BoatBanter.com - A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - A devastating attack on the Bush Administration... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/3709-re-devastating-attack-bush-administration.html)

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

If he told the truth, which is that he voted for the bill, then how was
he 'caught in a lie?' Has it all gotten this Orwellian?

NOYB wrote:
He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You
obviously missed this sentence:

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton
legislation)"

Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in
its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual
legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it.

Uh huh... telling the truth is "trying to spin it"? He did not say that
he suppoerted the bill in it's final form AND all riders attached to it
(a clever legislative by-pass that should be outlawed). He said he voted
for it. You said he voted for it... then you turn around and say he
lied. You (and the originating source of this propaganda) are the one(s)
lying, not Kerry. It is laughable.

It would be closer to the WHOLE truth to say "Kerry voted both for and
against this bill, proving that he is unreliable and flip-flops" but
that apparently isn't bad enough. After all, when you've called him a
traitor who obtained high military honors under false pretenses, it's
rather mild to back up and call him a waffler. Bigger and better
slanders need to be hollered from rooftops!

DSK

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:UYH7c.3514
Well, I didn't really agree 'cause the first time I saw it I disagreed
(I think...).

Oh, I get it. You're doing a parody of Kerry now, aren't you? ;-)

No, it's a parody of Bush. NOYB, you asked for some examples of Bush's
flip-flopping, and I gave them to you. You didn't comment, so I
suppose you didn't see them, here they are again:

In fairness to all of the goose-stepping republicans, who think that
Kerry flip-flops on the issues,
I did a few minutes of research, to take a look at what Bush has
flip-flopped on, and Kerry doesn't hold a
candle to Bush, when it comes to hemming and hawing:

Here, he flip-flops on his stance on chemical weapons bans:

Last October, shortly after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein renewed his
threats to use poison gas if attacked, George Bush took to the podium
of the U.N. General Assembly to restate support for what he often says
is one of his top arms control priorities: a global ban on the use,
possession, and production of chemical weapons. "The Gulf crisis
proves how important it is . . . to act now to conclude an absolute
worldwide ban on these weapons," Bush said. The speech marked the
second time that the president drew on the prestige of the General
Assembly to call attention to his stated commitment to chemical
disarmament, a plea that echoes candidate Bush's campaign pledge to
rid the world of the "scourge" of poison gas.

But the high priority Bush routinely gives to chemical weapons in
speeches has yet to be matched by actions at the 40-nation talks on
chemical weapons at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which are
slated to reopen in February. The negotiations, said Cong. Martin
Lancaster, a North Carolina Democrat who is a member of the
congressional arms control observer group, are "in trouble." And
according to most accounts, the major source of the problems is a
joint U.S.-Soviet proposed revision to the current working text of the
chemical treaty which could postpone or even prevent complete chemical
weapons disarmament.

The controversial revision--offered by Washington and Moscow during
the last round of talks which concluded in August--consists of four
paragraphs that would make two key changes to the current draft.
First, complete chemical disarmament over a ten-year period would no
longer be automatic. Instead, countries with chemical arsenals would
be allowed under certain conditions to retain up to 500 tons of nerve
gas, which is two percent of the current U.S. level

Here, Bush flip-flops on his stance on global warming, and air
pollution:

Wednesday, Mar. 14, 2001
President Bush may be reneging on his campaign promises on air
pollution, but in doing so he may also be presenting the American
people with a more honest depiction of its environmental dilemma.
Following intensive lobbying by the energy industry and a policy
review by Vice President Cheney, the White House on Tuesday backed
away from a Bush campaign pledge to regulate power plants' output of
carbon dioxide — the gas whose massive buildup inside the Earth's
atmosphere is believed by most scientists to create the "greenhouse
effect" that causes global warming.

Bush's flip-flop on abortion:

Published on Friday, June 16, 2000 in The Nation
Bush's Abortion Flip-Flop?
by David Corn

Which current candidate for President reversed the abortion stand he
espoused as a Congressional candidate in the seventies and adopted a
position more acceptable to the mainstream of his party? If you said
Al Gore, you may be only half right. George W. Bush appears to have
done the same.
In 1978, Bush, a 31-year-old oilman, was seeking the Republican
nomination in Texas' 19th Congressional District, which included
Midland, Odessa and Lubbock. He was locked in a fierce battle with Jim
Reese, a veteran campaigner and Reagan Republican. Days before the
June 3 primary runoff, Bush was interviewed by a reporter for the
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Reese had attacked Bush for being cozy with
liberal Rockefeller Republicans. In response, Bush listed conservative
positions he held. "I'm not for the extension of the time to ratify
the Equal Rights Amendment," he told the paper. "I feel the ERA is
unnecessary. I'm not for the federal funding of abortions. I've done
nothing to promote homosexuality in our society." But he went on to
explain his view on abortion. The Avalanche-Journal reported: "Bush
said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors
leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. 'That does
not mean I'm for abortion,' he said."

