Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BGBMAW on March 30, 2004, 05:37:11 AM
-
So he says one thing..but writes another..
and WTF go...OUR GOV FAILED YOU!!!!!!!
IS that what they said after Pearl Harbor...
Way to play into the scum terrorists...
BiGB
666
xoxo
-
What the hell are you talking about? :confused:
-
Dick..the "former" security guy in the White House....
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
So he says one thing..but writes another..
and WTF go...OUR GOV FAILED YOU!!!!!!!
IS that what they said after Pearl Harbor...
Way to play into the scum terrorists...
BiGB
666
xoxo
I think it was Bush* who played into the scum terrorists by going on a month long vacation in August 2001 when George Tenet of CIA was running around "with his hair on fire" about the impending terrorist strike. Oh yeah, and Condisleezy did know that planes may be used to run into buildings, Tenet briefed her and Bush* on it, as did Clarke. Also Ashcroft was flying everywhere on private jets, not commercial like most atty generals, including Janet Reno, because of the "heightened threat assesment"
Bush* and co. slept when they had indications of impending attack. 9-11 happened.
CLINTON had a better record on fighting terror - he met with cia/fbi/nsa every day when terror attacks were likely, and they managed to thwart several attacks, including a multination hijack schem and the millennium attacks.
Check the facts. OUr government, and Bush* DID fail us on 9-11. Clarke was the only person with the stones to say so.
-
strk, are we supposed to believe Clarke now, or believe Clarke in 2002?
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. 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, in late 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.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
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.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?
CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.
ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?
One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.
ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?
CLARKE: That's right.
QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.
CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.
ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?
CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.
QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?
CLARKE: Yes it did.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
-
QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?
CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.
QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?
CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.
-
he worked for Bush then, who ordered him to put a positive spin on their efforts.
why don't you edit your "data dump" to illustrate what you are trying to say?
Clarke's testimony is sinking Bush* and you know it. That is why you want to spin him as a liar and change the subject.
Like I told Lazs, I am not trying to convert you Rip, I know you are going to pull the lever for the boy king even if he raped your mother and took a **** in your living room. Your eyes are closed and noone can open them but you.
btw CLarke is a 30 year fed employee under Reagen, BushI, Clinton and Bush*. He has a reputation for excelling among the sharks in DC. He is not stupid enough to lie. Im suprised you dont realize that.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
strk, are we supposed to believe Clarke now, or believe Clarke in 2002?
Indeed they are the same Clarke.. One working under his president's cabinet fulfilling his duty to his president and one not working for the president fulfulling his duty to his country....
In 2002 he was instructed by his president to 'hilite' the strengths of the terrorist campaign.. Not be honest about it...
dude
-
Originally posted by strk
he worked for Bush then, who ordered him to put a positive spin on their efforts.
Do you have a link for these facts and data?
Some other interesting tidbits from his testimony -
First, Clarke agrees with the assessment of the Bush team that his proposals for action in Afghanistan — aiding the Northern Alliance, flying the Predator, etc. — would not have prevented 9/11.
...Clarke agrees with the argument — made repeatedly by conservatives over the years — that the CIA had been beaten into a defensive crouch by its critics.
...Clarke seems to agree with a point often made by Clinton critics: that it was foolish in the 1990s to make the FBI the lead agency in the fight against terrorism since, as an after-the-fact domestic law enforcement agency, it was manifestly not up to the task.
...Clarke emphasizes the need for preemption.
...Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the U.S., advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic intelligence agency.
...Clarke apparently agrees that law enforcement is an inappropriate paradigm for fighting.
...Clarke defends the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved.
-
In response to Condi...
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.
Senator Bob Bennett chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel.
-
voting for the guy who raped your mother and took a dump in your livingroom is still probly better than voting democrat.... course... they are usually the same thing.
but he strk... at least you will be able to have gay marriages and you won't have to smell cig smoke in bars.
lazs
-
One thing is certain, hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it strk?
