The worst thing you can say about Bush is that he didn't fire Clarke when he took office.
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.
They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.
Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.
They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.
Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
You are clearly delluded. . . .solidarity?!?!? you must be kidding
Now it "turns" out the guy who was obviously good enough to serve in 2 previous Republican administrations should've been fired and not trusted ...simply because he also served under Clinton. LMAO
Nevermind he's a Republican who voted Republican as late as 2000. ....Oh, ok, but...uh, but...
Now it "turns" out the guy who was obviously good enough to serve in 2 previous Republican administrations should've been fired and not trusted ...simply because he also served under Clinton. LMAO
Nevermind he's a Republican who voted Republican as late as 2000. ....Oh, ok, but...uh, but...
He said his state's law required him to register that way for some weird reason, but he did not make a clear statement about which party he is in.
As far as being good enough, Bush was good enough when he went into afghanistan, everyone loved him and now that has changed. Just because this guy survived through a couple of administrations does not mean that he still cuts the mustard.
He said his state's law required him to register that way for some weird reason, but he did not make a clear statement about which party he is in.
As far as being good enough, Bush was good enough when he went into afghanistan, everyone loved him and now that has changed. Just because this guy survived through a couple of administrations does not mean that he still cuts the mustard.
You seem to have a problem with the fact that the man does not box himself into his party affiliation . . .
some people find that defining themselves by what they most recently voted for is stifling to one's own thought processes
. . . and some people find it idiotic to be defined by the 'party line'
and yes, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan
I would today as well
I think that yet another reason that the war in Iraq was a drastic mistake WAS because of Afghanistan . . . because it pulled resources and focus away from that country and our mission there . . . . so yes, naturally that changed . . .
. . especially when it looks everyday a little more like he invaded and rallied support on what they knew was false, and did so because the real reasons would never fly: the motivations expressed in the Pax Americana document . . . signed on to by many big-wigs in the admin.
......has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.
------------------------------
and from the same unnamed web site:
------------------------------
.....as we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"
--------------------------------
I'll leave the name-calling in these quotes for those who need it for emphasis, but if the good Doctor had a leg up on the big AQ in 2000, then Clarke is not sounding his superiors anywhere near their depth.
Not a summary judgement, thought I would pass it along.
You seem to have a problem with the fact that the man does not box himself into his party affiliation . . .
some people find that defining themselves by what they most recently voted for is stifling to one's own thought processes
. . . and some people find it idiotic to be defined by the 'party line'
and yes, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan
I would today as well
I think that yet another reason that the war in Iraq was a drastic mistake WAS because of Afghanistan . . . because it pulled resources and focus away from that country and our mission there . . . . so yes, naturally that changed . . .
. . especially when it looks everyday a little more like he invaded and rallied support on what they knew was false, and did so because the real reasons would never fly: the motivations expressed in the Pax Americana document . . . signed on to by many big-wigs in the admin.
This guy is a petty, and self-absorbed idiot. He should have been fired long ago.
Why would you want to box yourself into an area such as Afghanistan, where the topographical features (largely inaccessible mountains, caves, hidden tunnels) put you at a strong disadvantage, when you can fight the terrorists in an area where topographical features (such as flat open desert) give you in a distinct advantage?
(Btw, my statement in the Minister Dominique de Villepin thread regards body odor was a general statement pertaining to a universal and natural human condition. I'm sorry you took offense at it. I haven't realized this is a sensitive issue for you).
Why would you want to box yourself into an area such as Afghanistan, where the topographical features (largely inaccessible mountains, caves, hidden tunnels) put you at a strong disadvantage, when you can fight the terrorists in an area where topographical features (such as flat open desert) give you in a distinct advantage?
Hmm... The WOT recast as the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight. When the cop asked him if that was where he lost them, he said: "No, but this is where the light is."
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.
They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.
Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.
Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.
Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
OMFG.
1. There isn't evidence that Bush WAS focused on Iraq immediately. The WH has denied that time and time again. The only thing that speaks to the contrary is the word of two former officials...both of which have axes to grind.
