THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING

[skunk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3556191.stm

Good interview here. And this guy is going to be testifying to the 9/11 enquiry....

[zimv20]

on ABC news on the TV, they showed a clip of Cheney talking to Rush today. basically, he called Clarke's competency into account because the attacks on the US embassies in africa and the USS Cole took place under his watch.

and i was thinking, "and what about 9/11?"

[skunk]

on ABC news on the TV, they showed a clip of Cheney talking to Rush today. basically, he called Clarke's competency into account because the attacks on the US embassies in africa and the USS Cole took place under his watch.

and i was thinking, "and what about 9/11?"

They obviously thought highly enough of him to ask him to stay on in his post when they took over....

[zimv20]

They obviously thought highly enough of him to ask him to stay on in his post when they took over....
indeed. then he called ************ on them and quit. and NOW he's incompetent!

[coopdog]

Bill Clinton let the ball drop on terrorism too. So did other presidents before Bush. It's not like all the terror groups just poped up and started messing with America and the rest of the world when Bush came into power. I would think that the 9/11 attacks were planed before bush came into power. That still doesn't excuse the fact that the GOV. most likely knew it was going to happen.

Has anyone else heard the reports and eyewitness accounts of the Israilie (SP) CIA equlilent agents with cameras setup to film the towers coming down, then jumping and celebrating once they fell?

[Backtothemac]

No, clarke has worked in the past 4 administrations. He retired after 30 years of government service. Not because of disagreements with the administration. He is a baffon, and this is nothing but the same political **** that both parties are guilty of. Kerry's advisor is best friends with Clarke. He has a beef, but waits to write about it until the election year. Please. Clinton outing the Dean papers. Please. All of it is wasteful crap. He says in the book that Rice acted as if she had never heard of Al Qeada. Whatever. She has taught friggin classes on Al Qeada. He is a political tool for the left, and it is sickening.

And anyone who thinks otherwise, I feel for you.

This is politics as usual in Washington.

[numediaman]

Has anyone else heard the reports and eyewitness accounts of the Israilie (SP) CIA equlilent agents with cameras setup to film the towers coming down, then jumping and celebrating once they fell? ~Coop

He is a baffon, and this is nothing but the same political **** that both parties are guilty of . . . All of it is wasteful crap. He says in the book that Rice acted as if she had never heard of Al Qeada. Whatever. She has taught friggin classes on Al Qeada. He is a political tool for the left, and it is sickening . . .And anyone who thinks otherwise, I feel for you.– Backtothemac


There you have it. The Right has spoken.

[mactastic]

Well the Democrats lie too, so it's ok if the Republicans lie to even things out. Right?

[IJ Reilly]

So after 30 years serving four presidents including three Republicans, Clarke is suddenly nothing more than a shill for Kerry. Good grief, I think some people are positively allergic to the truth, and will do nearly anything to avoid coming into direct contact with it.

[numediaman]

So after 30 years serving four presidents including three Republicans, Clarke is suddenly nothing more than a shill for Kerry. Good grief, I think some people are positively allergic to the truth, and will do nearly anything to avoid coming into direct contact with it.

Don't forget Paul O'Neill -- he's a Kerry stooge you know.

EDIT: by the way, skunk, you should put a real title on this thread

[coopdog]

Has anyone else heard the reports and eyewitness accounts of the Israilie (SP) CIA equlilent agents with cameras setup to film the towers coming down, then jumping and celebrating once they fell? ~Coop

He is a baffon, and this is nothing but the same political **** that both parties are guilty of . . . All of it is wasteful crap. He says in the book that Rice acted as if she had never heard of Al Qeada. Whatever. She has taught friggin classes on Al Qeada. He is a political tool for the left, and it is sickening . . .And anyone who thinks otherwise, I feel for you.– Backtothemac


There you have it. The Right has spoken.

I'm independent BTW. And I believe that politics fueled the time it was brought forward. The Israile agents were even caught on film doing what I said above. Why is it never mentioned? Hmm.... I wonder. The US is Isreal's bitch. We pay them billions in aid every year, have a double standard when dealing with them and we even try to cover up when they kill our millitary. :confused: And that's why the Arabs are angry with the US now Hamas, it's all becasue of our double standard.

[numediaman]

I'm independent BTW. And I believe that politics fueled the time it was brought forward. The Israile agents were even caught on film doing what I said above. Why is it never mentioned? Hmm.... I wonder. The US is Isreal's bitch. We pay them billions in aid every year, have a double standard when dealing with them and we even try to cover up when they kill our millitary. :confused: And that's why the Arabs are angry with the US now Hamas, it's all becasue of our double standard.

coop: according to your profile you are a "Softmore in highschool". Ya gotta stay off the junk food and study a little more -- ya know? ;)

[coopdog]

coop: according to your profile you are a "Softmore in highschool". Ya gotta stay off the junk food and study a little more -- ya know? ;)

What the **** are you talking about? ;)

[Durandal7]

There you have it. The Right has spoken.