-
Do you have a link for these facts and data? Ripsnort
It seems pretty obvious that you didnt watch his testimony before congress?? He was drilled on the contrast of his testimony and the 2002 interview. He left no doubt that he was doing his duty as instructed at the time.
Was very interesting testimony to hear. He did not attempt to pass or place blame. He left blame to himself and his government. One should watch the testimony and understand the character behind the mic... Understand how brave, honest, and humble that man was before his questioners.. Something our government needs to practice in more often..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
It seems pretty obvious that you didnt watch his testimony before congress?? He was drilled on the contrast of his testimony and the 2002 interview. He left no doubt that he was doing his duty as instructed at the time.
Was very interesting testimony to hear. He did not attempt to pass or place blame. He left blame to himself and his government. One should watch the testimony and understand the character behind the mic... Understand how brave, honest, and humble that man was before his questioners.. Something our government needs to practice in more often..
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do you have a link for these facts and data?
Some other interesting tidbits from his testimony -
First, Clarke agrees with the assessment of the Bush team that his proposals for action in Afghanistan — aiding the Northern Alliance, flying the Predator, etc. — would not have prevented 9/11.
...Clarke agrees with the argument — made repeatedly by conservatives over the years — that the CIA had been beaten into a defensive crouch by its critics.
...Clarke seems to agree with a point often made by Clinton critics: that it was foolish in the 1990s to make the FBI the lead agency in the fight against terrorism since, as an after-the-fact domestic law enforcement agency, it was manifestly not up to the task.
...Clarke emphasizes the need for preemption.
...Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the U.S., advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic intelligence agency.
...Clarke apparently agrees that law enforcement is an inappropriate paradigm for fighting.
...Clarke defends the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved.
Last sentence above, sounds like a good cause to invade Iraq, no?
-
In reply to the wingnuts -
Clarke said it in his 9-11 commish testimony - dd you even watch it???
The WMD in Iraq was a lie - there was no new evidence, it was manufactured by Bush* and co to justify Iraq. Men died. INexcusable.
BTW genius - North Korea, China has WMD - when are we going to invade them?? I dont see you enlisting for the job. Arent you a stand up guy Rip
and yes, hindsight is 20/20 - except those of you with their head up their ass. I supported the war in Iraq untill the proof came out that te WMDS were never there, and that the Bush* admin manufactured the evidence (state of the union, among others)
do you people actually THINK about what you post here????
-
at least you will be able to have gay marriages
Be careful. You are skirting the fringes of personal attack. Got anything else cupcake?
I doubt it
-
Originally posted by strk
BTW genius - North Korea, China has WMD - when are we going to invade them?? I dont see you enlisting for the job. Arent you a stand up guy Rip
Weak weak weak, that arguement is sooo yesterday...can't you come up with more current wacko left wing liberal stuff? I know I could find you some if you need help.
Nevermind that Iraq,unlike North Korea, which has had 50 years of relative peace with its neighbors,has gone to war twice with neighboring countries and has used chemical warfare on its own citizens. Nevermind that North Korea’s military is three times larger than Iraq’s. A war with North Korea will require 700,000 troops, almost three times the number being sent into Iraq. Nevermind that Seoul, South Korea, is within striking range of North Korea's missiles. The city would be a likely target should the U.S. strike North Korea. Up until quite recently, South Korea has been a supportive ally of the U.S. Considering the risk of nuclear war from taking on a nuclear power, the Bush administration has chosen to engage in diplomacy first, using China as a conduit to pressure Pyongyang into halting its program to enrich uranium for weapons.
The U.N. Security Council had given Saddam Hussein ultimatum after ultimatum, and if the Left had its way, would give him countless more before ever authorizing war. Funny how the Left is so quick to criticize Bush for not going after North Korea without so much as a peep demanding a single ultimatum against them first.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Last sentence above, sounds like a good cause to invade Iraq, no?
??? So the only time to listen to him is when he aggrees with what you want to hear? So using what he said about WMD is ammunition for what Boy George did (if it's a positive for him) but anything he says about your hero (that is negative) is abviously a lie and should be discounted??
amazing.......
