| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
I saw the interview and wondered why the most important questions weren't
asked: "if you were the terrorist czar for the past 24 years, why did you not see 9/11 coming? And where were you during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut? During Somalia? The first attack on the WTC? The USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? " The guy remained silent when we were turning tail in Beirut and Somalia, and he remained silent when the Clinton Administration was pursuing terrorists through criminal prosecution...rather than holding accountable the countries that sponsored them. His advice and/or policies likely played a large role in the strength of the enemy today. It's pure partisan politics. Clarke doesn't agree with going after the countries that sponsor terrorists. Instead, he advocates the laughable idea of punishing terrorists in our criminal courts. You may think his book and interview will make a difference. I'm telling you that 95% of Americans, if asked about him in a month, will say they never even heard of the guy. "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. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:43:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:
It's pure partisan politics. Clarke doesn't agree with going after the countries that sponsor terrorists. Instead, he advocates the laughable idea of punishing terrorists in our criminal courts. You may think his book and interview will make a difference. I'm telling you that 95% of Americans, if asked about him in a month, will say they never even heard of the guy. Maybe, but in another month there will be another messenger with the same message. Iraq wasn't about WMD or terrorism. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
I saw the interview and wondered why the most important questions weren't asked: "if you were the terrorist czar for the past 24 years, why did you not see 9/11 coming? And where were you during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut? During Somalia? The first attack on the WTC? The USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? " The guy remained silent when we were turning tail in Beirut and Somalia, and he remained silent when the Clinton Administration was pursuing terrorists through criminal prosecution...rather than holding accountable the countries that sponsored them. His advice and/or policies likely played a large role in the strength of the enemy today. It's pure partisan politics. Clarke doesn't agree with going after the countries that sponsor terrorists. Instead, he advocates the laughable idea of punishing terrorists in our criminal courts. You may think his book and interview will make a difference. I'm telling you that 95% of Americans, if asked about him in a month, will say they never even heard of the guy. Here are some things Clarke has said, regarding specific people. Former terrorism adviser describes top U.S. officials The Associated Press Sunday, March 21, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (03-21) 23:31 PST (AP) -- Richard A. Clarke's commentary on top government leaders, from his new book, "Against All Enemies." * President Bush: Clarke blames Bush for doing a "terrible job" fighting terrorism. Says "the critique of him as a dumb, lazy rich kid was somewhat off the mark," but that Bush looks for "the simple solution, the bumper-sticker description of the problem." * President Clinton: Clarke says he was "beyond mad" over Clinton's lack of discretion that led to his impeachment, but generally praises Clinton as a charismatic, sharp thinker who couldn't get the CIA, Pentagon and FBI to deal with terrorism issues. Says Clinton's approval of missile attacks against Iraq over the assassination attempt during Bush's father's presidency deterred Saddam Hussein from future terrorism against America. * Vice President Dick Cheney: Clarke describes Cheney as quiet and calm but radically conservative. Says Cheney believes U.S. could handle Iraq alone and "everyone else is just more trouble than they are worth." Blames Cheney for failing to speak out about the threat of al-Qaida during senior White House meetings. * CIA Director George Tenet: Clarke says Tenet "was as much concerned with the threat of al-Qaida as anyone in the government prior to September 11" but was struggling with internal rebuilding at the CIA. Tenet is quoted as saying in June 2001, "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one." Says Tenet and Clarke jointly scrapped a doomed plan to capture bin Laden in 1996 at the heavily guarded Tarnak farm in Afghanistan. Clarke complains regularly about failures by CIA to insert spies effectively into Afghanistan and Somalia. * National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice: Clarke says Rice, who effectively demoted Clarke after Bush's election, has "a closer relationship with the second President Bush than any of her predecessors had with the presidents they reported to." Says she "looked skeptical" when Clarke briefed her early in 2001 about al-Qaida threats. * Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: Clarke accuses Rumsfeld of plotting to bomb Iraq one day after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite any evidence of Iraqi involvement. Says Rumsfeld noted there weren't any good bombing targets in Afghanistan but plenty of targets in Iraq. "At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the president did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq," Clarke wrote. * Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: Clarke quotes him as saying during an April 2001 meeting, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden," and telling Clarke, "You give bin Laden too much credit." * Secretary of State Colin Powell: Clarke praises Powell for urging focus on al-Qaida, not Iraq, immediately after 2001 attacks. Credited for recognizing al-Qaida threat early in 2001. * Attorney General John Ashcroft: Clarke criticizes Ashcroft over his response to the 2001 attacks, especially over handling of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. "The attorney general, rather than bringing us together, managed to persuade much of the country that the needed reforms of the Patriot Act were actually the beginning of fascism." Clarke says an unidentified staffer asked him after meeting with Ashcroft early in 2001, "He can't really be that slow, can he?" Clarke's response: "He did lose a Senate re-election to a dead man." * FBI Director Robert Mueller: Clarke says Mueller, who was hired days before the 2001 attacks, "cannot be blamed for the failure of the bureau to find al-Qaida or even to have a computer network prior to then." But he complains that the FBI, under Mueller, hasn't managed to keep its top counterterrorism experts from retiring. * Former FBI Director Louis Freeh: Clarke blames Freeh for failing to coordinate largely independent FBI field offices or upgrade their computer networks. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:43:17 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
