or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911 - Page 5  

post #161 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
On RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SHOW, actually.

You know this whole line that clarke was "demoted" is misguided. the real issue here is that bush didn't think terrorism was important enough to warrant a cabinet-level position. the whole position was demoted, not just clarke. And he performed the same duties- he was still the counter-terrorism czar- cyberterrorism was just one of his pet issues.

If people could just get the facts straight for ONCE!

this is what I was talking about:
Quote:
This Clarke guy was demoted by Condoleezza Rice to the cyberspace unit. Nobody took it seriously, and he knows it. He was out, and this explains it.
source:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...k_c.guest.html
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
post #162 of 386
A Frontline interview with Clarke:

FRONTLINE: Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?

CLARKE: The interagency group on which I sat and John O'Neill sat--we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved . . .

FRONTLINE: But didn't you push for military action after the [al Qaeda bombing of the USS] Cole?

CLARKE: Yes, that's one of the exceptions..

FRONTLINE: How important is that exception?

CLARKE: I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.

FRONTLINE: Without intelligence operatives on the ground in these organizations, how in the end does one stop something like this? If you look back on it now and you had one wish, you could have had one thing done, what would it have been?

CLARKE: Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. They would have been a hell of a lot less capable of recruiting people. Their whole "Come to Afghanistan where you'll be safe and you'll be trained"--well, that wouldn't have worked if every time they got a camp together, it was blown up by the United States. That's the one thing that we recommended that didn't happen--the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.

FRONTLINE: So that's a pretty basic mistake that we made?

CLARKE: Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. None of these decisions took place in isolation. There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.

interesting
post #163 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
this is what I was talking about:

No, that's wrong. He was moved to the cyber-terrorism unit after 9/11.
post #164 of 386
Thread Starter 
So, what does page five of this thread say so far?

That the position was demoted but they are trying to say that Clarke was misguided by a focus on cyberterror . .

means nothing . . . overturns nothing about Clarke's statements

and,
We learned that Clarke had some ideas that, before 911, would have not sustained political support enough to be maintained and would have eventually merly excacerbated the issue with the addition of worse political obrobriation due to the apparently unfounded nature of the actions.

I mean sure, we bombed AQ camps once, and that in itself caused a huge stir and only dismantled one camp and missed OBL . . to do it every time one popped up would have been, probably, both politically impossible to sustain and inefective . . . We did bomb AQ after the embassy bombings . .

but really what you get from the Palisrealitine situation is that there needs to be a huge effort that includes more than just bombs . . . bombs too, but also some sort of real international efforts to get these guys and to change their breeding grounds . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #165 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
As for Richard Clarke: this guy is a liar. The Vice President said in a national radio interview today that he (the author) was out of the loop, he was pushed aside by Condi Rice and DEMOTED to some piss-on computer virus czar thing, thus he had a score to settle. and Kerry being out of the spotlight on vacation all week. happy coincident, i doubt it, the pieces fit so well.

1) If he was out of the loop on 9/11, that ought to be pretty disturbing, considering he WAS THE COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATOR OF THE NSC. In other words, he WAS the loop. If he's not privy to information floating around the White House, then there's a serious problem.

2) He was demoted AFTER 9/11 (Cheney himself was intentionally vague about the timeline on Limbaugh), and Cheney also deliberately misrepresents the position. Clarke headed the cyberterrorism wing of the NSC. If you don't think that's important, you're sorely deluded.

3) If he had a "score" to settle, it certainly wasn't over being reassigned to work on something that was his pet project.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #166 of 386
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by midwinter
1) If he was out of the loop on 9/11, that ought to be pretty disturbing, considering he WAS THE COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATOR OF THE NSC. In other words, he WAS the loop. If he's not privy to information floating around the White House, then there's a serious problem.

2) He was demoted AFTER 9/11 (Cheney himself was intentionally vague about the timeline on Limbaugh), and Cheney also deliberately misrepresents the position. Clarke headed the cyberterrorism wing of the NSC. If you don't think that's important, you're sorely deluded.