Oh no, not the Right. We certainly don't want any dissent on this forum.

[zimv20]

The Israile agents were even caught on film doing what I said above.
i've never seen a reputable news source confirm that. do you have such a link?

[wwworry]

Oh no, not the Right. We certainly don't want any dissent on this forum.

It seems any time someone critisises Bush the critic is attacked, attack the messenger.

Dissent based on issues is fine. Say you do not believe Clark who was there. Say you do not want to believe O'Neill who was also there. Two eyewitnesses are not good enough for you?

Fine.

But I find it odd that Clark who first served in the Reagan administration and O'Neill who served with Bush 41 came up with similar stories and were both in the white house when all that was going down. Yes they did write books. Maybe they would not have written such books if what happened did not happen. We pretty much know already that the war on Iraq was presented with "misleading" (lying) data. We also know that the administration was told the facts did not meet their rhetoric. We know that Voctoria Plame was exposed as a CIA agent because her husband told the truth about the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union address. We know that many in this administration thousght that toppling Hussein should be the main priority as far back as 1998. We know that Tenet told the white house that the data supporting WMDs in Iraq was inconclusive but the white hosue went ahead and talked it up all the same.

It's a house of cards and it's falling.

[3rdpath]

No, clarke has worked in the past 4 administrations. He retired after 30 years of government service. Not because of disagreements with the administration. He is a baffon, and this is nothing but the same political **** that both parties are guilty of. Kerry's advisor is best friends with Clarke. He has a beef, but waits to write about it until the election year. Please. Clinton outing the Dean papers. Please. All of it is wasteful crap. He says in the book that Rice acted as if she had never heard of Al Qeada. Whatever. She has taught friggin classes on Al Qeada. He is a political tool for the left, and it is sickening.

And anyone who thinks otherwise, I feel for you.

This is politics as usual in Washington.

hey b2, good to see you back in the political mudring...but as usual, you're just plain wrong( ;) )

first, clarke is an admitted republican who was hired by THE republican posterboy reagan. as was previously written, he also served faithfully under bush 1 and clinton...so this tooling for the left is just nonsense...ya might as well say "vast left-wing conspiracy" ala hillary clinton.

second, who cares who his best friend is or who he works for. my two best friends are incredibly staunch pro-bush republicans...does that make me a shill for the right?

thirdly, the guys got major experience and is highly regarded by his peers. why on earth should he be hastily dismissed as just playing politics if he writes a book about his experience? also, doesn't it make sense that he'd feel strongly enough about his experience to hopefully better inform people of this administration's blatant f-up's before the election? seriously, if you had a message that you thought was of wordly importance... when would you release it? exactly.

lastly, heck yes, this is politics...but it's the right kind of politics. he's not the first major player to blow the whistle on this administration's blunders. policy misfires that endager our troops, our country and our reputation are the right topics in this election year. you yourself even stated you'd changed your mind about the validity of the war in iraq...that took an open mind. why thrash him for doing the same thing?

and really truly lasty, i'm very skeptical that condi rice taught classes on al-qaida before her job with bush 2...any links to that info?

[zimv20]

No, clarke has worked in the past 4 administrations. He retired after 30 years of government service. Not because of disagreements with the administration. He is a baffon, and this is nothing but the same political **** that both parties are guilty of.
i found this interesting about the man, in light of his criticism of the 9/11 response:

Clarke's disputes with the White House are notable in part because his muscular national security views allied him often over the years with most of the leading figures advising Bush on terrorism and Iraq. As an assistant secretary of state in 1991, Clarke worked closely with Wolfowitz and then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney to marshal the 32-nation coalition that expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Clarke sided with Wolfowitz -- against Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- in a losing argument to extend that war long enough to destroy Iraq's Republican Guard. Later, Clarke was principal author of the hawkish U.S. plan to rid Iraq of its nonconventional weapons under threat of further military force.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13607-2004Mar21?language=printer)

[numediaman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html?hp


Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JUDITH MILLER
Published: March 23, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 22 — As the White House opened an aggressive personal attack against its former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, a furious debate broke out on Monday about the credibility of his assertion that President Bush pushed him the day after the Sept. 11 attacks to see if there was a link with Saddam Hussein . . .

. . . One ally, Mr. Clarke's former deputy, Roger Cressey, backed the thrust of one of the most incendiary accusations in the book, about a conversation that Mr. Clarke said he had with Mr. Bush in the White House Situation Room on the night of Sept. 12, 2001. Mr. Clarke said Mr. Bush pressed him three times to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The accusation is explosive because no such link has ever been proved.

"I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything," Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. "See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." . . .

. . . Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, responded at a White House briefing on Monday that Mr. Bush did not remember having the conversation, and that there were no records that placed the president in the Situation Room at the time.

Mr. Clarke countered in a telephone interview on Monday that he had four witnesses, including Mr. Cressey, who is a partner with Mr. Clarke in a consulting company that advises on cybersecurity issues. In an interview, Mr. Cressey said the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also witnessed the exchange. Administration officials said Ms. Rice had no recollection of it . . .

