Historical document???

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by wwworry, Apr 12, 2004.

  1. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #1
    Rice replied, "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "

    and they claim to think it was a "historical document". Is that supposed to mean Bin Laden "was determined" but is not any more? Then they excuse themselves for doing nothing because no one told them exactly where and when the attacks might occur. Rice defends herself because Clark did not tell her what to do. But isn't the job of the national security director to make those decisions?

    BS
     
  2. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #2
    Maybe instead of blaming everyone else, we should be blaming Richard Clarke!
    He was the counterterrorism chief since the first Bush and what did Clarke do?? NOTHING!!!

    Clarke only has cared about furthering his own career and when he didn't get his promotion, he decided to whine like a baby.

    If we are going to blame anyone, we should be blaming Richard Clake.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    it's... as if.... you've read no articles.... listened to no reports... skipped all the clarke threads.... hid in a cave.... with your fingers in your ears...
     
  4. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #4

    I guess you got me there....

    I forgot that differing opinions are not wanted in the politcal threads... :rolleyes:
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    I've heard this so much it's becoming cliché.

    Your Clarke comments were inconsistent with the facts presented here.

    Differing opinions are not merely contrary opinions. They must meet the same burden of proof.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    How about the person in charge takes responsibility? I'm so sick of polititians wanting to pass the blame on down the chain but bring the accolades up the chain to themselves.
     
  7. kuyu macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #7
    With all this blaming going on, I've got a great one. How about we not blame Clinton, Bush, or their administrations.

    Instead... (I know, this is far-fetched) ... why don't we blame.... the terrorists themselves? It's crazy, for sure.... But I'm beginning to think that the terrorists might have had something to do with the attacks. The TV keeps telling me that Clinton and Bush had the planes hijacked, but my intuition says otherwise.

    Maybe, just maybe, both admin's knew that people hated us. And maybe they'd both heard of bin Laden. And perhaps (stick with me now) the presidents could have used their super-sensing abilities to mentally locate bin Laden, and then had Catwoman and Spiderman spoil bin Laden's plans.

    Seriously folks, this partisaned blame game has got to end. Terrorists did it. Not American politicians. Blame alqueda, not the previous presidents.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Just a reminder of what's occurred here: The most incendiary claim made by Richard Clarke in his book and his testimony was that the Bush White House did not treat terrorism as a top priority. In all of her talk about "structural problems" and "actionable intelligence," Condi Rice essentially confirmed Clarke's charge. No matter how you look at it, this is a ball they weren't moving down the field with much enthusiasm. Whether they were justified in not taking much action is arguable, but I should think the question about whether Clarke was correct in saying what he did should no longer be at issue.
     
  9. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    Lets say the FBI read the report that Middle Eastern looking people with valid jobs and id (I believe all were legal US citizens? or at least held valid passports) were legally learning how to fly but showed no interest in learning how to land. And lets say they also read that above PDB. What were they suppose to do? If they arrested those individuals they would've been violating their rights for they did not do anything illegal. The ACLU would be demanding their release. In fact most of the participants themselves didn't even know their target until they boarded the plane. The tickets weren't purchased until 3 days before they boarded the plane. Until they actually boarded the plans they did nothing to be arrested for. Our legal system would not have been permitted to do a damn thing to stop them.

    The same ACLU demanding the release of our terrorist prisoners in that Cuban prison camp would've demanding the release of the terrorists who destroyed the Twin towers and rammed the Pentagon. For there was no substatial proof that they were guilty of anything until it was too late to do anything about it. No they could not have initiated servellience. For one that also would've been a violation of their rights, considered harassment, and the ACLU upon getting wind of it would've accused them of racial discrimination. Also would've cost allot of money that doesn't actually magically appear just because you need it like allot of Democrats seem to think.

    Even now we are forbidden to give an extra look to middle easterners boarding plans or learning how to fly even if their name was Mahamud without the aCLU accusing law enforment of racial profiling. You can't protect everything 100% of the time from everyone. It is simply not possible. The enemy can pick and choose where they attack and have the benefit of time to deduce where you are weakest. As such neither we nor the Israelites (who have a similar problem) can afford to set up a defensive strategy vs terrorist because it would not actually protect us. The only real protection vs Terrorist is to kill them so that they no longer exist or to insure that they know for 100% certainty that it cost the terrorist organizations more than they gain to send out their terror squads. They are fighting to win and if we show it is impossible for them to win then they will eventually quit or at least run out of volunteers. People Like Ted Kennedy enable these terrorists with hope that someday they can win for people like Ted Kennedy and other democrats makes us look like cowards to the middle Eastern Eastern societies who only respect strength.
     
  10. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #10
    It's funny -- here we have a Republican Congress, a Republican in the White House -- and it is still all the Democrats fault. What does Ted Kennedy or the ACLU have to do with any of this, they aren't making policy or running the country.