3) If he had a "score" to settle, it certainly wasn't over being reassigned to work on something that was his pet project.



touchay!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #167 of 386
This guy Clark is a partisan kook. He's gunning for a job from Kerry. Helping to take Bush down at the expense of the US. Great guy!


From Best of the Web


The Clarke Kerfuffle
Richard Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser to the White House, has gotten a lot of attention for some bizarre claims about the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11. Clarke appeared on "60 Minutes" last night, and here's the CBS News Web site's account of what he had to say:

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 [Lesley] Stahl. "And we all said ._._. no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And [Donald] 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._._._."


Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what is Clarke complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.

In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.


Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."

In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.
post #168 of 386
Thread Starter 
The man is a far cry from a liberal . . . his politics are closer to yours (with exception to your inability to look at Bush through other than utopian-glasses) than Kerry's.

He is not 'gunning for a job'

he has a job allready/ This is last-ditch grasping at straws from a well funded PR machine . . . just get some distance

The Republicans should wake up and run someone against Bush . . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #169 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
This guy Clark is a partisan kook. He's gunning for a job from Kerry. Helping to take Bush down at the expense of the US. Great guy!


From Best of the Web


The Clarke Kerfuffle
Richard Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser to the White House, has gotten a lot of attention for some bizarre claims about the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11. Clarke appeared on "60 Minutes" last night, and here's the CBS News Web site's account of what he had to say:

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 [Lesley] Stahl. "And we all said ._._. no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And [Donald] 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._._._."


Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what is Clarke complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.

In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.


Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."

In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.

OK, lets dissect:

First off you've linked an opinion article as insurmountable proof. Opinion doesn't meet the requirements as proof excepts for BushCo.

Quote:
Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what is Clarke complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.

This is a Red Herring argument. The point was that the administration initially wanted to attack Iraq in respone an attach by OBL--a guy in Afganastan BTW. The fact the we bombed Afganastan a month later is inconsequential. Clark was complaining about the administrations fervent gusto to accomplish an ideological plan which had been signed onto by most of the administration. So, your contention that we went into Afganastan a month later doesn't have a bearing on or invasion into Iraq other than Afganastan was a delay for BushCo.

Quote:
In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:

for someone with a shoddy record he sure as heck server under a few administrations. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.


Quote:
Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."

So, you offer proof (opinion) that Clark did a poor job you offer a quote which states he did sound alarms.... His pet project was cyber terrorism--of coarse he would hound it. This spin doesn't lessen the fact the Clark DID sound bells, and blow whistles.

Quote:
In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.

Again you offer opinion as proof. Also, I don't get the logic of "He teaches therefore he's less reputible." Is he supposidly acting as a Harvard Recruiter, or trying to pack a lecture hall? No. Should we stop listening to Condi because she's a professor? Hmmmm if that's the case....
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #170 of 386
You just choose not to see the connection between Clark and the Kerry campaign.
post #171 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
You just choose not to see the connection between Clark and the Kerry campaign.

Perhaps its the otherway around. You may be making a nonexistant link.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #172 of 386
Thread Starter 
Dick Cheney could come out against Bush and you people would simply start to dismiss him for whatever . . . maybe his Halliburton connections . . . its is just too incredible . .

What would it take for this lying dangerous spolied rich kids nightmare to be seen for what it is?!?!?!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #173 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Quote:
This Clarke guy was demoted by Condoleezza Rice to the cyberspace unit. Nobody took it seriously, and he knows it. He was out, and this explains it.
source:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/da...ck_c.guest.htm


Have you bothered to look at what replaced him?

I'll give you a hint: He's more of a hawk on Iraq than even wolfowitz.
post #174 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by giant

Have you bothered to look at what replaced him?

I'll give you a hint: He's more of a hawk on Iraq than even wolfowitz. [/B][/QUOTE]

This raises a question I've been thinking about today: just who makes up the Bush administration? Can we compile a list of cabinet officials and advisors? Perhaps a timeline and brief bio for each? Might be fun! Worthy of its own thread (and strikingly non-partisan!)

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #175 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Have you bothered to look at what replaced him?

I'll give you a hint: He's more of a hawk on Iraq than even wolfowitz.