I saw the interview and wondered why the most important questions weren't asked: "if you were the terrorist czar for the past 24 years, why did you not see 9/11 coming? And where were you during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut? During Somalia? The first attack on the WTC? The USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? " The guy remained silent when we were turning tail in Beirut and Somalia, and he remained silent when the Clinton Administration was pursuing terrorists through criminal prosecution...rather than holding accountable the countries that sponsored them. His advice and/or policies likely played a large role in the strength of the enemy today. It's pure partisan politics. Clarke doesn't agree with going after the countries that sponsor terrorists. Instead, he advocates the laughable idea of punishing terrorists in our criminal courts. You may think his book and interview will make a difference. I'm telling you that 95% of Americans, if asked about him in a month, will say they never even heard of the guy. Isn't it funny how the hard questions never seem to get asked? Tim Russert had Sen. Kennedy on "Meet The Press," and Tim did much the same thing. Hard questions weren't asked, and pertinent questions were answered with, "Bush is bad, Bush is bad." I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a free half hour to bash Bush. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
thunder wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:43:17 +0000, NOYB wrote: It's pure partisan politics. Clarke doesn't agree with going after the countries that sponsor terrorists. Instead, he advocates the laughable idea of punishing terrorists in our criminal courts. You may think his book and interview will make a difference. I'm telling you that 95% of Americans, if asked about him in a month, will say they never even heard of the guy. Maybe, but in another month there will be another messenger with the same message. Iraq wasn't about WMD or terrorism. Fact: Clark testified in congress just about the opposite of what he says now. Fact: Saddam was paying homicide pig dogs in Isreal and Palistine. Fact: We went to Afganistan, Horn of Africa, the Phillipines, and a couple of other spots chasing AlQueda long before we went to Iraq. Fact: The majority of those saying there are no wmd in Iraq, are also fundamentally opposed to the war and the Bush administration. Fact: The UN, especially France, Germany, and Russia were making billions (with a B) as well as the possibility (at least as beleivable as these new timely attacks on Bush) of Annon and his own family members being involved in "possibly the biggest scam in world history"...There was no way they were ever going to approve a move into Iraq. This is coming from the USGAO, not some political shill, biding for a job in a new administration and trying to sell a book. Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:
Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found. Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD. Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
thunder wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote: Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found. Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD. Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. Couple more *Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan. *Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up -- recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to testify *White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. * NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:
thunder wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote: Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found. Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD. Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. Couple more *Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan. *Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up -- recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to testify *White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. * NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds Another one: Like Harry, Clarke's integrity is above reproach, even though he's been very mum on any of this stuff for the past few years. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"basskisser" wrote in message om... "NOYB" wrote in message . com... * President Clinton: ...generally praises Clinton as a charismatic, sharp thinker who couldn't get the CIA, Pentagon and FBI to deal with terrorism issues. Sure...no partisan bull**** there. "It was Bush's fault that we had 9/11" But... "It wasn't Clinton's fault that we had the 1993 WTC attack, the deaths in Somalia, the bombing of the Khobar towers, and the bombing of the USS Cole BECAUSE THE CIA, PENTAGON, AND FBI WOULDN'T LISTEN TO CLINTON!?!?" He conveniently blames the CIA, Pentagon, and FBI for inaction under Clinton...but gives them a pass and instead faults Bush for 9/11. Clarke is a scumbag, two-faced liar, who is in cahoots with Rand Beers in getting Bush removed and Kerry elected. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.36b1d2c8f6e9b4843413104d54668499@107 9959556.nulluser.com... Clarke was *the* senior anti-terrorism expert for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Then he did a pretty ****ing miserable job! Would you want his resume? BTW--He was the "czar" since 1993...so he wasn't the "czar" under Reagan and Bush I. Just look at the attacks that happened while he was in charge: 1993 WTC bombing Khobar Towers USS Cole 9/11 |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. You are right, it is a half fact. It wasn't WMD or terrorism, it was the threat that they posed to the US, as pointed out in GWB's Cincinnati speech, no WMD, no terrorism, no threat. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. Flawed logic. We opened that box. Pre-war there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq. I would also suggest calling all the attacks in Iraq "terrorist" isn't accurate. While some attacks are, perhaps even al Qaeda, others are Bathist remnants, religious sects, and ethnic squabbles. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral. basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just goose-stepping...so what's the point? |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral. basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just goose-stepping...so what's the point? Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral (even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case). Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we invaded Iraq was to "get their oil." If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I apologize. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral. basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just goose-stepping...so what's the point? Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral (even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case). Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we invaded Iraq was to "get their oil." If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I apologize. Of course not. But to agree with another conservative is akin to homosexuality and naziism in the eyes of a few frustrated liberals here. Oh well...in another 7 1/2 months, it'll be all over, their guy will have lost, and we won't have to hear from them for another couple of years. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:11:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral. basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just goose-stepping...so what's the point? Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral (even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case). Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we invaded Iraq was to "get their oil." If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I apologize. Of course not. But to agree with another conservative is akin to homosexuality and naziism in the eyes of a few frustrated liberals here. Oh well...in another 7 1/2 months, it'll be all over, their guy will have lost, and we won't have to hear from them for another couple of years. Well, I didn't really agree 'cause the first time I saw it I disagreed (I think...). John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
John H wrote in message . ..