Another ally of Mr. Clarke, Thomas R. Maertens, confirmed the outlines of Mr. Clarke's critique of the White House. Mr. Maertens, who served as National Security Council director for nuclear nonproliferation on both the Clinton and Bush White House staffs, said that Mr. Clarke had repeatedly tried to warn senior officials in the Bush administration about the growing threat of Al Qaeda.

"He was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S.," Mr. Maertens said Monday from his home in Minnesota. But Mr. Maertens said that the Bush White House was reluctant to believe a holdover from the previous administration.

"They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration," Mr. Maertens said. "So anything they did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it. And it's disgusting to see the administration now putting a full-court smear on Clarke — for being right."

Somebody is lying. If it is Bush, and Clarke can prove that he actually held that meeting with the President and Rice, then a major scandal could break out.

On the other hand, if it is proven that Clarke made this up, this could hurt those who want to attack the President on this policy -- and help the President's credibility (which is currently at zero).

[mactastic]

I love how being Kerry's advisor being Clarke's 'best friend' makes him a 'tool of the left' yet Cheney's chummy relationship with Scalia is hunky dory by the right.

Is Scalia a 'tool of the right'?

[skunk]

I just heard Rumsfeld saying to the Commission that they had "destroyed two terrorist regimes". He couldn't possibly be referring to Iraq, could he? Some people never learn. But nobody has picked him up on it yet. :mad:

[Backtothemac]

Ok, 1st off, I have always voted republican, but, and that is a huge but, I am an independent. I think for myself, and form my own opinions. That being said, I am very liberal from a social standpoint. But not with matters of foriegn policy, nor fiscal policy. (Taxes).

So, I was attacking both the left and the right for the same ole same ole from Washington. Clarke makes himself look bad when he says that Rice acted as if she had never heard of Al Qeada. That is just stupid. As I have said the woman is very, very intelligent. Yes, he is a republican, but it was also his fault, and his policy that allowed al Qeada to come to power in the 90's under Clinton. They used diplomacy to try to combat the terrorists, and that doesn't work.

Now, Bush, were do I start. I was 100% for the war in Iraq because for ME it was more than WMD's. Having served in government, I was 100% positive that he had the weapons. Saddam was a friggin idiot, because he either did not have them, and was trying to bully the region and the US all the way to his demise, or he shipped them to Syria or Iran. (more likely if you ask me).

Now, I am not, 100% behind Bush. I think that the way that Iraq has been handled has had its flaws. Not in the jobs that the troops have done, but in the strategy. The very 1st thing that should have occured was the hardening of the boarders. 2nd, we need at least twice the manpower and arial power to sustain the boarder patrol. In addition to that. Lets put 100,000 friggin troops in Afghanistan to find Al Qeada, and root them out. I blame Bush not for being an idiot, or for being a bad President, but for listening to and taking bad advice from certain people. I personally think that he is a good man, with good intentions, and generally thinks that he is doing the right thing. Now add to that that NEVER has this country faced this type of threat, and I personally think the attacts on his character for political gain are baseless, and show lack of thought on those that do the attacking.

On Clarke, I have met Condi, and his comments on her are way, way out there. The chair of the school of Political Science here has known her for 20 + years. He is a rabid liberal, and hates the administration, but he agrees with me that Clarke is out of line, and yes, he has known Clarke for many, many years as well.

So, don't attack me, don't insult my intelligence. Don't make yourself look bad by assuming that the B2TM that was a super hawk is still that same man. Don't assume that I am a tool for the right. I am a free thinker that makes my own decision. I think Bush is a better choice than Kerry, but I would have voted for John Edwards. There is the shocker of the century right. I hear people passing out all over the world.

[wwworry]

John Edwards? Be still my beating heart. :rolleyes:

It sounds like your main critisism is that he "had the impression that she had never heard of Al Qeada". Could that just be another way of stating that they did not act on the increased chatter happening at the time and that Ashcroft and Rice seemed more interested in Iraq than the Al Qeada threat?

Neither of us have read the book, by the way, so it seems presumptuous to discount it based on wording in a second hand report.

What we do have is yet another report from inside the administration that after the attacks came Bush's primary interest was Iraq.

Right now, how many troops are in Afghanistan and how many are in Iraq?

Who did they capture, Hussein or Bin Laden?

Who master minded the bombing of the World Trade Center and from which country?

From all the other information out there and Clark's history it seems like what he is saying is true. Attack the messenger all you want. Bush is not doing a good job on terroism.

Over a hundred people were just killed in Madrid. The taliban and Al Qeada are still factors in Afghanistan. The atack happened under Bush's watch. Those are facts.

[skunk]

As I have said the woman is very, very intelligent.
A lot of intelligent people have lousy judgment.

