Clarke was there and also had "every opportunity" to speak up then also, if he disagreed, as he now apparently does. Why would he not resign then, because it seems that clinton and the gang were obviously lying at least according to his public testimony.
Things are really not adding up as far as this guy goes.
What's your point here? That there was indeed evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda because of the VX (which actually later turned out to not be VX)?
Quote:
Clarke was there and also had "every opportunity" to speak up then also, if he disagreed, as he now apparently does. Why would he not resign then, because it seems that clinton and the gang were obviously lying at least according to his public testimony.
Things are really not adding up as far as this guy goes.
Did you ever think maybe it gets explained in the book?
When is Clarke going to write his book on the Clinton security failures...........wait a minute.............if he did that, would it mean the George Stephanopoulos would call the major media outlets and tell them to backlist the book?
Nevermind........wrong decade.
/* begin Clinton/Clarke tour de force from an unnamed website**/
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 ? when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
/* end Clinton/Clarke tour de force*************************/
/* begin Clinton/Clarke tour de force from an unnamed website**/
And the reason you won't name your website is..?
It's OK. 15 seconds on Google reveals two candidates: Frontpage, with graphics like a German skinhead site, and freerepublic.com, a 'Conservative news forum' populated by... oh I don't think I'd get on there.
Well, this does, people should note, and the door swings both ways on this. People call Scott a troll in about three other threads right now, so I suspect he's getting in a few shots himself. That's why we don't like peopel to do this, and why it's going to stop here... right?
BTW, the "as usual" comment above is also a bit snide for the forum guidelines too.
1. Clarke is out of the loop except when he is not, in which case the whole damn thing is his fault.
2. He is a partisan hack except when he dutifully served three Republican administrations.
3. No one at the White House can corroborate details of his story, except the several that can, including the National Security Adviser and the President himself.
4. He's really just pumping a book he conveniently released the week of his testimony, except for the inconvenient fact that the timing of its publication is the White House's fault.
5. He is mad because he got demoted, but somehow he's wrong that the issue he was in charge of got demoted along with him.
6. He never discussed his concerns about al Qaeda, except for the dozens of times he did.
7. Because the White House made him tell half-truths to reporters in 2002, he's lying now when he tells the whole truth.
8. He might have perjured himself, except that he didn't.
9. And he's a racist for only attacking "the black chick", at least when he's not lambasting all the white dudes around her.
People call Scott a troll in about three other threads right now, so I suspect he's getting in a few shots himself.
"About three other threads"?
Interesting. So I guess it's not just one or two people? Quack quack.
dmz: I'm just curious because I don't have Clarke's book yet. In his book, which I assumed you have read, is it your assertion that Clarke did not criticize the Clinton admin. at all?
Would you mind naming that unnamed website?
"In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. "
Please remind us what Bush did about it a short 3 months later?
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable.
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.
The way those "points" are made is just silly to call it something. Did you even go to it? It's a childish anti-clinton site. Give me a break. So rageous, I gather you know enough about the points made there ....to validate them as accurate and true?
Quote:
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable. [/B]
Yeah, I'm sure you'd have no problem with someone posting something they saw on...al jazeera? The website above is just a conspiracy theorist site with an anti clinton bias. No wonder the original poster didn't want to post a link to it, or reference it by name.
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable.
"Facts" that can't be disputed?
Quote:
Time Magazine recently printed a story about Clinton handing the incoming Bush Administration a plan, but quickly that myth was dispersed. Bush Administration officials denied ever getting any plan only leaving us to conclude that Time Magazine was being spoon fed by Clinton toadies. They turned a quick power point presentation with one section whereby Clarke made a few suggestion into some elaborate plan and blueprint for going after Al Qaeda. It was a 3 to 5 year roll back.
Clinton did help the incoming Bush Administration by denying them transition funds and forcing them to set up an office in Virginia and run off of donations. Addtionally he looted and then vandalized the White House. Bush has a plan crafted to eliminate Al Qaeda and did approve it only days before 9-11 and it unfortunately was too late.