-
Originally posted by mosgood
??? So the only time to listen to him is when he aggrees with what you want to hear? So using what he said about WMD is ammunition for what Boy George did (if it's a positive for him) but anything he says about your hero (that is negative) is abviously a lie and should be discounted??
amazing.......
No, I'm asking you a question...either you agree with him or not...which is it or do you agree with him only when it suits Bush bashing? This guy has been shown to be sooo inconsistent but never mind that! He's bashing Bush! Get out of his way! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
what don't you realize?
THE MAN IS SELLING HIS BOOK!
why didn't he come out before this?
because...
THE MAN IS SELLING HIS BOOK!
silly libs - grab at anything or anyone to slam the POTUS
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Weak weak weak, that arguement is sooo yesterday...can't you come up with more current wacko left wing liberal stuff? I know I could find you some if you need help.
Nevermind that Iraq,unlike North Korea, which has had 50 years of relative peace with its neighbors,has gone to war twice with neighboring countries and has used chemical warfare on its own citizens. Nevermind that North Korea’s military is three times larger than Iraq’s. A war with North Korea will require 700,000 troops, almost three times the number being sent into Iraq. Nevermind that Seoul, South Korea, is within striking range of North Korea's missiles. The city would be a likely target should the U.S. strike North Korea. Up until quite recently, South Korea has been a supportive ally of the U.S. Considering the risk of nuclear war from taking on a nuclear power, the Bush administration has chosen to engage in diplomacy first, using China as a conduit to pressure Pyongyang into halting its program to enrich uranium for weapons.
The U.N. Security Council had given Saddam Hussein ultimatum after ultimatum, and if the Left had its way, would give him countless more before ever authorizing war. Funny how the Left is so quick to criticize Bush for not going after North Korea without so much as a peep demanding a single ultimatum against them first.
if this argument is so "yesterday" and easily refutable by your superioir right wing mind, why didnt you discuss China? They have nukes, unfriendly relations with the US (remember the spy plane, ballistic missles into sea of japan, taiwan, etc?)
And North Korea as been proliferating their weapons production systems, as has Pakistan. When do we invade Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Lybia
Or for the human rights excuse (Saddam was evil madman who tortured his people) - we are going to the Congo next, then CHina etc
PLEASE - the REASON WE ARE IN IRAQ IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE OIL IS
no other reason. Blood for oil. And you support that. Sorry but I dont subscribe to that philosphy.
like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders . . .
on edit - btw the UN sanctions and inspections were working - even David Kay said so
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what don't you realize?
THE MAN IS SELLING HIS BOOK!
why didn't he come out before this?
because...
THE MAN IS SELLING HIS BOOK!
silly libs - grab at anything or anyone to slam the POTUS
Uhhh - the book was held up because the White House had to vet it first - and remove some parts
Clarke has done great damage to Bush* - he didnt do that to Reagan, BushI or CLinton - he could have writtne books on any of them
why now? MAYBE it is because Bush* and co are little more than thugs and gangsters. Clarke has impeccable credibility, despite the RW smear machine - which you and the other wingnuts are so eager to be a part of.
-
Are you asking, Do I agree with Bush or Clark?
Bush- I personlly DO think that Georgy had warning before 9/11 and didn't do enough. Not because he didn't give a sh.. but because he didn't think it was going to be as bad as it was and just didn't think it justified declaring an emergency. I really think he was too busy trying to improve his approval points (which I believe where in the toilet at that time) Now, I think he's just covering his bellybutton (like every other politician would). I think that he was just the poor sap in the office at that terrible time.
Personally, while I don't LIKE George, I agree with cleaning house in Afghanistan. I DO think he did a lot of spinning of the truth about WMD in Iraq and should swing for it. And even if he thought it was the whole truth and nothin but... he should be responsible for the error and swing anyways. For Gods sake, if we don't hold our presidents responsible for what they say, we're in deep doodoo. You can't be making those mistakes when justifying going to war.