2. Fundamentalist Christianity? Do you even know the meaning of this term? Bush is not a "fundamentalist" in any way. Secondly, what the hell are you talking about? Because Bush supports faith-based programs (translation: not excluding religous charities and social-works groups from federal funding) he's an extremist? Because he opposes gay marriage? Because he believes in God? Why is it fine for a Joe Libermann to reference religion every third step of his campaign, but not fine for Bush to speak of his faith? Why is it fine for Bill Clinton to talk about researching infidelity in the Bible, but not fine for Bush to speka how he believes the bible fully?
3. Protecting the ideals of the nation? It seems from your post you don't even know what they are. The nation was founded by people who generally believed in God and were quite religious. The Constitution referenced the establishment of religion only so that Congress could not establish a state religion. It wasn't meant to prevent people from expressing their faith. It wasn't meant to remove all religion from all public life. What other ideals do you speak of? The country's ideals are under attack alright....they're under attack from the LEFT. The complete cleansing of religion from public life, the destruction of international borders so we can be a part of "global community", revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, "blame America first," peace at any cost, a bloated government which taxes its citizens at confiscatory rates, ineffective social programs that destroy work incentive, hatred of the military,......THESE are the problems.
Your last statement is pretty meaningless. If I was under attack by a guy ike Clarke, I'd expose him for the two bit liar he is too.
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.
Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
No offense, I am not a republican, or a so called "Bush Lover", so please quit trying to pigeon hole me into some right wing hole.
I think what Bush did in Iraq was right because we would have had to deal with SH or UH or KH eventually and the longer we waited the bolder they would have gotten and the more costly it would have been.
I think the Democrats have honed in on the WMD thing because it is an election year. And because the is one of the few thing that are left to pick on. And hey that would be fine with me. I just find it silly that they cant just say he was wrong, just as many of us are sometimes, instead of leaping to the conclusion that he knowingly and purposefully misled the world.
I think what Bush did in Iraq was right because we would have had to deal with SH or UH or KH eventually and the longer we waited the bolder they would have gotten and the more costly it would have been.
I think the Democrats have honed in on the WMD thing because it is an election year.
But you're not arguing with 'the Democrats,' you're arguing with people who were against this war before it happened because we knew the WMD claim was the steamy pile of bullshit that it's turned out to be. If we knew it, Bush knew it.
But you're not arguing with 'the Democrats,' you're arguing with people who were against this war before it happened because we knew the WMD claim was the steamy pile of bullshit that it's turned out to be. If we knew it, Bush knew it.
You knew it huh?
You had all of the info the president did, now did you?
You had and have access to to top secret and classified info?
And the powers that be let you disseminate this at your discretion?
WOW.
By the way who is this "we".
That last post was, no offense, just points to the self-assuming, dismissive, and outright unreasonableness that is being pushed by proponents of your view of this president.
Clarke made an appearance on Meet The Press today, discussing the relevant issues surrounding his criticisms of the Bush administration. Like most officials at his level he was well-spoken and seemed to have all of his information in front of him. He asked that this national dialogue be elevated above personal attacks and called Condi Rice a "good person". He claimed that Rice would not allow him to brief the President on terrorism, only on CyberCrime/Terror. His accusation(s) now seem directed not at Bush, but at Bush's staff.
You had all of the info the president did, now did you?
The only info we did not have *full* access to (although we certainly had more than enough) were the reports from INC, INA, and we knew they weren't credible. However, we did have the actual reports, we just didn't have the transcripts of CIA interviews, if they existed:
All of the credible info was gathered from the UN inspection processes and other open sources.
Quote:
You had and have access to to top secret and classified info?
As just explained, we had more than enough access to that classified information to know it was not credible, and this was further enforced when it was put into the larger picture painted by the actual verified information that was publicly available.
In short, yes we did have access to the intel, as we almost always do. If you know how to look for information and use the resources at you local major library, then you can find out everything you need to.
Just to give an example of how much info was out there, visit ccr:
And this outline hasn't even been updated for a year. Click on any of the other outlines to see that there was simply a TON of information to work with.
Welcome to the information age. There's a lot more where that came from.
Comments
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of the article, though. From the article:
I would not call that backing away, and definitely not backing away at light speed. I'd call that a challenge to put-up-or-shut-up.
Maybe what I should have said is he was distancing himself.
You may be right.
Originally posted by Scott
The worst thing you can say about Bush is that he didn't fire Clarke when he took office.
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.
They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.
Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
Originally posted by bunge
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?
This wasn't a personal attack in any way. And, I stand by my statement. As for your subsequent post, that IS a personal attack. I did not name call.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.
They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.
Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
You are clearly delluded. . . .solidarity?!?!? you must be kidding
are all of the perceptions this far off base?
Originally posted by pfflam
You are clearly delluded. . . .solidarity?!?!? you must be kidding
are all of the perceptions this far off base?
Yeah, pretty much.
Nevermind he's a Republican who voted Republican as late as 2000. ....Oh, ok, but...uh, but...
Originally posted by dmz
Clarke's a liar!
No he's not!!
Originally posted by Gilsch
Now it "turns" out the guy who was obviously good enough to serve in 2 previous Republican administrations should've been fired and not trusted ...simply because he also served under Clinton. LMAO
Nevermind he's a Republican who voted Republican as late as 2000. ....Oh, ok, but...uh, but...
He said his state's law required him to register that way for some weird reason, but he did not make a clear statement about which party he is in.
As far as being good enough, Bush was good enough when he went into afghanistan, everyone loved him and now that has changed. Just because this guy survived through a couple of administrations does not mean that he still cuts the mustard.
Originally posted by NaplesX
He said his state's law required him to register that way for some weird reason, but he did not make a clear statement about which party he is in.
As far as being good enough, Bush was good enough when he went into afghanistan, everyone loved him and now that has changed. Just because this guy survived through a couple of administrations does not mean that he still cuts the mustard.
You seem to have a problem with the fact that the man does not box himself into his party affiliation . . .
some people find that defining themselves by what they most recently voted for is stifling to one's own thought processes
. . . and some people find it idiotic to be defined by the 'party line'
and yes, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan
I would today as well
I think that yet another reason that the war in Iraq was a drastic mistake WAS because of Afghanistan . . . because it pulled resources and focus away from that country and our mission there . . . . so yes, naturally that changed . . .
. . especially when it looks everyday a little more like he invaded and rallied support on what they knew was false, and did so because the real reasons would never fly: the motivations expressed in the Pax Americana document . . . signed on to by many big-wigs in the admin.
......has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.
------------------------------
and from the same unnamed web site:
------------------------------
.....as we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"
--------------------------------
I'll leave the name-calling in these quotes for those who need it for emphasis, but if the good Doctor had a leg up on the big AQ in 2000, then Clarke is not sounding his superiors anywhere near their depth.
Not a summary judgement, thought I would pass it along.
Originally posted by pfflam
You seem to have a problem with the fact that the man does not box himself into his party affiliation . . .
some people find that defining themselves by what they most recently voted for is stifling to one's own thought processes
. . . and some people find it idiotic to be defined by the 'party line'
and yes, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan
I would today as well
I think that yet another reason that the war in Iraq was a drastic mistake WAS because of Afghanistan . . . because it pulled resources and focus away from that country and our mission there . . . . so yes, naturally that changed . . .
. . especially when it looks everyday a little more like he invaded and rallied support on what they knew was false, and did so because the real reasons would never fly: the motivations expressed in the Pax Americana document . . . signed on to by many big-wigs in the admin.
This guy is a petty, and self-absorbed idiot. He should have been fired long ago.
Why would you want to box yourself into an area such as Afghanistan, where the topographical features (largely inaccessible mountains, caves, hidden tunnels) put you at a strong disadvantage, when you can fight the terrorists in an area where topographical features (such as flat open desert) give you in a distinct advantage?
(Btw, my statement in the Minister Dominique de Villepin thread regards body odor was a general statement pertaining to a universal and natural human condition. I'm sorry you took offense at it. I haven't realized this is a sensitive issue for you).
Originally posted by DeManON
Why would you want to box yourself into an area such as Afghanistan, where the topographical features (largely inaccessible mountains, caves, hidden tunnels) put you at a strong disadvantage, when you can fight the terrorists in an area where topographical features (such as flat open desert) give you in a distinct advantage?
Hmm... The WOT recast as the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight. When the cop asked him if that was where he lost them, he said: "No, but this is where the light is."
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.
They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.
Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.
Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.
Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
OMFG.
1. There isn't evidence that Bush WAS focused on Iraq immediately. The WH has denied that time and time again. The only thing that speaks to the contrary is the word of two former officials...both of which have axes to grind.
