you'd like to read the hard copy of, I was in Walden Books yesterday!

I am sorry but this issue bugs me! Sept 11th happened because we as a people became to lax, on EVERYTHING. And it is starting all over again. People complaining about having to wait in line at the airport, or having the "privacy" infringed upon. FREAKING GET OVER IT! It is worth it if it saves lives. People just don't get the cost of being a selfish soceity. We need to keep our citizens safe and if that means someone knows a little more about you then seriously, what is the big deal.

Sorry I'll stop now. Just took this thread off of it's intent.

I will get it back on track, it doesn't matter which canidate wins. They need to be serious about homeland security. Don't throw stats or policy at me. I want to see it in action!

NikiH wrote:And Tsaler when was that article you posted from, we all know how the commision went back and forth with this info. I'd listen to the info in the final report, which BTW if you'd like to read the hard copy of, I was in Walden Books yesterday!

No, we don't "all know how the commission went back and forth with this info," because it didn't. It's crystal clear: Saddam and al Qaeda were not at all linked in any way in the attacks which took place on 9/11. Period. It's indesputable.

And yes, I read the executive report yesterday, and I'm considering reading the full thing over the next week or so. There is no mention of any of this.

By the way, I spoke to several very well-informed individuals about this particular lie that Brandon777 posted (and it is not his lie of course, he is merely repeating something someone else lied about), and I've found that this particular lie is coming from the Neil Boortz show. Is that where you got it from, Brandon?

UGHHH I love how you ignored the rest of post completely. Focusing on calling a fact you don't like a lie. If both facts are floating around and you were not in charge of Saddam's personal schedule for that week how do you know???

NikiH wrote:UGHHH I love how you ignored the rest of post completely. Focusing on calling a fact you don't like a lie. If both facts are floating around and you were not in charge of Saddam's personal schedule for that week how do you know???

Because the 9/11 Commission has debunked these accusations as false. They are simply not true. To assert that they are is to lie. It's quite simple, actually. That is, unless you know more than the 9/11 Commission. Do you?

tsaler wrote:

NikiH wrote:And Tsaler when was that article you posted from, we all know how the commision went back and forth with this info. I'd listen to the info in the final report, which BTW if you'd like to read the hard copy of, I was in Walden Books yesterday!

No, we don't "all know how the commission went back and forth with this info," because it didn't. It's crystal clear: Saddam and al Qaeda were not at all linked in any way in the attacks which took place on 9/11. Period. It's indesputable.

And yes, I read the executive report yesterday, and I'm considering reading the full thing over the next week or so. There is no mention of any of this.

By the way, I spoke to several very well-informed individuals about this particular lie that Brandon777 posted (and it is not his lie of course, he is merely repeating something someone else lied about), and I've found that this particular lie is coming from the Neil Boortz show. Is that where you got it from, Brandon?

tsaler, you crack me up. Pulling articles from CNN, the most liberal news agency in the U.S. to dispute the 9-11 commision report is laughable. I don't know what "lie" you accuse me of telling. The Bush administration NEVER said Saddam helped plan 9-11. They did say there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which IS what the Commision Report stated.

Let me give you a bit of advise tsaler, with all due respect. You need to take what your liberal professors say with a grain of salt. I went to college in the south, and the political science professors are far-left here. It was impossible to find a balanced teaching staff in that department. I can imagine how liberal they are up north. I know your young, but you really need to do some research on both parties before polarizing yourself.

BTW, I have never heard of Neil Boortz.

Hey Brandon....I've seen you pull articles from Kerrysucks.com. So you shouldn't be talking about pulling articles from CNN if you do the same darn thing!!!!! If not worse!!!!

Redskins Rule wrote:Hey Brandon....I've seen you pull articles from Kerrysucks.com. So you shouldn't be talking about pulling articles from CNN if you do the same darn thing!!!!! If not worse!!!!

I did that as a JOKE because I thought it was funny. Come on man, relax .

Brandon777 wrote:ROTFALMAO tsaler, you crack me up. Pulling articles from CNN, the most liberal news agency in the U.S. to dispute the 9-11 commision report is laughable.