I was 100% for the war in Iraq because for ME it was more than WMD's. Having served in government, I was 100% positive that he had the weapons.
I refer you to my answer above...

Saddam was a friggin idiot, because he either did not have them, and was trying to bully the region and the US all the way to his demise, or he shipped them to Syria or Iran.
And again...

I think that the way that Iraq has been handled has had its flaws. Not in the jobs that the troops have done, but in the strategy. The very 1st thing that should have occured was the hardening of the boarders. 2nd, we need at least twice the manpower and arial power to sustain the boarder patrol. In addition to that. Lets put 100,000 friggin troops in Afghanistan to find Al Qeada, and root them out.
You haven't GOT 100,000 more troops to spare.

I blame Bush not for being an idiot, or for being a bad President, but for listening to and taking bad advice from certain people.
Surely it's a fundamental part of the job to listen to the right people, especially when starting a war.

I personally think that he is a good man, with good intentions, and generally thinks that he is doing the right thing.
So what? "The road to hell etc..."

Now add to that that NEVER has this country faced this type of threat, and I personally think the attacts on his character for political gain are baseless, and show lack of thought on those that do the attacking.
You're conflating again: the threat was NOT from Iraq, as you very well know.

On Clarke, I have met Condi, and his comments on her are way, way out there.
I guess we'll have to take your word for it then, if you've MET her.

So, don't attack me, don't insult my intelligence. Don't make yourself look bad by assuming that the B2TM that was a super hawk is still that same man. Don't assume that I am a tool for the right.
Sorry, my mistake: you and your twin brother look very similar:rolleyes: :confused: :confused:

[Sun Baked]

Like 9/11 was the first attack on the World Trade Center... :rolleyes:

I'm so glad Clarke and Kerry accurately predicted that the next attack would be by commercial airliner, instead of the truck bombs everybody else was prepared and looking for.

Somehow I don't think the Bush Administration dropped the ball on the threat, I think they were caught offguard by the method used.

But even if they were more prepared and had the fighter chasing the other planes in time...

What would the public reaction have been to the President splashing 3 loaded passenger jets?

Would have been worse if he had acted before the first jet had hit and spashed that one into the River.

You're talking saving lives by killing innocent people, and prior to 9/11 that would probably would have led to a President being removed from office -- for failing to find and alternative resolution.

Before 9/11 they would have had to wait until the terrorist boarded the plane, or picked them up and deported them for Visa violations.

---

For some reason the Justice Department likes going for the BIG crimes, instead of acting quicker to eliminate a threat with penny ante crimes. So they sit and watch while scores of people are victimized while they're building their case.

[skunk]

I'm so glad Clarke and Kerry accurately predicted that the next attack would be by commercial airliner, instead of the truck bombs everybody else was prepared and looking for.

Presumably it wasn't Kerry's job.

Somehow I don't think the Bush Administration dropped the ball on the threat, I think they were caught offguard by the method used.

Same thing, isn't it?

You're talking saving lives by killing innocent people, and prior to 9/11 that would probably would have led to a President being removed from office -- for failing to find and alternative resolution.

They don't seem to have any compunction since, or before, for that matter. Ask 10,000 dead Afghani and Iraqis.

Before 9/11 they would have had to wait until the terrorist boarded the plane, or picked them up and deported them for Visa violations.
If they hadn't dropped the ball, at least some of these people WOULD have been picked up.

[wwworry]

Apparently there was an Al Qeada bombing that was averted at Los Angeles International airport in 1999.
So Clark and "Kerry" (what the hell?) did have some success there. Clark admits that he had some failures as well which is far more than this administration will do.

I don't get how some people want to completely absolve Bush of any responsibility in this matter and then turn it around and say he is doing a good job. He was president when this happened. Information was known about the threat. His advisors were more concerned about Iraq than Al Qeada.

Don't you think he deserves a little bit of the responsibility? Yes, going after Al Qeada in Afghanistan was a good thing. But on the other hand Al Qeada is still in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is still out there plotting and bombing people. How is this such a good job? I would say it's a middling job.

Forget Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[numediaman]

Yesterday's hearings were just prologue -- I assume Richard Clarke's testimony this afternoon should be the main show. But don't be surprised if the Republican members of the committee start attacking Clarke.

[numediaman]

Interview with Clarke from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4886028-110340,00.html

Another cartoon along the same line. Must be that liberal media bias . . .

[Backtothemac]

Wow, it is amazing to me that someone can post honest, moderate opinion, and still get hammered for it. Clarke is a scorned employee. HE is the one that is a fault in my opinion. He did not have a policy that would deter 9/11. Fact is that those on the far left attack Bush as a man, and not his policy.

If you don't like his policy that is fine. If you think he sucks at fighting the war on terror that is fine. What do you think Kerry will do different? Your right, Iraq was not the direct threat. I said that. I agree. But it was a potential threat, and for that. Hussain met his ends.

[skunk]

Wow, it is amazing to me that someone can post honest, moderate opinion, and still get hammered for it.

