THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Mar 22, 2004.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    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?"
     
  3. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    They obviously thought highly enough of him to ask him to stay on in his post when they took over....
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    indeed. then he called bull**** on them and quit. and NOW he's incompetent!
     
  5. coopdog macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #5
    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?
     
  6. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #6
    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.
     
  7. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #7
    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.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Well the Democrats lie too, so it's ok if the Republicans lie to even things out. Right?
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    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.
     
  10. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #10
    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
     
  11. coopdog macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #11
    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.
     
  12. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #12
    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? ;)
     
  13. coopdog macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #13
    What the **** are you talking about? ;)
     
  14. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #14
    Oh no, not the Right. We certainly don't want any dissent on this forum.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    i've never seen a reputable news source confirm that. do you have such a link?
     
  16. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #16
    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.
     
  17. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #17
    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?
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    i found this interesting about the man, in light of his criticism of the 9/11 response:
    link
     
  19. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #19
    Somebody is lying here

    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).
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    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'?
     
  21. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    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:
     
  22. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #22
    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.
     
  23. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #23
    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.
     
  24. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    A lot of intelligent people have lousy judgment.

    I refer you to my answer above...

    And again...

    You haven't GOT 100,000 more troops to spare.

    Surely it's a fundamental part of the job to listen to the right people, especially when starting a war.

    So what? "The road to hell etc..."

    You're conflating again: the threat was NOT from Iraq, as you very well know.

    I guess we'll have to take your word for it then, if you've MET her.

    Sorry, my mistake: you and your twin brother look very similar:rolleyes: :confused: :confused:
     
  25. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page