On 22 Mar 2004 04:35:17 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Here are some things Clarke has said, regarding specific people. Former terrorism adviser describes top U.S. officials The Associated Press Sunday, March 21, 2004 Snipped Now, who is more credible, Krause or Clarke? John H John, quit being such a dolt, okay? What to hell does one have to do with the other? Can Harry not be credible, if Clarke is, and can Clarke not be credible if Harry is? Now, think, John, and if you DO think, you'll agree that your question above was just plain idiotic. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
John H wrote in message
I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a free half hour to bash Bush. John H And what was his reply? Let me quess, he didn't bother answering such a sophomoric question. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:11:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12 months leading up to the war. However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have imagined. I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral. basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just goose-stepping...so what's the point? Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral (even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case). Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we invaded Iraq was to "get their oil." If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I apologize. Of course not. But to agree with another conservative is akin to homosexuality and naziism in the eyes of a few frustrated liberals here. Oh well...in another 7 1/2 months, it'll be all over, their guy will have lost, and we won't have to hear from them for another couple of years. 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? ;-) From the Miami Herald: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.'' It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton. There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it. Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
NOYB wrote:
Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier. In other words, Kerry told the truth, and you are spreading BushCo's slander for them. I hope you're getting paid. DSK |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"DSK" wrote in message . .. NOYB wrote: Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier. In other words, Kerry told the truth, and you are spreading BushCo's slander for them. The Miami Herald is far from being source of propaganda for Bush. Kerry was pandering to the Cuban population and got caught in a lie. |
OT--The plot thickens
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. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
NOYB wrote:
The Miami Herald is far from being source of propaganda for Bush. Kerry was pandering to the Cuban population and got caught in a lie. 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? DSK |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote: The Miami Herald is far from being source of propaganda for Bush. Kerry was pandering to the Cuban population and got caught in a lie. 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? DSK Speaking of pandering to the Cuban population, I offer up George W. Dumb as Crap Bush. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
Will their goes Mr. Harry again believing in the Liberal News media again.
He just can't keep his head out of that Democratic Sand bucket. If Richard Clark was so great at doing his job why didn't he get Al Qaeda when he worked for the Clintons. Or is he just coming out of the closet now. I think he should be held for treason for not saying anything and letting over 3000 Americans die for his stupidly. Oh how is you Bayliner doing. Running Great I hope. "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. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"Jim" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote: Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found. Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD. Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. Couple more *Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan. *Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up -- recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to testify *White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. * NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds Now Jim you know this is a pack of lies. You must have been listen to Harry. Maybe he has come out of the closet also.. Oh yea Jim is your Bayliner running Ok also... |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"basskisser" wrote in message om... John H wrote in message I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a free half hour to bash Bush. John H And what was his reply? Let me quess, he didn't bother answering such a sophomoric question. Oh I forgot about you Mr. asskisser you must have pulled your head out of the sand bucket also. Lets see if we can get this straight. I IS FROM THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA. Oh by the way did you get your Bayliner running yet ?? |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
Bill wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote: Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found. Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD. Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. Couple more *Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan. *Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up -- recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to testify *White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. * NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds Now Jim you know this is a pack of lies. You must have been listen to Harry. Maybe he has come out of the closet also.. Oh yea Jim is your Bayliner running Ok also... Care to specifically refute the "lies?". I sail an Irwin and am (slowly) restoring a Dorsett. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
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... |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
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... The operators of the Bush Regime forgot to mention their ties to Big Oil, Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"Bill" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message om... John H wrote in message I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a free half hour to bash Bush. John H And what was his reply? Let me quess, he didn't bother answering such a sophomoric question. Oh I forgot about you Mr. asskisser you must have pulled your head out of the sand bucket also. Lets see if we can get this straight. I IS FROM THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA. Oh by the way did you get your Bayliner running yet ?? Ah, I take it you are a knee-jerk republican? One of those that makes wild allegations and assumptions based on no fact? Please tell the group, what in the hell makes you think I own a Bayliner? I don't. Now, do you have an answer to my question about Russert's reply, or are you just spewing crap out of your blow hole? |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"Bill" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote: Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of the fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk about simple... Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found. Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD. Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this administration. Couple more *Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan. *Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up -- recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to testify *White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. * NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds Now Jim you know this is a pack of lies. You must have been listen to Harry. Maybe he has come out of the closet also.. Please provide any proof that the above are lies. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: The Miami Herald is far from being source of propaganda for Bush. Kerry was pandering to the Cuban population and got caught in a lie. 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? 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. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
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. Apparently, GWB doesn't care for Title III either, as he has suspended enforcement of it. http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ar/...a/helmsbur.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com