It is not disputing the report. It is explaining the report. It is also explaining the fact that the report refutes any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

I don't know what "lie" you accuse me of telling. The Bush administration NEVER said Saddam helped plan 9-11. They did say there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which IS what the Commision Report stated.

The report did not state that. I challenge you to quote from the report where it states that there is a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Let me give you a bit of advise tsaler, with all due respect. You need to take what your liberal professors say with a grain of salt.

I have liberal professors? How do you know what kind of professors I have? And believe me, it's not my professors that are affecting my political views. They're from me, my own mind, and my own experiences. My professors are here to educate me and facilitate discussion and learning. They are not here to indoctrinate me, and I do not let them.

I went to college in the south, and the political science professors are far-left here.

All throughout the entire region? I find that hard to believe. You would think that there would be some conservative professors or even moderate professors somewhere.

It was impossible to find a balanced teaching staff in that department.

Who says I want a balanced teaching staff?

I can imagine how liberal they are up north.

You would be surprised how conservative they are, I think. Some of them, that is. Mostly in the mathematics and science departments, I've found. The majority in the liberal arts college are on the center-left, but that's just how it goes. I don't mind.

BTW, I have never heard of Neil Boortz.

Okay.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/ ... 170840.asp This is a long article, but a good one. The National Review is a NON-BIASED, NON-PARTISAN source.

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Brandon777 wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp This is a long article, but a good one. The National Review is a NON-BIASED, NON-PARTISIAN source.

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

That article seems to be an acceptable half-way point between where each of us stand, so I'm just going to leave it at that. It states that the 9/11 Commission has come down on the side of the people who said that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had no relationship (me), but it also outlines a few instances where that conclusion is questionable.

I trust the report itself. These folks have to take it up with the 9/11 Commission. I don't know what the commission knew, and since I haven't read the full report yet, I'm not going to debate on behalf of it.

tsaler wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp This is a long article, but a good one. The National Review is a NON-BIASED, NON-PARTISIAN source.

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

That article seems to be an acceptable half-way point between where each of us stand, so I'm just going to leave it at that. It states that the 9/11 Commission has come down on the side of the people who said that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had no relationship (me), but it also outlines a few instances where that conclusion is questionable.

I trust the report itself. These folks have to take it up with the 9/11 Commission. I don't know what the commission knew, and since I haven't read the full report yet, I'm not going to debate on behalf of it.

Thats cool. I won't either. I guess it's true what they say about the National Review being a non-partisian source because IMO it supports Bush's claims, to you it supports your opinion.

For an anlaysis of 9/11, see the Carneigie Endowment for International Peace / WMD Non-proliferation site:

Overall Non Proliferation sub-site is at : http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/default.asp

For thorough coverage of both the US and UK reports, see Carnegie's site:

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/ ... l/home.htm

The site include the text of both reports.

Carnegie's summary of the "key findinga" is at:

http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3Guid ... ummRec.pdf

And before I step out of this topic, since I would rather talk football (and Washington baseball) with you all, I should say that I have a son and a daughter-in-law in the Army. My D-i-L is currently deployed; my son just had warning that his unit might be deployed soon. Daughter-in-Law had a step-brother who was killed in April...and my thanks to the folks at Dover AFB, where she collected his body, and from which she escorted him home. They truly do honor to the remains of the servicemen and women who remains pass through Dover.

I am not happy with this occupation of Iraq.

No, I saw holes in the argument to invade Iraq -- Afghanistan was a different matter -- and they were easy to spot. We were bombed by secret cells of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. The Taliban gave them protection and training camps. Pakistan supported and armed the Taliban.

Saddam was the last of the Nasserites, a pan-Arabic nationalist, a secularist, a semi-socialist in a degenerate way.

Osama and the rest of the Islamists believe that Nasserism has failed; that it was fundamentally wrong, because the Pan Arabists wanted to emulate the West. The Islamists believe that "Islam is the answer" to everything. That the big mistake was to stray from the narrow path of Islamic law ("sharia") and to imitate the Europeans.

The Islamists saw Saddam as the last of his type ("go to the trashbin of history", as the Bolsheviks told the non-Bolshevik members of the Duma in 1917). They expect to overthrow Saddam, and the Saudi royal family, and the Gulf oil sheiks, and every other Arab ruler corrupted and turned from the path of sharia. There was never a basis for an alliance between Al Queda and Saddam.