Here, he flipped and flopped on the business fraud bill:

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Bush does flip-flop,
hails biz fraud bill he ripped
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER
and THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, July 24th, 2002

WASHINGTON - President Bush, battered by Wall Street scandals and a
wildly gyrating stock market, hailed the completion yesterday of a
tough corporate reform bill that only weeks ago he complained went too
far.
Imposing harsh penalties for corporate fraud and coverups, the
agreement between the Democrat-controlled Senate and the GOP House
enabled both parties to claim credit for cleaning up the aura of
corporate wrongdoing that has shaken investors and threatened Bush's
leadership ratings.

The cleanup deal came a few hours before another corporate stunner - a
Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into financial gamesmanship
at media giant AOL Time Warner.

Bush moved quickly to embrace the final product after having warned
Congress that he felt such legislation was too tough on Wall Street.
After meeting with congressional leaders to discuss the remaining
legislative agenda before the August recess, Bush hailed what he
called "a day of action and a day of accomplishment in Washington,
D.C."

"This government ... will investigate, will arrest and will prosecute
corporate executives who break the law. And the Justice Department
took action today," the President said, referring to the arrest of
Adelphia Communications execs.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush "looks forward to
signing this into law."

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), meanwhile, claimed credit
for his party, eager to use the corporate fraud issue to help seize
House control in November.

"The [Democrat] bill, which passed the Senate 97 to 0, was finally
accepted by House Republicans after dragging their feet for weeks and
weeks, months and months," he said.

The Senate and House quickly hammered out differences in competing
bills once the stock market began to plummet and unveiled their deal
yesterday.

The compromise bill creates an independent board overseeing corporate
management and the outside auditors who review the balance sheets
companies file with regulators.

It also would block auditing firms from selling other lucrative
consulting services to their auditing clients - a major change
previously beaten back by members of Congress in both parties before
auditors were blamed for helping Enron and WorldCom brass dupe
investors.

The bill includes an amendment by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to ban
corporate officers from borrowing money from their companies. It also
imposes prison time and financial penalties on company officers
convicted of fraud and allows authorities to seize ill-gotten gains.

But the new law covers only future abuses and would not apply to
allegations of sleazy conduct by ex-CEOs Ken Lay of Enron and Bernard
Ebbers of WorldCom.

Their are other items he's flipped on, such as letting, or not letting
non-coalition countries bid on Iraq contracts.

Or his flip flop on whether he would, or would not negotiate with
Korea.

Or, when he claimed the United Nations "irrelevent", but is now
begging them to take over in Iraq.

He flip-flopped on Steel Tariffs.

And the ultimate, where he's flip-flopped more than an alligator doing
a death roll, the reason why we went to war with Iraq!!!

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:06:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:

He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You
obviously missed this sentence:

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton
legislation)"

Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation
in
its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual
legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it.

You are spinning. Kerry voted for the original Senate Helms-Burton Act.
He voted against the final version after Title III was tacked on.

The "final version" is all that matters. Today, we have no legislation
known as the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Version I". There is
just just one "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity"...and Kerry voted
against it. To say otherwise is pure spin.

Apparently, GWB doesn't care for Title III either, as he has suspended
enforcement of it.

Title III deals with enforcement of the Act. Without Title III, the
legislation has no teeth. It matters not that Clinton and GWB haven't
enforced Title III. The fact of the matter is Kerry said he voted for the
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity ...and he didn't. Ergo, he lied.

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

The bill passed in one form...not two...and Kerry voted against the bill
that passed.

Don't take my word for it. Here's the Congressional Record the day the bill
was passed.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J109261D7

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
If he told the truth, which is that he voted for the bill, then how was
he 'caught in a lie?' Has it all gotten this Orwellian?

NOYB wrote:
He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You
obviously missed this sentence:

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton
legislation)"

Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation
in
its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual
legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it.

