Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on March 24, 2004, 10:29:15 PM
-
not only for showing and glorifying what i posted in the suicide bomber thread but this too
front page of today's paper here in Milwaukee, the headline said that the "white house" failed in protecting us from sept 11.
The Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists while the Bush administration made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, said Richard Clarke
are these totally tubular people for real?!?!
luckily they covered their own arse with this comment:
The reports suggest that many of the Clinton administration's policies also were ineffectual, revealing significant new details about as many as four missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.
i guess they just dont know what to say
if there ever was an example of "liberal media" today's Milwaukee Urnial is a shining example.
-
I think Clarke gave an advice to the board and gave no blames to any administatration they tried to corner him , but thatdidn't work I think he was very eloquent and put his point forth. He said it could not have stopped perhaps sept 11 but it may have significantly disassembled Al qaeda if both Clinton and Bush admins have acted more agressively to the terrorist threat.
-
Ya that press is so silly. Like calling the council looking into 9/11 independent..lol
who appointed it?
-
But of course you do, as long as they don't echo your very own personal beliefes that is.
A person who is in all probability in the best position of all to judge objectively what the priority of countering terrorism has been over the last decades is immediately discarded as a liar.
If he would have stated that the Clinton administration had neglected terrorism as an issue, his statement would be all over the BBS with the more conservatively minded posters crying out "I told you so, lib dweebs" as if their very lives depended on it...
As always, so transparent...
-
Originally posted by Thud
A person who is in all probability in the best position of all to judge objectively what the priority of countering terrorism has been over the last decades is immediately discarded as a liar.
If he would have stated that the Clinton administration had neglected terrorism as an issue, his statement would be all over the BBS with the more conservatively minded posters crying out "I told you so, lib dweebs" as if their very lives depended on it...
Umm, he *is* a liar (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html), we just don't know if he's lying now, or lying then. And, he mentioned that Clinton had terrorism as his highest priority, another outright lie. Cover up was his highest priority (Hiya Monica!) Nice try Weazel, please play again!
-
dont bother his link goes to fox "news"
"cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution,"
only important part of it.
try reading a book at work. it might help
-
Isn't it interesting that reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?
;)
-
I don't watch the news or read newspapers unless there is a war or huge natural disaster. There is no truth whatsoever in any news story.
You will find your life goes much better if you don't watch the news very often.... newspapers are lucky to get the name of the newspaper and todays date right... total waste of paper.
lazs
-
LDF, Thud, heres another source for you, but I suppose Yahoo is a right wing tool of the media, too, no?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Umm, he *is* a liar (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html), we just don't know if he's lying now, or lying then. And, he mentioned that Clinton had terrorism as his highest priority, another outright lie. Cover up was his highest priority (Hiya Monica!) Nice try Weazel, please play again!
You don't know anything, only that if and only if Fox reporter Jim Angle speaks the truth Clarke has made two inconsistent statements. Now if only we would be sure that Fox speaks the truth.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LDF, Thud, heres another source for you, but I suppose Yahoo is a right wing tool of the media, too, no?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1
More of the same, another source that refers to the white house either issuing or endorsing a publication that favors them. If you are objective you know that these hardly are convincing statements. Think about it if it was the other way around.
-
I don't suppose it's occured to you that you are doing the same thing you accuse Rip of? The second he posts something that you or LDV don't approve of you claim "It's Fox News and must be a lie" and stick your head in the sand. In other words, you refuse to believe the facts posted because "they don't echo your very own personal beliefes..."
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
-
Here's the second biggest lie ever said under oath:
Clarke, who resigned 13 months ago, said the Clinton administration was active in tracking Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network but the Bush administration, which took office in January 2001, did not consider the issue urgent.
Right there, the BS meter buried the needle.
PS, I love the way 60 minutes did such an investigative piece on Clarke's Book...I mean what do they have at stake...they're not biased, right? They're the #1 Television News Magazine...Oh wait, you mean Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Clarks book is a part of...Wha..CBS/VIACOM. Oh my...who could have imagined...
Fuggin' BS Media. Lazs, you hit it right on the head, pal.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Isn't it interesting that reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?
;)
Is this an addmition that there has been no such justification provided to date?
-
Originally posted by Dune
I don't suppose it's occured to you that you are doing the same thing you accuse Rip of? The second he posts something that you or LDV don't approve of you claim "It's Fox News and must be a lie" and stick your head in the sand. In other words, you refuse to believe the facts posted because "they don't echo your very own personal beliefes..."
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
I just pointed out exactly that and I quote "Think about it if it was the other way around." It simply implies that his arguments and sources are as legitimate as he judges those who support my viewpoint to be. Ergo, him referring to a white house endorsed/issued source is the same as myself quoting the Kerry-campaign for example. I think you know what validity he usually attaches to such sources, eh? ;) (liberal media bias etc.)
BTW, I am very pot and kettle aware, I usually prefer being the kettle though.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Isn't it interesting that reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?
;)
Rip-
Where did you get this from?
Did you read the book? I'd like to see an excerpt if possible.
-
I think the WHOLE point of this thread is not the blaim game its the fact that all the PAPERS (to include the LA Times today and yesturday) have big headlines page 1 "terror not a big priority for bush befor 9/11" and yesturdays was somthing like "Bush admin droped the ball befor 9/11"
BUT...
If you read the articles the testimony givin blamed lapses in BOTH administrations.