For the rest, there was very little to suggest that Saddam was a threat to the US. To his own people, yes, indeed. And if the war had been pitched, entirely, as a war to make the world safe for democracy, I might have gone along, though with the reservation that such wars always seem to make the world a little worse for all the mess afterward. (ie, US entry into WWI helped the Allies beat Germany, leading eventually to a Nazi regime dedicated to undoing the defeat of 1918...leading to...etc. Maybe a negotiated draw would have been a better ending to WWI?).

- Saddam's armed forces had been hollowed out by the import restrictions and the constant bombings. (Source: General Anthony Zinni and Tom Clancy).

- The WMD's were stale. Mustard gas decays after a bit, and Iraq had produced none since before Gulf War 1. Further, mustard gas has be be delivered by artillery shells, so (a) the Iraqis had a death-range no farther than their cannons could shoot, and (b) someone would have had to dig the mustard gas shells up from hiding, and truck them to firing bases, all under US observation.

- The Iraqi nuke program was dead, and had been for years. Furthermore, you don't make a nuke overnight in a garage: it is visible, and it takes a long time, even for skilled scientists in a technologically advanced and self-suffcient country...which does not describe Iraq. If Saddam had re-started his program, we would have known it and bombed it.

- Finally, it was argued that Saddam was linked, somehow, some way, with Al Queda. No, and both the Senate 9/11 Commission and the UK Butler Commision say there was no link. Yes, Osama has funding from elements of the Saudi oligarchy, he had support from Sudan and from the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA. Maybe he had "best wishes" from the Iranian ayatollahs, although that is a stretch: the Iranians are Shi-ites, and Osama and crew are Wahabbi Sunis. When not murdering Westerners and Westernizing muslims, the Wahabbis like to slaughter Shi-ites in Pakistan. But no, no alliance with Saddam.

Welch, I can speak as a member of the Dover AFB Port Mortuary...it is a first class process, those of us who have the difficult task of processing the remains here are truly honored to do so. I can't tell you how sorry I am to hear about the loss of your loved one. It's a side we don't see here often, and to be honest we don't want to see that side of it. I have very mixed feeling...on one hand I feel we needed to address this. It just hard to see these 18 and 19 year old kids coming home like this. My prayer are with you son and daugther-in-law

Thank you, DE Hog. My daughter-in-law truly appreciated the care that she, and her step-brother, received. It helped her through an awful time.

On a completley unrelated and irrelevant topic, did anyone see Kerry throw out the first pitch for the Yankees-Red Sox game Sunday night? He looked like 4-year old girl out there...

Steve Spurrier III wrote:On a completley unrelated and irrelevant topic, did anyone see Kerry throw out the first pitch for the Yankees-Red Sox game Sunday night? He looked like 4-year old girl out there...

Yeah, I saw it. There was a funny picture posted in a smack thread here of him trying to catch a football. He looked like a four year old girl there also. Someone deleted the pic though.

On another topic, I heard a funny story about Kerry. I wasn't sure if I should post it because it is a rumor, but what the hell. A good friend of mine who I went to college with was born and raised in Nantucket, MA. He lives there now. He told me, and he swears it's true, that Kerry got into a little mishap with the coast guard there. Last summer, Kerry was wind surfing in a restricted channel on Nantucket island. There was a ferry loaded with cars coming through the channel. The ferry contacted the coast guard to take care of the matter. The coast guard arrived and brought Kerry aboard the boat. The coast guard officer in charge was a woman. My friend said she is well known on the island for being strict. Well, when Kerry was brought on board the boat, he proceeded to yell and cuss at everybody. He was saying things to the woman officer like " you f*** ing b****, do you know who the f*** I am!!" "I'll have your F***** JOB!!!!!!!!." "How dare you treat me this way!!!!!" My friend also was telling me that Kerry always would park in handicap spaces and walked around Nantucket like he owned the island.

Nantucket is a small island. My friend swears this really happened. My friend is a smart, level-headed guy who isn't full of crap, but like I stated at first, it is a rumor and I can't provide a link or nothing like that. I think it's funny though.