Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TheDudeDVant on April 14, 2004, 09:15:12 AM
-
CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."
FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."
FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]
CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."
FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."
FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]
CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]
CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6. [responding to Ben Veniste]
FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."
FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]
Just a few R*P... Bush even vetoed moving $800billion from missle defense to counter-terrorism.. Keep blaming Clinton and his policies for 9/11....
dude
-
Links please. (Anyone can take something out of context and make it favor their side of the debate, I'd like to see the entire source)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Links please. (Anyone can take something out of context and make it favor their side of the debate, I'd like to see the entire source)
Lol, I don't think you will find it at fightliberalism.com:lol
-
cliton = 8 years
Bush = 8 months
oh yes, I see who to blame for 9/11 :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Lol, I don't think you will find it at fightliberalism.com:lol
My article appeared on a number of websites, including that one. Seems you dodged out of that thread quickly, though. ;) Some people just hate facts and data.
-
Last night was one of Bush's better speeches and Q&A sessions. Defending a free country is very hard. Bottom line, bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attack.
-
Bottom line, bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attack.
What country have you been living in? Last time I checked, we hold the CEO of a corporation or company ultimately responsible for bad things that happen to their company.
When is Bush going to take responsibility for failing to defend our country against terrorism until it was too late?
To be fair, was Pearl Harbor the fault of Roosevelt? I'd say yes, he was ultimately responsible, even though the Japanese pulled a surprise attack. The US had fair warning that the Japanese were going to attack somewhere, but they didn't know how or where.
Roosevelt was caught asleep at the wheel in 1941, Bush was caught asleep at the wheel in 2001.
It's convenient to blame Clinton for everything, as Republicans are so prone to do when the heat gets too hot for them, but the fact is that 9/11 happened after he was out of office. You guys can't legitimately use him as your scapegoat. Bush had time to analyze the situation and act accordingly. He is the CEO of this country, and he failed us.
He will lose his job this November because of that and other failures. "Read my lips".
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Links please. (Anyone can take something out of context and make it favor their side of the debate, I'd like to see the entire source)
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The data is out there, I suggest you start googling.
-
Originally posted by banana
What country have you been living in? Last time I checked, we hold the CEO of a corporation or company ultimately responsible for bad things that happen to their company.
We hold CEOs responsible for the bad things that happen to their companies when the CEOs commit crimes and steal from their companies, not when an irrate employee wigs out and kills fellow employees. Then we blame Rush Limbaugh. :rolleyes:
If there is anyone to blame in the US for 9/11 it is Clinton. Let's see, 8 years prior or 8 months. Which had more of an influence over national security?
-
Iron, that is a spurrious argument. If 8 months is not enough time to be able to prevent 20 guys from getting on planes armed with box cutters, then how much time is enough?
Using your logic, Clinton is just as guilty as Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman for not leaing this nation to prevent people with box cutters from getting onto domestic flights, or for not seeing that sealed doors are placed between the cockpit and the passenger area.
Bush was the man in charge on the day it happened, he's the one ultimately responsible.
-
By your own admission then banana, Clinton is responsible for the WTC attack in '93, the marine barracks bombing, embassy bombings, and the attack on the Cole, some of these masterminded by OBL. If he'd done his job and brought OBL to justice Bush wouldn't have had to deal with him. What did we do about Clinton's failure to defend us btw?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We hold CEOs responsible for the bad things that happen to their companies when the CEOs commit crimes and steal from their companies, not when an irrate employee wigs out and kills fellow employees. Then we blame Rush Limbaugh. :rolleyes:
If there is anyone to blame in the US for 9/11 it is Clinton. Let's see, 8 years prior or 8 months. Which had more of an influence over national security?
Isn't God supposed to be everywhere and no where at once? He was in the US at the time. It's God's fault.
It is so stupid to try and place blame on someone for 9/11. There was a failure in the intelligence gathering and implementation. If you want to blame just one person or one administration you are just showing partisan colors. Intelligence spending was gutted in the Clinton administration, Bush ignored warnings (however small), the people on the Plane didn't revolt (well one out of 4 did). The people in the WTC didn't call in to work. Placing blame on a terrorist attack is pointless and leads to bickering and country splitting.
-
Originally posted by banana
He will lose his job this November because of that and other failures. "Read my lips".
please be sure to put ur money where ur mouth is :)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114032&pagenumber=2
-
Yes, Clinton is absolutely ultimately responsible for those things you mentioned.
What to do with him now? I dunno, he shouldn't have been re-elected in 1996 if the American public would've cared enough about national security.
9/11 woke us all up. Now we care.
Edit: oops, thanks for catching my typo, Eagler.
-
Originally posted by banana
I dunno, he shouldn't have been re-elected in 1994 if the American public would've cared enough about national security.
9/11 woke us all up. Now we care.
or '96 either :)
-
lol Eagler, I missed that thread. Thanks for the link. :)
-
I don't know what Bush could have done to prevent 9/11. Even after 9/11 the very same ones that are berating him for not doing enough are baying loudly at the measures he's taken to try to protect us. Some of you here that so heatedly despise Bush are intelligent enough to at least see this contradiction I hope.
-
I'm a director at a Direct Marketing company. 6 months into my new position, I discovered that the fulfillment company we were using had over billed us by $4 million dollars over the time span of 1 1/2 years.
Now, I didn't choose these guys and I didn't have anything to do with us NOT confirming the costs on the invoices for the first year they were doing it. But the last 6 months is on my head. I let invoices get by for 6 months that were incorrect. It took me 6 months to catch that there was a problem.