You're not getting picked on: your honest, moderate opinion differs from my honest, moderate opinion, that's all.

Fact is that those on the far left attack Bush as a man, and not his policy.

Who here is on the "far left"? Bush has charged into an illegal war and occupation based on a cynically manufactured premise, at the expense of finishing the job he set out to do with OBL. And he has lied repeatedly. Do you feel content with a president who behaves like that?

Your right, Iraq was not the direct threat. I said that. I agree. But it was a potential threat, and for that. Hussain met his ends.

There are many "potential threats" to stability. That's not enough.

[Backtothemac]

You're not getting picked on: your honest, moderate opinion differs from my honest, moderate opinion, that's all.



Who here is on the "far left"? Bush has charged into an illegal war and occupation based on a cynically manufactured premise, at the expense of finishing the job he set out to do with OBL. And he has lied repeatedly. Do you feel content with a president who behaves like that?



There are many "potential threats" to stability. That's not enough.

Far left meaning those in the main stream media, etc. You know what I mean. Illegal by whose law? The U.S.'s law? No, then it isn't an illegal war. I agree that he should have finished OBL first. Lied. What lies? As I have said I agreed with the decision to go into Iraq, just not the timing.

As for Potential threats. That is good enough for me. Personally, I think that we should go after a couple of more, and then maybe more like Lybia will fall into line.

All I was trying to say is that I am sick of both parties.

[numediaman]

It seems that anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is a disgruntled, disloyal, scumbag. I'm glad O'Neill and Clarke are Republicans -- its shows the Republicans what they can expect if they cross this administration.

[skunk]

Far left meaning those in the main stream media, etc.
If your media had been anywhere on the left, they wouldn't have been so acquiescent in the lead-up to the Iraq adventure. "Far left" is Trotsky, not Fox News.

Illegal by whose law? The U.S.'s law? No, then it isn't an illegal war.
International treaties are part of US law, if I'm not mistaken.

All I was trying to say is that I am sick of both parties.
Now THAT I can agree with :)

[Backtothemac]

It seems that anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is a disgruntled, disloyal, scumbag. I'm glad O'Neill and Clarke are Republicans -- its shows the Republicans what they can expect if they cross this administration.

No it shows the world what someone does when they don't get the job that they want, in Clarke's case. He wanted Tom Ridge's job, did not get it. Boom. There you go.

If what he says is true, then HE owes the American people some answers for not kicking and screaming earlier about it.

I personally just don't believe the man.

[Backtothemac]

If your media had been anywhere on the left, they wouldn't have been so acquiescent in the lead-up to the Iraq adventure. "Far left" is Trotsky, not Fox News.


International treaties are part of US law, if I'm not mistaken.


Now THAT I can agree with :)

I agree the media should have played a more important roll leading up to the war. But now, they are just political foder. We have done a lot of good in Iraq, and not Iraqi's hate us. I sold a phone to a man yesterday who served in Iraq for the last year. His best friend was killed by an IED last month. Yet the man (who is no longer in the army) says it was worth it because of what we have done for those people.

As far as treaties, yes, but, remember, Congress did give Bush the power to conduct the war. Nothing trumps the Constitution.

[skunk]

As far as treaties, yes, but, remember, Congress did give Bush the power to conduct the war. Nothing trumps the Constitution.
So Congress colluded in a flagrant breach of international law.

[jayb2000]

... He did not have a policy that would deter 9/11. Fact is that those on the far left attack Bush as a man, and not his policy.

If you don't like his policy that is fine. ...

The problem is that Clark's policy was IGNORED. Its not that he did not have one, its that he could not get a cabinet level meeting until Sept 4, even though he asked for such a meeting 3 days after the Bush administration took over.
Paul O'Neill has documents to show that 10 days after inauguration, they had a cabinet level meeting on how to take out Iraq.

So, two independent, Republican witnesses have come forward saying that Bush ignored the al-qaeda threat.
But, instead of asking for any documentation to disprove this, most on the right start personal attacks (O'Neill was disgruntled, Clarke was jealous of Tom Ridge, etc.).

Why not just show some meeting minutes and memos related to al-qaeda that shows how hard they were working on the problem before 9-11?
If they could, they would. :rolleyes:

[Backtothemac]

The problem is that Clark's policy was IGNORED. Its not that he did not have one, its that he could not get a cabinet level meeting until Sept 4, even though he asked for such a meeting 3 days after the Bush administration took over.
Paul O'Neill has documents to show that 10 days after inauguration, they had a cabinet level meeting on how to take out Iraq.

So, two independent, Republican witnesses have come forward saying that Bush ignored the al-qaeda threat.
But, instead of asking for any documentation to disprove this, most on the right start personal attacks (O'Neill was disgruntled, Clarke was jealous of Tom Ridge, etc.).

Why not just show some meeting minutes and memos related to al-qaeda that shows how hard they were working on the problem before 9-11?
If they could, they would. :rolleyes:

What did Clarke want a meeting? Everything from the brief that he sent to the President was done. So, yes, no meeting, but everything he wanted was granted. He was all about meetings.