This raises a question I've been thinking about today: just who makes up the Bush administration? Can we compile a list of cabinet officials and advisors? Perhaps a timeline and brief bio for each? Might be fun! Worthy of its own thread (and strikingly non-partisan!)

Cheers
Scott [/B]

Ohhh, Kudos to midwinter. Good project idea.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #176 of 386
Done. Thread started.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #177 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
You just choose not to see the connection between Clark and the Kerry campaign.

For the love of God...

If co-teaching a class at Harvard with Rand Beers is the best you can do "linking" Clark to the Kerry campaign, I'm suprised you even bothered to post.
Do you actually believe the stuff you say? Do you actually believe that all of the people from within the Bush white house who say essentially the same thing are just DNC moles of some sort?

Anybody who doesn't play ball with the Bush Administration is a simp, disgruntled former employee, or closet dem.

Remember Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? First we heard that Wilson was a lousy ambassador who did a poor job of investigating the Niger yellow cake connection. Then we heard that his wife was a "glorified stenographer" so outing her CIA status was trivial.

I understand that this white house never hesitates to slander its enemies, in a full court press, even if one story contadicts the next, or makes no sense, or is demonstrably false.

I just don't understand why citizens think it's worth repeating.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #178 of 386
I was watching Crossfire today, and Tucker was in finer than usual whine form. Of course Clarke was the huge topic. When Carlisle said Clarke is a Republican, neither Tucker nor the other guest(from the right) said a word even after they'd been trashing the guy all show. Not one word.

Of course, someone who served under THREE Republican administrations as a high ranking official suddenly became..... not good enough.

Here's a little hypothetical question. Assuming Clarke were trying to help Kerry.....so what? He obviously saw enough to make him want to want change. He's entitled to change his mind isn't he?

I've been watching the news, listening to the radio, and only the zealots are pissed and trying their hardest to discredit him. It's pathetic.
post #179 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
If co-teaching a class at Harvard with Rand Beers is the best you can do "linking" Clark to the Kerry campaign...

And who is rand beers?

Bush's other top advisor for counter-terrorism. (the order is Clarke->Downing->Beers)

So, as I've said, we now have two of bush's top counter-terrorism advisors speaking out against the Bush admin.
post #180 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
It is common knowledge that William Jefferson Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.

I always wonder this, "Why did Iraq not let the inspectors in if they had nothing to hide, which it seems is partly true?"



Oh come off it...... Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect it's weapons programs? I don't think so.

Does the US administration respect international law? I don't think so.


It is possible that Iraqis are human beings and had a sense of national pride even if their leader was a tyranical bastard.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #181 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by orange whip
Oh come off it...... Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect it's weapons programs? I don't think so.

Does the US administration respect international law? I don't think so.


It is possible that Iraqis are human beings and had a sense of national pride even if their leader was a tyranical bastard.

why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
post #182 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?

Dude, that's like soooo 2003? The war is over now, you don't have to parrot the party line. He's not on the job any more?

By the way, how's the US WMD hunt going fella?
meh
meh
post #183 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
This is a Red Herring argument. The point was that the administration initially wanted to attack Iraq in respone an attach by OBL--a guy in Afganastan BTW. The fact the we bombed Afganastan a month later is inconsequential.

I have been thinking about this one also.

BushCo., as you so nicely put it, decimated The taliban and booted Al Qeada out of Afghanistan. Meanwhile for years Iraq had been a problem. Forget about the WMD just for a moment, and you would see that maybe BushCo. made a wise choice to invade Iraq. I mean the assets were already there in the region. No need to bring all of them home only to send them back again when SH caused another fuss or refused to let inspectors in again. It was a smart logistics move IMO. Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.
post #184 of 386
Regarding Clarke:

He did not come across as believable in his interview on 60 minutes. He came across as an angry, spoiled child. As others have pointed out, it was on his watch that several other destructive attacks ocurred. Yet, this man boasts of the "daily meetings" he had during those years. What did those meetings accomplish? These things all happened during a time where Clarke was in the top anti-terror position. Where is his accountablility? Every single thing he's said is nothing but heresay.