2. Fundamentalist Christianity? Do you even know the meaning of this term? Bush is not a "fundamentalist" in any way. Secondly, what the hell are you talking about? Because Bush supports faith-based programs (translation: not excluding religous charities and social-works groups from federal funding) he's an extremist? Because he opposes gay marriage? Because he believes in God? Why is it fine for a Joe Libermann to reference religion every third step of his campaign, but not fine for Bush to speak of his faith? Why is it fine for Bill Clinton to talk about researching infidelity in the Bible, but not fine for Bush to speka how he believes the bible fully?
3. Protecting the ideals of the nation? It seems from your post you don't even know what they are. The nation was founded by people who generally believed in God and were quite religious. The Constitution referenced the establishment of religion only so that Congress could not establish a state religion. It wasn't meant to prevent people from expressing their faith. It wasn't meant to remove all religion from all public life. What other ideals do you speak of? The country's ideals are under attack alright....they're under attack from the LEFT. The complete cleansing of religion from public life, the destruction of international borders so we can be a part of "global community", revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, "blame America first," peace at any cost, a bloated government which taxes its citizens at confiscatory rates, ineffective social programs that destroy work incentive, hatred of the military,......THESE are the problems.
Your last statement is pretty meaningless. If I was under attack by a guy ike Clarke, I'd expose him for the two bit liar he is too.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.
Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
No offense, I am not a republican, or a so called "Bush Lover", so please quit trying to pigeon hole me into some right wing hole.
I think what Bush did in Iraq was right because we would have had to deal with SH or UH or KH eventually and the longer we waited the bolder they would have gotten and the more costly it would have been.
I think the Democrats have honed in on the WMD thing because it is an election year. And because the is one of the few thing that are left to pick on. And hey that would be fine with me. I just find it silly that they cant just say he was wrong, just as many of us are sometimes, instead of leaping to the conclusion that he knowingly and purposefully misled the world.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think what Bush did in Iraq was right because we would have had to deal with SH or UH or KH eventually and the longer we waited the bolder they would have gotten and the more costly it would have been.
I think the Democrats have honed in on the WMD thing because it is an election year.
But you're not arguing with 'the Democrats,' you're arguing with people who were against this war before it happened because we knew the WMD claim was the steamy pile of bullshit that it's turned out to be. If we knew it, Bush knew it.
Originally posted by bunge
But you're not arguing with 'the Democrats,' you're arguing with people who were against this war before it happened because we knew the WMD claim was the steamy pile of bullshit that it's turned out to be. If we knew it, Bush knew it.
You knew it huh?
You had all of the info the president did, now did you?
You had and have access to to top secret and classified info?
And the powers that be let you disseminate this at your discretion?
WOW.
By the way who is this "we".
That last post was, no offense, just points to the self-assuming, dismissive, and outright unreasonableness that is being pushed by proponents of your view of this president.
Clarke made an appearance on Meet The Press today, discussing the relevant issues surrounding his criticisms of the Bush administration. Like most officials at his level he was well-spoken and seemed to have all of his information in front of him. He asked that this national dialogue be elevated above personal attacks and called Condi Rice a "good person". He claimed that Rice would not allow him to brief the President on terrorism, only on CyberCrime/Terror. His accusation(s) now seem directed not at Bush, but at Bush's staff.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You knew it huh?
Yeah, he knew it.
You had all of the info the president did, now did you?
The only info we did not have *full* access to (although we certainly had more than enough) were the reports from INC, INA, and we knew they weren't credible. However, we did have the actual reports, we just didn't have the transcripts of CIA interviews, if they existed:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
All of the credible info was gathered from the UN inspection processes and other open sources.
You had and have access to to top secret and classified info?
As just explained, we had more than enough access to that classified information to know it was not credible, and this was further enforced when it was put into the larger picture painted by the actual verified information that was publicly available.
In short, yes we did have access to the intel, as we almost always do. If you know how to look for information and use the resources at you local major library, then you can find out everything you need to.
Just to give an example of how much info was out there, visit ccr:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/iraqwmd.html
And this outline hasn't even been updated for a year. Click on any of the other outlines to see that there was simply a TON of information to work with.
Welcome to the information age. There's a lot more where that came from.