Clark- I think that 3 presidents believed him, and kept him around for a reason. And now that he is speaking out about Georgy, he is now being discredited.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what don't you realize?
THE MAN IS SELLING HIS BOOK!
why didn't he come out before this?
because...
THE MAN IS SELLING HIS BOOK!
silly libs - grab at anything or anyone to slam the POTUS
A book that the white house had a year to review before it was published. And a book that the white house cannot argue with.
-
Originally posted by strk
PLEASE - the REASON WE ARE IN IRAQ IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE OIL IS
no other reason. Blood for oil. And you support that. Sorry but I dont subscribe to that philosphy.
THEN WHY ARE THE GAS PRICES STILL RISING! LOL!
Not one drop of oil has changed that, son.
Blood for oil! LOL! Okay, resume your brainwashing.
-
Clarke testified under oath. Something the bush people wont due. Although they are letting Rice testify if the commision signs an agreement that no other white house personal has to testify before the 9/11 commision.
What do they have to hide?
-
Clarke has done ZERO damage to Bush
Bush's poll numbers continue to rise as anyone with half a brain, eliminates many here, see clarke for what he is - bitter, ex employee trying to SELL HIS BOOK
-
Yes eagler, but if clarke is lieing then why isnt he going to jail? He did testify under oath.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Clarke has done ZERO damage to Bush
Bush's poll numbers continue to rise as anyone with half a brain, eliminates many here, see clarke for what he is - bitter, ex employee trying to SELL HIS BOOK
A bitter ex-employee of 30 years under 4 different presidents.. Repub and demo..
The ideas the some are willing to unquestionably believe and the ideas backed up by fact, paper-trails, and corroborated testimony that some are willing to deny.. wow.. just wow...
dude
-
Originally posted by strk
PLEASE - the REASON WE ARE IN IRAQ IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE OIL IS
no other reason. Blood for oil. And you support that. Sorry but I dont subscribe to that philosphy.
No, but following your logic we should be invading FUSSR (love that F from the other thread) and Venezuala.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Weak weak weak, that arguement is sooo yesterday...can't you come up with more current wacko left wing liberal stuff? I know I could find you some if you need help.
Nevermind that Iraq,unlike North Korea, which has had 50 years of relative peace with its neighbors,has gone to war twice with neighboring countries and has used chemical warfare on its own citizens.
Weak arguement?
Two out of the the three things you listed Saddam enjoyed overwhelming US protection and support, how does that furthur your arguement?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yes eagler, but if clarke is lieing then why isnt he going to jail? He did testify under oath.
never said he was lying, im sure he is giving his account - his 20/20 hindsight version
but HE IS SELLING HIS BOOK and whatever he states, unless he has a telephone recording of bush telling obl the coast is clear, nobody but the wound up left is listening nor do we care
for anyone to think 9/11 was preventable on 9/10/01 is fantasy
isn't everything preventable when looked back in hindsight? how about the JFK shooting, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the abortion the 15 year old had this morning? the list goes on and on....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
THEN WHY ARE THE GAS PRICES STILL RISING! LOL!
Not one drop of oil has changed that, son.
Blood for oil! LOL! Okay, resume your brainwashing.
As usual you have nothing to add
And Im not your son, cupcake
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yes eagler, but if clarke is lieing then why isnt he going to jail? He did testify under oath.
Mr. Clarke's Admission
March 30, 2004, Wall Street Journal
If President Bush had followed every last letter of Richard Clarke's recommendations starting Inauguration Day, it still would not have prevented 9/11.
How do we know this? Richard Clarke says so.
Here's how the disgruntled National Security Council veteran put it last week in an exchange with Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission and former Washington Senator:
Mr. Gorton: "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25 of 2001 . . . including aid to the Northern Alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?"
Mr. Clarke: "No."
Mr. Gorton: "It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to be perhaps a little bit faster?"
Mr. Clarke: "Well, the response would have begun before 9/11."
Mr. Gorton: "But -- yes, but we weren't going to -- there was no recommendation on your part or anyone else's part that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?"