As for O'Neal, so what. We have contengency plans to take out N. Korea, Russian, hell even France. That doesn't mean anything.

As for international law. Skunk. Personally, and I say this with all due respect. I don't want Europe, or Asia, or the middle east deciding when or how the U.S. military is used. I would rather leave that up to my country, and thus that is why I think that the U.S.'s membership in the UN is unconstitutional.

[skunk]

As for international law. Skunk. Personally, and I say this with all due respect. I don't want Europe, or Asia, or the middle east deciding when or how the U.S. military is used. I would rather leave that up to my country, and thus that is why I think that the U.S.'s membership in the UN is unconstitutional.
Does that mean that it's OK to ignore treaties signed into law by your government? OK if we all do that? It can't be unconstitutional: treaties are part of your Constitution. Inconvenient maybe, unconstitutional not.
There are exceptions to having to agree a course of action: genuine self-defence in face of an IMMINENT threat. That's why Bush and Blair and their respective cronies were trying to make out Iraq was an imminent threat. They failed to convince the Security Council. Then they distorted intelligence to provide themselves with "legal cover" and browbeat any opposition by citing "national security". It was shabby, dishonest, cynical and criminal.

[Backtothemac]

Does that mean that it's OK to ignore treaties signed into law by your government? OK if we all do that? It can't be unconstitutional: treaties are part of your Constitution. Inconvenient maybe, unconstitutional not.
There are exceptions to having to agree a course of action: genuine self-defence in face of an IMMINENT threat. That's why Bush and Blair and their respective cronies were trying to make out Iraq was an imminent threat. They failed to convince the Security Council. Then they distorted intelligence to provide themselves with "legal cover" and browbeat any opposition by citing "national security". It was shabby, dishonest, cynical and criminal.

Bush never said that the treat was Immenent. Never. In fact, he said that not to act would be foolish, to wait until the threat was immenent would be a mistake. He never said it was. As for Blair, I dont' know. As far as Constitutional law is conserned, there is a clause in the Constitution that says the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The UN charter usurps the right of Congress to delcare war. Thus, in my opinion, and many others, it is unconstitutional.

The actions of Bush are not criminal under our law, and I doin't think under the laws of soverign nations to do what they feel they have to do to protect themselves.

[skunk]

Bush never said that the treat was Immenent. Never.

I'll assume you meant "threat". No, he just got his gang-members to say it for him.

[zimv20]

Bush never said that the treat was Immenent.
but his administration said it, including rumsfeld (as pointed by thomas friedman) and fleischer, in a may 2003 press conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html)


Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it.

[Backtothemac]

Guys you are right. We went to war on bad intelligence. We made a mistake about WMD's. The world was mislead into thinking that he had these weapons. Well, we knew he had them at one point, because, well, he used them. Futhermore, why did every country continue to impose sanctions for 15 years on the country if we did not think that he had them? Why did he not do what the UN wanted? Why not end the suffereing on his people. Why did he continue to avoid the inspectors? Was it until he could move the weapons? Sell, them? Hide them? We don't know. We probably never will.

But your right. I wish we could put him back in power, say we were wrong, and then the world could love the US again.

[zimv20]

Guys you are right. We went to war on bad intelligence. We made a mistake about WMD's. The world was mislead into thinking that he had these weapons. Well, we knew he had them at one point, because, well, he used them. Futhermore, why did every country continue to impose sanctions for 15 years on the country if we did not think that he had them? Why did he not do what the UN wanted? Why not end the suffereing on his people. Why did he continue to avoid the inspectors? Was it until he could move the weapons? Sell, them? Hide them? We don't know. We probably never will.

But your right. I wish we could put him back in power, say we were wrong, and then the world could love the US again.
we know now that containment was working well, at least in terms of his not being a threat. as for the plight of the iraqis, believe me, i feel for them and had done so throughout the 90s.

but whether their plight warranted an invasion must be considered separately from the war on terror. bush used the WOT as a cover for whatever his own agenda there is. and though the end result will match one of my own goals -- improved life for the iraqis -- i cannot accept the ends being used to justify the means.

imo, bush undermined the WOT w/ this war. his administration had to do a hard sell to get the invasion. note that such as sell was not at all necessary in afghanistan. why? people recognized it as a logical step in the WOT. iraq was not; most of the world knew this, a lot of americans knew this, and we called ************ on it.

today clarke will call ************ on it as well. and if anyone's in a unique position to know, it's him.

[Backtothemac]

we know now that containment was working well, at least in terms of his not being a threat. as for the plight of the iraqis, believe me, i feel for them and had done so throughout the 90s.

but whether their plight warranted an invasion must be considered separately from the war on terror. bush used the WOT as a cover for whatever his own agenda there is. and though the end result will match one of my own goals -- improved life for the iraqis -- i cannot accept the ends being used to justify the means.

imo, bush undermined the WOT w/ this war. his administration had to do a hard sell to get the invasion. note that such as sell was not at all necessary in afghanistan. why? people recognized it as a logical step in the WOT. iraq was not; most of the world knew this, a lot of americans knew this, and we called ************ on it.

today clarke will call ************ on it as well. and if anyone's in a unique position to know, it's him.