Uh huh... telling the truth is "trying to spin it"? He did not say that
he suppoerted the bill in it's final form AND all riders attached to it
(a clever legislative by-pass that should be outlawed). He said he voted
for it. You said he voted for it... then you turn around and say he
lied. You (and the originating source of this propaganda) are the one(s)
lying, not Kerry. It is laughable.

It would be closer to the WHOLE truth to say "Kerry voted both for and
against this bill, proving that he is unreliable and flip-flops" but
that apparently isn't bad enough. After all, when you've called him a
traitor who obtained high military honors under false pretenses, it's
rather mild to back up and call him a waffler. Bigger and better
slanders need to be hollered from rooftops!

DSK

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

NOYB wrote:
The bill passed in one form...not two...and Kerry voted against the bill
that passed.

Ah, *now* you're almost willing to come clean... but still not willing
to abandon your cherished lie.

Don't take my word for it.

Don't worry, I wouldn't.

... Here's the Congressional Record the day the bill
was passed.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J109261D7

And how exactly does this affect the fact that you yourself said, and
your source also, say that he voted FOR the earlier bill?

You must be really really desperate to stretch this far to discredit
Kerry. And you haven't said how much you're being paid to parrot this
Bush & Cheney Inc propaganda.

DSK

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:54:01 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:

The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to mention
during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also ownes the
publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change to fit the
testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it, geeze, stop at
nothing...

Frankly, for years, I have thought of 60 Minutes as lousy entertainment,
not news and I don't watch it. It doesn't change what Clarke said, but if
it upsets you, why not boycott Viacom. You can start by not watching:
MTV
MTV2
Nickelodeon
BET
VH1
CMT
Comedy Central
Showtime
Movie Channel

Avoid:
Paramount Pictures
Simon & Schuster
Blockbuster Video

And let's not forget radio.

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:25:56 +0000, NOYB wrote:

Title III deals with enforcement of the Act. Without Title III, the
legislation has no teeth. It matters not that Clinton and GWB haven't
enforced Title III. The fact of the matter is Kerry said he voted for the
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity ...and he didn't. Ergo, he lied.

Title III deals with Protection of Property Rights of US Nationals
(property confiscated by Castro 40 years ago).

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:44:08 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:54:01 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:

The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to mention
during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also ownes the
publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change to fit the
testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it, geeze, stop at
nothing...

Frankly, for years, I have thought of 60 Minutes as lousy entertainment,
not news and I don't watch it. It doesn't change what Clarke said, but if
it upsets you, why not boycott Viacom. You can start by not watching:
MTV
MTV2
Nickelodeon
BET
VH1
CMT
Comedy Central
Showtime
Movie Channel

Avoid:
Paramount Pictures
Simon & Schuster
Blockbuster Video

And let's not forget radio.

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp

Whew! Rush is safe. The rest make no difference, but I just can't give
up Blockbuster Video. Hell, I rent at least 5 movies a year!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:25:56 +0000, NOYB wrote:

Title III deals with enforcement of the Act. Without Title III, the
legislation has no teeth. It matters not that Clinton and GWB haven't
enforced Title III. The fact of the matter is Kerry said he voted for
the
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity ...and he didn't. Ergo, he
lied.

Title III deals with Protection of Property Rights of US Nationals
(property confiscated by Castro 40 years ago).

"Title III of the Helms-Burton Act permits U.S. citizens to file suit
against companies and individuals trafficking in property expropriated by
the Cuban government."

It's the meat and potatoes of the Helms-Burton Act. Without Title III, the
Act has no "teeth".

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

To tell a group of Cubans in Miami that he voted *for* the Helms-Burton
legislation is a lie. He didn't clarify his statement and say that he
didn't vote for the final version due to the inclusion of Title III. He
said he voted for the legislation. Well, "the legislation" as it currently
stands *includes* Title III...and Kerry voted against it. Period.

Go to the Congressional Records from March 1996 when the bill passed, and
show me where Kerry voted "yea". Can't do it, huh?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The bill passed in one form...not two...and Kerry voted against the bill
that passed.

Ah, *now* you're almost willing to come clean... but still not willing
to abandon your cherished lie.

Don't take my word for it.

Don't worry, I wouldn't.

... Here's the Congressional Record the day the bill
was passed.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J109261D7

And how exactly does this affect the fact that you yourself said, and
your source also, say that he voted FOR the earlier bill?