The media in an election year is trying to pin this whole thing on bush.....Yes its true headlines do sell
BUT...
we all know the single biggest blow to the intel. community came at the hands of bill clinton when he gutted the CIAs ability to recruit informants. Here's another good read as well
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=37335
-
Originally posted by Glasses
I think Clarke gave an advice to the board and gave no blames to any administatration they tried to corner him , but thatdidn't work I think he was very eloquent and put his point forth. He said it could not have stopped perhaps sept 11 but it may have significantly disassembled Al qaeda if both Clinton and Bush admins have acted more agressively to the terrorist threat.
Humble enough to apologize as well.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't watch the news or read newspapers
That's pretty obvious.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ibill clinton
Clinton attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11: 1
Bush attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11: 0
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nothing in that article contradicts anything he has said.
Also, it is pretty sleazy to 'out' someone speaking to reporters on background, but apparently the administration is desperate.
-
The only real media bias is towards sensationalism.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nothing in that article contradicts anything he has said.
Also, it is pretty sleazy to 'out' someone speaking to reporters on background, but apparently the administration is desperate. [/B]
Either that or someone is shamlessly changing his tune to promote his new book.
this isnt about either administration its about the media....they want bush out plain and simple....I have yet to hear a libral admit this.
Here's somthing I heard on FOX NEWS....more specifically...the Oriely factor. He had a clinton speach writer on the show to discuss some of the polotics during the clinton admin.
basically what he said (and I actually agree with him GASP) that bill clinton did not have the political power to go after bin laden because of monica lewinsky. When he made his attempt ( and i use that word loosly cause it was a pathetic cruise missle launch ) to go after bin laden the republicans berated him.....yes Trent lott himself scorned the president claiming a wagg the dog issue.
Truth be told Clinton had several more attempts at bin laden and turned them down.
This actually makes sense to me....and i heard it on FOX NEWS!!! GASP!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's another view point....if we had killed bin laden whats to stop the Euro trash in this world from saying that we deserved 9/11 because we were so cold in killing bin laden.
GENTS hinesite is 20/20....both presidents (more specifically their staff's) failed to connect the dots in a haystack filled with dots.
now I think richard clark is full of donkey sh$% cause he is completly contradicting himself from previous statements.....
BUT at least he's the only one so far to admit failure and appologize to the american people.
just so I can sound fair and balenced in my post I will now promote both presidental canidates
GO BUSH/CHENEY
GO KERRY/FONDA
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Clinton attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11: 1
Bush attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11: 0
Capt. Pork attempts to shoot a fly off window with a rubber band on 3/25/2004: 2
Successes: 0
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
basically what he said (and I actually agree with him GASP) that bill clinton did not have the political power to go after bin laden because of monica lewinsky.
So you are saying that because of the utterly ridiculous and hypocritical morals crusade Kenneth Starr and the rest of the GOP went on, Osama is still alive.
Well a nice thank you to the conservatives may be in place then, right?
-
Originally posted by Thud
So you are saying that because of the utterly ridiculous and hypocritical morals crusade Kenneth Starr and the rest of the GOP went on, Osama is still alive.
Well a nice thank you to the conservatives may be in place then, right?
that's one way of looking at it....OOORRRR the president couldnt keep his nose clean and decided to lie under oath and commit purjery that it brought alot of political pressure apon him.
you can spin this anyway you want but the truth is he "underreacted" because HE didnt have the political power to react.
Dont forget Bubba clinton still signed the bill that virtually dried up all the human intel in the 90s.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's one way of looking at it....OOORRRR the president couldnt keep his nose clean and decided to lie under oath and commit purjery that it brought alot of political pressure apon him.
you can spin this anyway you want but the truth is he "underreacted" because HE didnt have the political power to react.
Dont forget Bubba clinton still signed the bill that virtually dried up all the human intel in the 90s.
Or he was forced to testify on something that should never been in 'court' anyway.
Regardless, now many who say he underreacted back then said it was a overreaction, indeed a wag the dog act in its entirety, not in its size. A clear case of hindsight I'd say.
And the human intelligence bill was perfectly defendable in the light of the world situation back then, it was probable that indeed elint could provide much of it cheaper with less risk etc.
Blaming him on that is the same as saying Bush failed to return its effects before 911, something I believe can't be expected in all reasonability since terrorism was not that much of an issue as it should have been...
-
Wondering how many of the same people that have decried the war on Iraq would be making statements similar to Clarke's if the US had not liberated Iraq from Hussein and Hussein had later contributed to a cataclysmic attack on the US. I'm betting that there are many.
-
Wondering how many of the same people that have decried the war on Iraq would be making statements similar to Clarke's if the US had not liberated Iraq from Hussein and Hussein had later contributed to a cataclysmic attack on the US. I'm betting that there are many.
Of course, there have been several Al Queada linked bombings, in Bali and Spain, that have cost nearly 400 lives. Would an Iraq-level focus on the actual perpetrators of the 911 attack (the people with the world-wide terror organization and a willingness to act) have prevented those deaths?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Of course, there have been several Al Queada linked bombings, in Bali and Spain, that have cost nearly 400 lives. Would an Iraq-level focus on the actual perpetrators of the 911 attack (the people with the world-wide terror organization and a willingness to act) have prevented those deaths?
Charon
I very much think there has been an "Iraq-level focus" on middle eastern terrorists. Many won't agree but I think we are sending an unmistakeable message to the middle east, clean up your act or we'll do it for you. Of course I expect opposition, both by those at odds with our goals and those that can't see beyond their noses.