Mr. Clarke: "That's right."
This startling exchange got almost no media attention last week. Mr. Clarke has rocketed to national fame over the past 10 days by alleging the Bush Administration was negligently inattentive to the al Qaeda threat. He took it upon himself to "apologize" on behalf of "your government" to the families of 9/11 victims, as if there had been policy options on the table -- perhaps offered by him -- that might have prevented their deaths.
But when pressed on that point under oath, Mr. Clarke was forced to concede that the impression he'd created, the very reason anyone was paying any attention to him, was false. As long as Mr. Clarke is in the apology business, can we have one for wasting a week of the Administration's precious anti-terror time?
-
Originally posted by strk
As usual you have nothing to add
And Im not your son, cupcake
Good debate! Wow, you must be a star among your peers....
(http://wgz.8k.com/gangstagroup.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
a wsj editorial isnt proof of anything, cupcake, it is OPINION from a rw editorial board lol
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good debate! Wow, you must be a star among your peers....
(http://wgz.8k.com/gangstagroup.jpg)
is that the best you can do? lol
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
THEN WHY ARE THE GAS PRICES STILL RISING! LOL!
Not one drop of oil has changed that, son.
Blood for oil! LOL! Okay, resume your brainwashing.
do a little google on "peak oil" if you really want to learn something about it
-
Originally posted by strk
he worked for Bush then, who ordered him to put a positive spin on their efforts.
why don't you edit your "data dump" to illustrate what you are trying to say?
Clarke's testimony is sinking Bush* and you know it. That is why you want to spin him as a liar and change the subject.
Like I told Lazs, I am not trying to convert you Rip, I know you are going to pull the lever for the boy king even if he raped your mother and took a **** in your living room. Your eyes are closed and noone can open them but you.
btw CLarke is a 30 year fed employee under Reagen, BushI, Clinton and Bush*. He has a reputation for excelling among the sharks in DC. He is not stupid enough to lie. Im suprised you dont realize that.
We're supposed to be swayed by someone who has, as his avatar, a Howard "the Angry Man" Dean sign? Doesn't do much for your credibility strk. And when did you become a fly on the wall to know what President Bush told anyone? You got an inside scoop, or something?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by strk
do a little google on "peak oil" if you really want to learn something about it
You're the one making the accusation of blood for oil. Show me the money! (er, Oil..)
-
Originally posted by slimm50
We're supposed to be swayed by someone who has, as his avatar, a Howard "the Angry Man" Dean sign? Doesn't do much for your credibility strk. And when did you become a fly on the wall to know what President Bush told anyone? You got an inside scoop, or something?:rolleyes:
I dont give a flying **** what you think of Howard Dean or my credibility.
No credibility is ignoring the crimes of the Bush* admin. Look in the mirror and ask that guy what happenned to his credibility
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're the one making the accusation of blood for oil. Show me the money! (er, Oil..)
Im nt going to explain everything to you cupcake. If you want to learn about peak oil look it up yourself. I can tell by your comment that you have no freakin clue
-
Crimes? what crimes?
edit: Strk you whined that someone was on the edge of attacking you personally yet you call everyone who disagrees w/ you "cupcake".
Hardly a term of endearment. Hypocricy.
-
Peak oil and PNAC have already been explained on this board and the pretty much the only comment made by the wingnuts was ... 'Bush is Hitler'!!!! Thats pretty much it. Even in the face of overwhelming reason , they look away and choose not to digest the information given.. They choose to ignore that America's policies carried out in the last 3.5 years were all written down and publised many years ago. This administration followed a blue print that was already noted for them. No one looks at the history.. Even though Afganistan was an overwhelmingly sucess, it cannot be seen that the country was nothing more than an entrance and exit for the Caspian Sea....
dude
-
Originally posted by Steve
Crimes? what crimes?
edit: Strk you whined that someone was on the edge of attacking you personally yet you call everyone who disagrees w/ you "cupcake".
Hardly a term of endearment. Hypocricy.