You must be really really desperate to stretch this far to discredit
Kerry. And you haven't said how much you're being paid to parrot this
Bush & Cheney Inc propaganda.

DSK

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

NOYB wrote:

To tell a group of Cubans in Miami that he voted *for* the Helms-Burton
legislation is a lie.

Wait a minute, first you are criticizing Kerry for pandering to them,
now you want to use their judgement to condemn him?

Can we have just a teensy bit of logic & consistency, please?

... He didn't clarify his statement and say that he
didn't vote for the final version due to the inclusion of Title III.

So, because you *need* to slam Kerry with the worst possible accusation,
you shout from rooftops that he LIED. Which is itself a lie, by your own
account.

DSK

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

thunder wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:54:01 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:

The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to mention
during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also ownes the
publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change to fit the
testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it, geeze, stop at
nothing...

Frankly, for years, I have thought of 60 Minutes as lousy entertainment,
not news and I don't watch it. It doesn't change what Clarke said, but if
it upsets you, why not boycott Viacom. You can start by not watching:
MTV
MTV2
Nickelodeon
BET
VH1
CMT
Comedy Central
Showtime
Movie Channel

Avoid:
Paramount Pictures
Simon & Schuster
Blockbuster Video

And let's not forget radio.

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp

First off, I don't frequent any of the above channels. Second, the
fact is that they were hawking a book and purposly neglected to make
full discolsure, or even hint that they may have a financial reason to
support Clark, that is typical and dishonest, but I would not expect
you to address that with any more vigor than kisser did...

OT--The plot thickens

"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net...
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns
and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White
House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can
reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book
"Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is
publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its
Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the
viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM
product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict
before the program aired.

I posted the flip flops of Bush that you asked for, NOYB. Do you not refute them?

OT--The plot thickens

Yes. But you don't know how to follow a thread and must have missed them.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL
PARENT
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company
owns
and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former
White
House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT
can
reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book
"Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM
is
publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its
Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the
viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a
VIACOM
product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict
before the program aired.

I posted the flip flops of Bush that you asked for, NOYB. Do you not
refute them?

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:

To tell a group of Cubans in Miami that he voted *for* the Helms-Burton
legislation is a lie.

Wait a minute, first you are criticizing Kerry for pandering to them,

He did pander to them.

now you want to use their judgement to condemn him?

I'm not using their judgement. I'm using facts...which of course is
confusing to you. He lied to them.

Can we have just a teensy bit of logic & consistency, please?

Like you would understand logic...or consistency...

... He didn't clarify his statement and say that he
didn't vote for the final version due to the inclusion of Title III.

So, because you *need* to slam Kerry with the worst possible accusation,
you shout from rooftops that he LIED. Which is itself a lie, by your own
account.

He said he voted *for* the Helms-Burton legislation. The Helms-Burton
legislation passed in March of 1996...and Kerry voted *against* it. Care to
prove otherwise?

DSK

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
An absolutely amazing segment on 60 Minutes tonight tears apart the
hypocrisy of the Bush Administration...it may well be the blow that
destroys George W. Bush. This is from Richard Clarke, who worked for
Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top
anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks,
despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the advisor, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive
interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the
conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House
officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before
Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running
for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about
terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we
could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war
against terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen
Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to
the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq,
even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld
was joking.

Clarke is due to testify next week before the special panel probing
whether the attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," which is
being published Monday by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster.
Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and
the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be
his terrorrism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened
behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the
next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of
people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the
attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words
of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The
horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about
the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We
knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the
streets of America," he tells Stahl.

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his
top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to
respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the
administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al
Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl.
"And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb
Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in
Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well,
there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing
to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in
Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA
was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying
we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's
just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people,
shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now
he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in
absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a
report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at
this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a
connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come
back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI
experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report
out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all
cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got
bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and
sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we
did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think
the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think
he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't
until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke
says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat
seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That
should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back
and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame,
too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice
asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting
to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo--
wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War
issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were
preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They
came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star
Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the
preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months
after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet.
It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we
have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are
we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism
against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the
United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of
the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right.
There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was
supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still
an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell
freezes over."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on
terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented
level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George
Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because
he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to
happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and
months ahead. He said that in June, July, August.

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of
chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the
Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations--
meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles
International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the
border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle
stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months
before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to
hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security
Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the
inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in
Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl.