Ok, here is my question. Bush acted on intel that had existed since his fathers administration, and was the same intel that Clinton acted on. Now, Bush did not create the intel, rather reacted to it. So, just for a second assume that the intel was 100% correct. Would Bush have been warranted in his actions? It was the intel's fault, not the President. In his shoes, I would have given the same order post 9/11

[zimv20]

Ok, here is my question. Bush acted on intel that had existed since his fathers administration, and was the same intel that Clinton acted on. Now, Bush did not create the intel, rather reacted to it. So, just for a second assume that the intel was 100% correct. Would Bush have been warranted in his actions? It was the intel's fault, not the President.
the key is what bush did, not the information w/ which he did it. whereas GHWB and clinton both opted to not invade, GWB *did*, and it seems w/o much intelligence that was terribly more recent.

as has been posted on these boards, one can examine bush's methods and find fault. e.g. ignoring CIA et. al. reports that didn't fit bush's pre-drawn conclusions, stovepiping intelligence from chalabi's group, etc. these are important distinctions. i find fault not just w/ the invasion, but how the decision to invade was arrived at.


In his shoes, I would have given the same order post 9/11

i have every reason to believe that this invasion was planned pre-9/11. and i think you're wrong about yourself -- i think you would have thrown all resources at UBL and concentrated on that until he was captured/killed. so there! :-)

[diamond geezer]

He is a baffon, and this is nothing but the same political **** that both parties are guilty of.

Considering he's a Republican appointee, are you sure that's BOTH parties?

Kerry's advisor is best friends with Clarke.

What, have they gone on a "energy services company" sponsored hunting trip together, using Air Force Two?

He has a beef, but waits to write about it until the election year.

Actually, if you research this a bit, I think you will find that he wrote the manuscript after he retired, but as he was a security officer in the administration, by law the Whitehouse is required to clear the manuscript to ensure it has no "national security secrets" within in. Don't blame him that it took them over a year to clear it. They only have themeselves to blame for the timing of the book release. They know it, too, which is why you will find the Fox has stopped complaining about the timing.

[IJ Reilly]

This "political timing" charge cuts both ways. During his interview with the NewsHour the other day, I believe Clarke said that the White House sat on the book for three months. I suspect they'd have sandbagged it even longer if they were able, but that would result in publication even closer to November 2. Clarke was probably already known to be a witness called before the 9-11 investigation, so having the book appear this week is an effort to compress this event into one story instead of two.

[diamond geezer]

If you don't like his policy that is fine. If you think he sucks at fighting the war on terror that is fine. What do you think Kerry will do different? Your right, Iraq was not the direct threat. I said that. I agree. But it was a potential threat, and for that. Hussain met his ends.

What sort of "potential threat" was he? Are you talking about the threat of the non-existant WOMD, or was it a more economic threat as in oil deals with other western powers?

At least your not trying to say he had to go because he was an evil murdering dictator, because we all now how hypocritical that statement would be, with regards to the "Land of the Free's" foreign policy.

With regards to Hussain meeting his end, well, he hasn't yet.

The thousands who have "met their end" because of Hussains potential threat, were civilians, pressganged Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers.

[Sun Baked]

Presumably it wasn't Kerry's job. But it was Clarke's job.

Plus any member of Congress or the Senate that let US citizens die because it's "not their job" to prevent it, doesn't deserve the job in the first place.

Their job is to raise a big stink to fight for the people they represent.

Strange thought, they're expected to fight for jobs -- but not for lives.

Same thing, isn't it?Not really, if a terrorist says he's going to kill somebody and you plan on stopping him. Then his sister strikes 2,000 miles away -- it's not a forseen event, that people would normally catch.

They don't seem to have any compunction since, or before, for that matter. Ask 10,000 dead Afghani and Iraqis.If Bush is fighting an illegal war in your mind, then I can only assume that the best response to 9/11 was for Bush to stick his head in the sand and turn the country over to Al Gore.

Strange to hear people complain when Bush is trying something to prevent terrorism -- and hear them say it's an illegal war on terror. When they blame him for not doing enough to prevent it in the firstplace.

I will admit that the Iraqi end of the war is probably one of the worst marketed wars in history. Meaning explained very poorly to the rest of the world in a lot of aspects.

If they hadn't dropped the ball, at least some of these people WOULD have been picked up.If they had picked them up and deported them, they would have been back within days.

The point is they hadn't done anything wrong, yet, except violate their Visa -- these guys probably even avoided the collection of arms and bombs that would have landed any other cell in jail on arms violations.

You have to remeber this was pre-9/11.