I didnt hear you coming to my defense then, so isnt this post of yours hypocritical??
Are you mad because I have a pet name for Rip? Do you want one too?
oh and its hypocriSy I believe.
-
How should I have come to your defense?
YOU were the one being hypocritical.
Is this something you cannot understand?
You cried about personal attacks then use a derogatory name for another person. Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy?
A pet name huh? How about I give you a pet name?
How about Stupid F'in prettythanghole? How's that for a pet name? It's not a personal attack because it's a pet name.
-
lmfao..
Deans in the dirt..keep holding on streek in the pants..yargghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh
and btw...
again...How much time did AL Quesadilla need to train and place terrosist in this country...Greta Job Clinton..reallll good job..Democratic Liberals MAke me puke..Thnak god there getn there asssses handed to them
-
Originally posted by Steve
How should I have come to your defense?
YOU were the one being hypocritical.
Is this something you cannot understand?
You cried about personal attacks then use a derogatory name for another person. Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy?
A pet name huh? How about I give you a pet name?
How about Stupid F'in prettythanghole? How's that for a pet name? It's not a personal attack because it's a pet name.
Thanks!! Your pet name is L'il Dumplin'!
Now go powder your nose L'il Dumplin'!
OK so you call me a hypocrit for warning lazs that his gay marriage remark was flirting with the line, when I call Rip "cupcake" hmmmm
(I think Rip is a big boy and doesnt need you to defend him.)
then to make your point you call me a stupid ****ing *******.
Boy did your credibility go flying right out the ****ing window.
you know Dumplin', I really dont see you adding much to this conversation.
-
keep posting
your true wack job liberal persona gets stronger with each post LOL
-
Gosh Strk your whoopin’ em’ like Mike Tyson back in the day ;)..
Too easy.
I should play devils advocate and debate you what the Republican argument should[/b] be
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Gosh Strk your whoopin’ em’ like Mike Tyson back in the day ;)..
Too easy.
I should play devils advocate and debate you what the Republican argument should be [/B]
and aloha
-
then to make your point you call me a stupid ****ing *******.
My mistake, sorry. I thought you were bright enough to recognize sarcasm. I won't try to hold any conversations with you in the future, now that I'm aware of how witless you are.
Lil dumplin... I like it.
-
Steve ya building apon the friendship list again i see LOL.
-
so..streeks in your underwear...
Can you answer..how long you think the terrosist had to plan the sept 11 attaks??
only took them 8 months!!! wow,,,?..lmfao..
btw..your boy lost his asrseeeeeeeeeeeeee
Dean is a complete wak job..no hope of anything...
btw..How does a man get 3 purple hearts in 4 months?..ahh nevermind..lolo
ANd....streek in your underwear...Who does the enmey want as our president...hmmmm sure in the hell not the guy kikn there assses all over the world...
next......
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
so..streeks in your underwear...
Can you answer..how long you think the terrosist had to plan the sept 11 attaks??
only took them 8 months!!! wow,,,?..lmfao..
btw..your boy lost his asrseeeeeeeeeeeeee
Dean is a complete wak job..no hope of anything...
btw..How does a man get 3 purple hearts in 4 months?..ahh nevermind..lolo
ANd....streek in your underwear...Who does the enmey want as our president...hmmmm sure in the hell not the guy kikn there assses all over the world...
next......
try wiping your bellybutton next time\
sheesh - speaking of wack jobs - you take the cake
lessee Al Queda caused 37 American deaths under Clinton - how many under the boy king?
Clinton had hundreds of meeting regarding terror strikes. Bush* pre-911 had 0 - the advisory group under daddy cheney never met once.
keep spinning - maybe you will convince yourself someday
on edit - a MAN gets purple hearts being wounded in combat - got any?
-
Originally posted by Steve
My mistake, sorry. I thought you were bright enough to recognize sarcasm. I won't try to hold any conversations with you in the future, now that I'm aware of how witless you are.
Lil dumplin... I like it.
is that the best you got??
sit back down dumplin.