"The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ...
George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one
point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm
tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore
the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas.
But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether
there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the
intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about
a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation
Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat
overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule
out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore
preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle
stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration
didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link,
Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr.
Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us
independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an
actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of
the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and
to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their
sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on
the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the
sanctuaries available to terrorists."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar.
When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House,
Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that
this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your
leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National
Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet
level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me
enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book
is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

(Of course...what else could the Bush white house say?)

MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

He sang a different tune in 2002.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

CLARKE: And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed
on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues
that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know,
mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy,
including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made
public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in
effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the
administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those
issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them
decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in
February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing
Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert
action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything
that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these
decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert
action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

---------------------------------------

What he said then is not what he says now. I guess he took lessons from
John Kerry.

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:50:08 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:

First off, I don't frequent any of the above channels. Second, the fact is
that they were hawking a book and purposly neglected to make full
discolsure, or even hint that they may have a financial reason to support
Clark, that is typical and dishonest, but I would not expect you to
address that with any more vigor than kisser did...

LOL, and just where did I not agree with your assessment of 60 Minutes?
60 Minutes has always been a cheap shot show. I will note, however, you
seem to be content to shoot the messenger, rather that deal with the
message.

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

Wait a minute, first you are criticizing Kerry for pandering to them,

NOYB wrote:
He did pander to them.

And that's a bad thing? What about Bush & Cheney's pandering? Or is it
only "bad" because it looks like a Democrat might get some of that
voting bloc?

now you want to use their judgement to condemn him?

I'm not using their judgement.

Really?

... I'm using facts...which of course is
confusing to you. He lied to them.

No, you're the one lying. You are contradicting yourself. If Kerry voted
one way on the earlier bill, and the other way at a later time, then
to say that he voted either way is not a lie. However, to say that he
lied about his vote is not the truth... and guess what that means.

And yet you jump up and say that I must be confused... hey, I'm not the
one contradicting myself, nor passing value judgments based on
condemning others for something my own team does regularly.

Can we have just a teensy bit of logic & consistency, please?

Like you would understand logic...or consistency...

Try it, let's see.

So far all you've done is chase your tail and toss some insults. Is that
all your side has to offer?

DSK

OT--The plot thickens

"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net...
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns
and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White
House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can
reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book
"Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is
publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its
Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the
viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM
product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict
before the program aired.

Yeah, and the Kerry camp was calling news orgs on monday offering to
pay for sattellite time if they would air Clark in prime time
interviews...

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Wait a minute, first you are criticizing Kerry for pandering to them,

NOYB wrote:
He did pander to them.

And that's a bad thing? What about Bush & Cheney's pandering? Or is it
only "bad" because it looks like a Democrat might get some of that
voting bloc?

I never said it was a bad thing. You did. I said he lied.

I *did* say lying is a bad thing. You don't seem to think so.

now you want to use their judgement to condemn him?

I'm not using their judgement.

Really?

Yes, really.

... I'm using facts...which of course is
confusing to you. He lied to them.

No, you're the one lying. You are contradicting yourself.

No I'm not.

If Kerry voted
one way on the earlier bill

What earlier bill? There is no "Helms-Burton Bill--Version I". There is
only the "Helms-Burton legislation"...aka the Libertad Act...aka the "Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity".

, and the other way at a later time, then
to say that he voted either way is not a lie. However, to say that he
lied about his vote is not the truth... and guess what that means.

And yet you jump up and say that I must be confused... hey, I'm not the
one contradicting myself, nor passing value judgments based on
condemning others for something my own team does regularly.

Can we have just a teensy bit of logic & consistency, please?

Like you would understand logic...or consistency...

Try it, let's see.

So far all you've done is chase your tail and toss some insults. Is that
all your side has to offer?

Kerry lied about voting for the Helms-Burton legislation.

A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...

thunder wrote in message ...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:50:08 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:

First off, I don't frequent any of the above channels. Second, the fact is
that they were hawking a book and purposly neglected to make full
discolsure, or even hint that they may have a financial reason to support
Clark, that is typical and dishonest, but I would not expect you to
address that with any more vigor than kisser did...

LOL, and just where did I not agree with your assessment of 60 Minutes?
60 Minutes has always been a cheap shot show. I will note, however, you
seem to be content to shoot the messenger, rather that deal with the
message.

Why discuss the message, it has been debunked as more Harry/Kerry...
You know, run with it if it works, run from it later after the damage
has been done...