    The ACLU is an organization that defends the rights of U.S. citizens -- even awful, horrible ones you don't like. Even awful, horrible ones I don't like. They don't start wars, they don't set policy, they don't make laws.

    Yesterday I defended OPEC on another thread (I couldn't believe it myself), and today I'm defending the ACLU -- it is amazing what Bush supporters will make a guy do.
     
  11. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #11
    Ted kennedy's on air comments while legal has given those in Iraq who wish a theocracy hope that if the Democrats win the election that the US will leave and give up on trying to build a democracy there. Thus that gives them reason to keep fighting even a loosing battle wish is causing death on both sides. Specifically trying to make Iraq look like another Vietnam for example.
    The ACLU was part of an what if example of what if Bush had done something about the terrorist who crashed those planes before 9/11. If Bush, the FBI, or other law enforcement agency had acted against those very same people thus preventing 9/11 then the ACLU would've been taking up a defense fund for them. Thats assuming he would've, could've. For a better example of what I mean reread the previous post.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    This is another sad case of talk radio poisoning -- the truth goes right out the window in favor of comforting, partisan spin. There is no prospect of the US "leaving Iraq" if Kerry wins. No serious person is proposing such a thing and no serious person should believe it if they'd heard anyone report it.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    for ****'s sake, now it's the ACLU's fault? here's your answer: surveillence.

    when those 19 people under watch, all suspected AQ agents, simultaneously boarded airplanes, you've got your probable cause.
     
  14. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #14
    Ok, you are a bit confused. Nobody is blaming the american politicians for commiting the act on 9/11 (although there are some conspiracy theories). Remember when we (sort of) went to war with afganistan? (until bush decided to switch everyones attention to iraq). Going to war with afganistan was putting blame on the terrorists no? The point of the 9/11 commission is to see where INTELLIGENCE failure went wrong. You make it seem like intelligence and surveillance are only for those with superpowers (catwoman/spiderman etc). If there is no way to stop terrorism, then why fight a war on terror? How did they stop, and catch the millenium LAX bomber under Clinton's watch?
     
  15. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    ACLU sues you for racial profilling and discrimination for monitoring innocent individuals going about their business legally simply wanting to learn how to fly. You cannot legally tap their phones without a search warrant. If you follow them sooner or later they will catch you at it and higher a lawyer.

    There were allot more than 19 people with Middle Eastern appearance learning how to fly. Some weren't even terrorists.
     
  16. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    You kill them.
    You remove the ones rewarding terrorists. Like for example Saddam Hussein who was writting checks as rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, or did you overlook that little fact. Saddam was a bigger problem than Afghanastan at the time we went into Iraq for Al Qaeda was busy tucking their tails in and running.
     
  17. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #17
    Then the entire Kingdom of Saud should have been at the top of the list to be removed. That is where bin Laden and the majority of Muslim Fundamentalists got their start. SH's little checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was not the reason those people strapped explosives to themselves.

    Saddam a bigger problem than al Qaeda? How do you figure that? Oh, that's right, all those WMD that he had been making and stockpiling for years. Come on, if you're going to take a stance at least be realistic. SH was a terror to his own people but had little or nothing to do with international terror. al Qaeda has only dug in deeper and fueled by their success and the total inability of the US to stop them, they are only waiting for another chance and fueling the hopes of other fundamentalist terror groups around the world. gw's war has not targeted terrorists only his own enemies, real or imagined.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    so how many people have already added SlyHunter (/g5man/ovi/etc?) to their ignore list?
     
  19. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #19
    No, no, I think SlyHunter is the perfect representative for the Bush camp.

    My biggest complaint about SlyHunter is that according to his profile he is not a Mac user. It reads "IBM". So, a PC user on a Mac forum . . . doesn't that equal troll?
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    You gotten an IP match yet? Cause I'm wondering the same thing, but hesitate to level that charge without any proof.
     
  21. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #21
    WMD's Saddam showed to the television cameras and admitted to having and then claiming to have destroyed while refusing to prove they were destroyed. Yeah those WMD's had they existed were the primary reason for taking him out and all he had to do was show us the proof that he destroyed them and we wouldn't of been able to attack him. Even tho I had other reasons for wanting to.
     
  22. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #22

    how do you show proof that you DONT possess something? let weapons inspectors look around? :rolleyes: What would have been acceptable "proof" in your opinion that he did NOT have weapons? And what were your "other reasons for wanting to" attack?
     
  23. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #23
    Ok guys, you have all ready the PDB. What could have been done roughly one month before to prevent 9/11? Could the CIA have told the FBI that the terrorists had entered the country. That may have been a good start, but it isn't Clarke's fault, Bush's fault, or Condi's fault.

    It was a policy failure of the greatest magnitude.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Wait a sec, wern't you the one saying we couldn't trust anything Saddam said? And yet you trusted him when he said he had WMDs?

    BTW can you prove you don't have any illegal drugs in your possesion?
     
  25. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #25
    Im sure he would tell the authorities to search him.. and thus prove his innocence.
     

Share This Page