Now, I could have said.... "If I went over every contract that this company did for every vendor that we are using now to make sure we aren't getting robbed, I wouldn't have time to do the daily ops" the owner would have bought it.
But that would have been bullshi.., It was MY responsibility as soon as I took over the position. I was getting paid to DO THE JOB and be the guy that is responsible. PERIOD.
How long does it take for the President of the United States to be responsible for what happens on his watch? If he would just take the responsiblity, his stock would go up.
-
mosgood in '04!
yep, your job has the same level/amount of responsibilites as the POTUS
LOL
-
Originally posted by mosgood
But that would have been bullshi.., It was MY responsibility as soon as I took over the position. I was getting paid to DO THE JOB and be the guy that is responsible. PERIOD.
How long does it take for the President of the United States to be responsible for what happens on his watch? If he would just take the responsiblity, his stock would go up.
Exactly. Bush has taken charge and is doing what he thinks is best for the country. As you put it, it is his responsiblity. I take it that you are one who supports our leader in this?
-
I see your point, and agree to some extent. On the other hand, my point is that we should hold our presidents responsible for our national security. I think the Japanese understand responsibility and honor much better than we do.
In Japan, leaders there will publicly apologize for something bad that happened on their watch. Not that what happened was their fault, per se, but they understand that the public had entrusted them with their safety.
FWIW, I'm not a Bush hater, I just think he wasn't the right person for the job in 2000.
BTW, can you imagine the blood-curdling screams coming from the right had 9/11 happened on Al Gore's watch? Something tells me these threads would be look completely different.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I'm a director at a Direct Marketing company. 6 months into my new position, I discovered that the fulfillment company we were using had over billed us by $4 million dollars over the time span of 1 1/2 years.
Now, I didn't choose these guys and I didn't have anything to do with us NOT confirming the costs on the invoices for the first year they were doing it. But the last 6 months is on my head. I let invoices get by for 6 months that were incorrect. It took me 6 months to catch that there was a problem.
Now, I could have said.... "If I went over every contract that this company did for every vendor that we are using now to make sure we aren't getting robbed, I wouldn't have time to do the daily ops" the owner would have bought it.
But that would have been bullshi.., It was MY responsibility as soon as I took over the position. I was getting paid to DO THE JOB and be the guy that is responsible. PERIOD.
How long does it take for the President of the United States to be responsible for what happens on his watch? If he would just take the responsiblity, his stock would go up.
I agree completely, mosgood. Bush should've had you as a consultant. :)
-
Rip, what are you talking aoubt? Just about every fact is already sourced in the article. :confused:
-
Originally posted by banana
I see your point, and agree to some extent. On the other hand, my point is that we should hold our presidents responsible for our national security. I think the Japanese understand responsibility and honor much better than we do.
In Japan, leaders there will publicly apologize for something bad that happened on their watch. Not that what happened was their fault, per se, but they understand that the public had entrusted them with their safety.
Hara-kiri \Ha"ra-ki`ri\, n. [Jap., stomach cutting.]
Suicide, by slashing the abdomen, formerly practiced in
Japan, and commanded by the government in the cases of
disgraced officials LOL
apologize!? - get a life and grow some gonads pls
is it time for your hormone pill or what banana? :)
-
Haha, very cute, Eagler. But you and I both know that Hara-Kiri went the way of the Karaoke machine long ago.
Public apology and national disgrace suffices in present-day Japan.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Rip, what are you talking aoubt? Just about every fact is already sourced in the article. :confused:
He is too busy cutting and pasting "facts" from fightliberalism.com
Facts like: In 2001, Bush used the word "the"
What an acomplishment! Good thing it wasn't Quayle, he would have spelled it wrong :lol
-
Actually I have seen what banana is talking about. Japan had a "tainted blood" scandal much like we had here in Canada. Except were our people made excuses. The guys in Japan literally got on thier knees and begged for forgiveness.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
mosgood in '04!
yep, your job has the same level/amount of responsibilites as the POTUS
LOL
Well he probably didn't get the 8 months holiday the Prez has taken so far since gaining office...
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Well he probably didn't get the 8 months holiday the Prez has taken so far since gaining office...
Or the perks and pay........
dude
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Exactly. Bush has taken charge and is doing what he thinks is best for the country. As you put it, it is his responsiblity. I take it that you are one who supports our leader in this?
Well... I would absolutely agree he has taken charge. Whether I agree with what he's doing is another matter. But yes... he has taken charge.
I need you to be a little clearer on what you're asking though. Do I support our leader in his decisions or that he should take charge? Which really wasn't what I was talking about....
He needs to be responsible for what happens on his watch. And BE A MAN and say that. I think american respect that. I will tell you that short of him being GROSS negligent, I don't think he should be burned at the stake for it. I really don't think anyone could have prevented what happened. he's just the guy that worked his bellybutton off to be the most powerful man in the world and was in office when it happened.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
mosgood in '04!
yep, your job has the same level/amount of responsibilites as the POTUS
LOL
I see your point.
Greater responsiblities = being less responsible for them.
-
nope - that's not my point, must be the one on the top of your head
-
Hey Mosgood,
I'm a director at a Direct Marketing company.
That probably helps explain your political outlook (as expressed in a previous post). I used to work in public relations before moving to journalism (did a little DM too). It's a different world when you have some professional insight :)
Charon