As for the interview itself, it was a sham. Have we not seen that Viacom promoted its own book under the veil of "news"? (btw, this was also the case for former treasury secretary O'Neill's book).

Clarke has a viewpoint, but not all the facts. He comes across like the expert of Bush's response to 9/11, yet admits he didn't always meet with him and his team. How can that be?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #185 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?




My oringinal reference to UN could have been replace with; traffic cop, monkey, can of baked beans...or whatever


When I wrote "Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect its weapons programs?", the 'its' is the US administration.

Anyway the point I was making was that the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis with weapons inspectors may have been due to national pride - in the same way the US might react if an external body attempted to invasively inspect their national programs.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #186 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have been thinking about this one also.

Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.

I'm interested. Could you weigh up the possible benefits / disbenefits from invading Syria for us? Interesting idea.

I'll start you off with one of each (one from you, one from me) but I'm genuinely interested.

A) 'Maybe' finding WMD (you)
B) Killing 15,000 innocent people (assuming attrition similar to Iraq; me)
meh
meh
post #187 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
I'm interested. Could you weigh up the possible benefits / disbenefits from invading Syria for us? Interesting idea.

I'll start you off with one of each (one from you, one from me) but I'm genuinely interested.

A) 'Maybe' finding WMD (you)
B) Killing 15,000 innocent people (assuming attrition similar to Iraq; me)

Syria is another terrorist backing state. We are in the area so why not. I mean, why leave syria as a haven for islamo-facists. Give them a chance at democracy also. I say why not.

War is hell, but so is letting terrorists slowly kill off innocent people at will and random.
post #188 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.




don't you mean 'PWMDP' (possible weapons of mass destruction programs)


WMD is just FUD

remember too the US has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, and so on and so on.

and aeroplane laden with fuel is a WMD

Eliminate all the misleading propaganda from both sides, then and only then will you and I know what the problem really is, if in fact a 'problem' exists at all.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #189 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by orange whip


My oringinal reference to UN could have been replace with; traffic cop, monkey, can of baked beans...or whatever


When I wrote "Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect its weapons programs?", the 'its' is the US administration.

Anyway the point I was making was that the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis with weapons inspectors may have been due to national pride - in the same way the US might react if an external body attempted to invasively inspect their national programs.

you could be right, but the differance, when the USA says no to inspections, they arn't in direct violation of a treaty and god knows how many resolutions, some actualy agreed to by sadom to stop the war in 91
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
post #190 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by orange whip
don't you mean 'PWMDP' (possible weapons of mass destruction programs)


WMD is just FUD

remember too the US has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, and so on and so on.

and aeroplane laden with fuel is a WMD

Eliminate all the misleading propaganda from both sides, then and only then will you and I know what the problem really is, if in fact a 'problem' exists at all.

So terrorism is no big deal to you? The possibility of a terrorist group blowing up a dirty bomb or setting loose bio or chemical agents is not a problem?

What, pray tell, do you think the problem is?
post #191 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
you could be right, but the differance, when the USA says no to inspections, they arn't in direct violation of a treaty and god knows how many resolutions, some actualy agreed to by sadom to stop the war in 91


fair point


but,(and slightly moving away from the topic), the way the US violates international law and human rights, in the way it holds 'detainees' at Guantanomo Bay is hypocritical (regardless of what those detainees may have done).

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #192 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
So terrorism is no big deal to you? The possibility of a terrorist group blowing up a dirty bomb or setting loose bio or chemical agents is not a problem?

What, pray tell, do you think the problem is?



No I didn't say that terrorism didn't concen me.

Fruit cakes don't only come from the Middle East, there are quite a few in the west as well. I do recall that a certain Timothy McVay blew up his own countrymen which is also an act of terror.

I suspect the problem is every one is busy building walls and becoming insular rather than building bridges.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #193 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by orange whip
No I didn't say that terrorism didn't concen me.

Fruit cakes don't only come from the Middle East, there are quite a few in the west as well. I do recall that a certain Timothy McVay blew up his own countrymen which is also an act of terror.

I suspect the problem is every one is busy building walls and becoming insular rather than building bridges.