[skunk]

If Bush is fighting an illegal war in your mind, then I can only assume that the best response to 9/11 was for Bush to stick his head in the sand and turn the country over to Al Gore.

Strange to hear people complain when Bush is trying something to prevent terrorism -- and hear them say it's an illegal war on terror. When they blame him for not doing enough to prevent it in the firstplace.

Geez, you just won't let it die a natural death, will you? IRAQ WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!! Which part of that don't you understand?

[Sun Baked]

Geez, you just won't let it die a natural death, will you? IRAQ WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!! Which part of that don't you understand?But the Iraqi threat does have some similarities to the 9/11 hijackers, potential vs. imminent threats.

If they were bombmakers actively constructing a bomb on US soil they would have been an imminent threat.

If they were bombmakers on US soil they would probably have just been potential threat.

At what point is a SWAT raid to kill these people justified?

Or is deporting them early in the process, and losing track of the cell the answer? And then you're losing a threat you do know, for a hidden cell that can strike anywhere.

Problem with the hijackers is they were taking flying lessons and planning on using weapons allowed onboard allowed by the airlines. So the line between potential and imminent threat is harder to determine.

So I can see where you're coming from and how Iraq has nothing to do with determining potential vs. imminent threats.

[wwworry]

wonderful logic there Sun Baked :rolleyes:

[Sun Baked]

wonderful logic there Sun Baked :rolleyes:With regards to politics is supposed to be twisted and convoluted and totally incomprehensible logic with very little basis in reality, but I don't know if I twisted it enough to get it tossed out as irrelevant and pointless yet. So people can go back to the fallback position learned in kindergarden, fingerpointing.

Then you toss in a bunch of Spindoctors to shift the blame to the other party anyways.

---

Of course the real logic probably boils down to...

Arguing on MacRumors about politics is about as useful as posting in the poop thread.

[skunk]

But the Iraqi threat does have some similarities to the 9/11 hijackers, potential vs. imminent threats.
EVERYBODY is a "potential threat".

At what point is a SWAT raid to kill these people justified?
If you have them under observation you don't need to SWAT them. You can arrest them just like anyone else.

[Thanatoast]

At what point is a SWAT raid to kill these people justified?
Never. SWAT is supposed to capture violent criminals in order to bring them to trial. Since the highjackers were planning on running planes into buildings, I'd say they could've made a good case on conspiracy charges and thrown them in jail.

What I don't understand is why people think that killing terrorists will solve the problem. ****, if that were the solution, Israel would be the safest place on the face of the planet. Instead, 30 years of killing terrorists has done nothing but create martyrs and hurt their cause.

What you need to understand is, terrorism is not an illness, it's a symptom. You don't cure a cold by taking aspirin, you just get rid of the stuffy nose. The cold is still there when the aspirin wears off. If we want to end terrorism we're going to have to treat the causes of it, and that means taking a long hard look at our foreign policy in the Middle East and deciding how much $2/gallon gasoline really means to us.

[wwworry]

---

Of course the real logic probably boils down to...

Arguing on MacRumors about politics is about as useful as posting in the poop thread.


I have a lot to say about poop. Where is this poop thread? And I'll bet your wrong about whatever you posted there. ;)

[Neserk]

Oh no, not the Right. We certainly don't want any dissent on this forum.


I like dissent, so long as it is intelligent dissent. And right now the only intelligence is coming from those saying "I voted for Bush in 2000 but I will be voting against him 2004." Everyone else is just in denial.

[mactastic]

Oh no, not the Right. We certainly don't want any dissent on this forum.

Isn't it time to start yet another thread whining about how leftist this forum is? :p

[Juventuz]

I like dissent, so long as it is intelligent dissent. And right now the only intelligence is coming from those saying "I voted for Bush in 2000 but I will be voting against him 2004." Everyone else is just in denial.

What's intelligent dissent? The type that coincides with your line of thinking?

[Juventuz]

If we want to end terrorism we're going to have to treat the causes of it, and that means taking a long hard look at our foreign policy in the Middle East and deciding how much $2/gallon gasoline really means to us.

Why is it only our fault?

[skunk]

Why is it only our fault?

One word: ISRAEL :rolleyes:

[Juventuz]

That's a poor excuse.

[skunk]

...and that means taking a long hard look at our foreign policy in the Middle East and deciding how much $2/gallon gasoline really means to us.

We pay $5 here already (that's an Imperial gallon, not US): it's not so hard.

[zimv20]

We pay $5 here already (that's an Imperial gallon, not US): it's not so hard.
if i had my way, that's what we'd be paying here, too. i think frohickey would enjoy how the market would work itself out after that.

[IJ Reilly]

if i had my way, that's what we'd be paying here, too. i think frohickey would enjoy how the market would work itself out after that.

The UK price translates to around $4.00 US. In California, we're over halfway there and by summer we'll probably be paying 75% of the UK price. Unfortunately the difference won't be going towards providing people with alternative methods of getting around -- it will all add to the refiner's bottom line.