Build a bridge huh?

Have you ever had to deal with a bully?

Well I did for a couple of years, because my mom told me fighting was bad. So for a long time I did everything that I as a kid could do do avoid conflict and "be cool". Needless to say, as anyone that has been there knows, I got fed up with it and finally got so mad that I totally beat the crap out of him.

He went on to respect me and leave me alone.

Some people only understand force, so force is the bridge that they need.
post #194 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Have you ever had to deal with a bully?

International relations is, um, a little more complicated than kids dealing with bullies.

The put it extremely lightly.
post #195 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Build a bridge huh?

Have you ever had to deal with a bully?

Well I did for a couple of years, because my mom told me fighting was bad. So for a long time I did everything that I as a kid could do do avoid conflict and "be cool". Needless to say, as anyone that has been there knows, I got fed up with it and finally got so mad that I totally beat the crap out of him.

He went on to respect me and leave me alone.

Some people only understand force, so force is the bridge that they need.





A 'bully'!!!!!!


Iraq/sadam Husein, a 'bully'??? to whom?? to you??? certainly SH was a bully to his own people.


to 'beat the crap' out of someone because they 'bullied' you????!!!!!


I'm sorry but I don't buy that as a valid response.

Do you really think that if you 'beat the crap' out of someone that that earns their respect?

How about earning respect by showing respect.

You seem to miss the point that Terrorist come not only from fundamentalist Muslim groups but from fundamentalist Christian groups.


So if problems can be resolved between moderate groups on both sides then those on the extreems of the moderate spectrum would have less tendancy to move towards fundamentalism.


The result is that the fundamentalists become marginalised with less ability to attact supporters.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #196 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
International relations is, um, a little more complicated than kids dealing with bullies.

The put it extremely lightly.

dealing with terrorists isn't all that different.
post #197 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by orange whip
A 'bully'!!!!!!


Iraq/sadam Husein, a 'bully'??? to whom?? to you??? certainly SH was a bully to his own people.


to 'beat the crap' out of someone because they 'bullied' you????!!!!!


I'm sorry but I don't buy that as a valid response.

Do you really think that if you 'beat the crap' out of someone that that earns their respect?

How about earning respect by showing respect.

You seem to miss the point that Terrorist come not only from fundamentalist Muslim groups but from fundamentalist Christian groups.


So if problems can be resolved between moderate groups on both sides then those on the extreems of the moderate spectrum would have less tendancy to move towards fundamentalism.


The result is that the fundamentalists become marginalised with less ability to attact supporters.

You seem to think you know me. You do not. You seem to think that I did not show respect. I did. However, being beat up every day has a tendency to get old. Turning the tables was a liberating experience for me and a humiliating experience for him. It did earn his respect. He and I still talk and became friends. he later admitted that he was a little jerk at the time and he apologized.

terrorists are bully cowards, they don't want to go to the extents that you say everyone else should. They go straight to killing and destruction, because that is what they respect, strength not diplomacy.

Enough with the psyco-babble already.
post #198 of 386
With Bush and Clarke in the pre 9/11 world, I think it is as simple as keeping a legacy advisor and getting legacy advice. The blind leading the blind.

One person in a million saw 9/11 coming---and they weren't in the loop.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #199 of 386
"Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone"



what about the WMD's?


what is a WMD that you suggest Syria might have.


And what are all of the 'problems' you think might be eliminated with one proverbial stone??


I actually went to the middle east for business, post 911, and met up with Saudis, Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese. Some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. I am sure most Syrians are like that. BUT.... I suspect if the Syrians had the 'crap beaten out of them', then most of those hospitable people who had the 'crap beaten out of them' might think that the 'crap beater' was a bit of a prick (to put it in school yard terms).

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

post #200 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

Enough with the psyco-babble already.


'psyco-babble'????


You might want to smack someone, I would rather want to know why that person is acting in an agressive manner and then seek to resolvethe matter.


That is what civilised, sophisticated, mature parties (for example, the US) sould stive for. Not the stupid tit for tat responses you see in the pla ground.

I have no doubt the Bullying is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. But smacking them back is simply not the answer.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911