So let's see: the Bush whitehouse denial that there was ever a plan (since retracted) must be the work of Time magazine being spoon fed by "Clinton toadies" An indesputable fact, apparently.
The denying the Bush admin transition funds and vandalizing the white house are tired old right wing urban myths that have been refuted by everyone involved, including the Bush white house.
But it's important to take this seriously, because it's not legitimate to dismiss tin foil hat land as a "source"
There's a reason this stuff's not running in mainstream publications, and I'll give you a hint: it's not because of the "liberal media".
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.
and please stop mistaking my not trashing his source as some sort of confirmation that i support the site or somehow find them to be a reliable source of unbiased knowledge.
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.
The thing about participating in a web forum, is that the LEAST one can do is post something based on a website that has a decent track record or decent sources. It's like an unwritten rule.
Discussing stuff from wacko sites like that one, or the one about the Clinton deathsquads is not only insulting to the participants, but a waste of everyone's time.
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.
You want to see how easy it is? Let's just take the first one:
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Clinton did nothing? Do you really need someone to explain it?
The fact is that when someone vomits out this much obviously false information, it's a waste of time to point out how it's obviously wrong. As much fun as it may be to waste time on AO, responding to pure junk like this doesn't make the cut.
After all, if you guys want to hold obviously false positions, have your position be at least slightly entertaining. Claim that the Loch Ness monster built the pyramids. Argue that Britney Spears isn't a fat girl waiting to be free. At least make it worth our time to point out how your positions are obviously wrong.
Clinton did nothing? Do you really need someone to explain it?
giant, BC had 8 years to shut the barn door. GWB had 8 months. If you don't count the madmen already in-country he never had a chance.
P.J. O'Rourke said the Congress is a parliment of whores---and in a democracy that makes us the whores.
What is eluding you and others that to try to explain away the culpability of our government, those who want to give Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and BC a pass, while using 3,000 corpses to get rid of an EO you don't politically care for is this:
...we are the whores.
We did this.
Groupthink kills.
A country coked out of its mind every weekend (my apologies to the THC, XTC, amphetamine, and LSD fans), too intent on their next credit card purchase, next sportfu<k to care about what their representitives are doing, let alone get a mouthfull of the political *** that runs this country.......
...have NO business critising their leaders, except to be used by others----or for pure entertianment value.
And that's the pure and simple truth. My apologies to Oscar Wilde.
Comments
Democrats/Republicans...all have idiots.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...408&catcode=11
Clarke was there and also had "every opportunity" to speak up then also, if he disagreed, as he now apparently does. Why would he not resign then, because it seems that clinton and the gang were obviously lying at least according to his public testimony.
Things are really not adding up as far as this guy goes.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...i?ArtNum=41934
What's your point here? That there was indeed evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda because of the VX (which actually later turned out to not be VX)?
Clarke was there and also had "every opportunity" to speak up then also, if he disagreed, as he now apparently does. Why would he not resign then, because it seems that clinton and the gang were obviously lying at least according to his public testimony.
Things are really not adding up as far as this guy goes.
Did you ever think maybe it gets explained in the book?
Nevermind........wrong decade.
/* begin Clinton/Clarke tour de force from an unnamed website**/
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 ? when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
/* end Clinton/Clarke tour de force*************************/
Originally posted by dmz
/* begin Clinton/Clarke tour de force from an unnamed website**/
And the reason you won't name your website is..?
It's OK. 15 seconds on Google reveals two candidates: Frontpage, with graphics like a German skinhead site, and freerepublic.com, a 'Conservative news forum' populated by... oh I don't think I'd get on there.
I'll have another hunt later.
[evil laughter]
Originally posted by bunge
Doesn't this post breach the new guidelines?
Well, this does, people should note, and the door swings both ways on this. People call Scott a troll in about three other threads right now, so I suspect he's getting in a few shots himself. That's why we don't like peopel to do this, and why it's going to stop here... right?
BTW, the "as usual" comment above is also a bit snide for the forum guidelines too.
1. Clarke is out of the loop except when he is not, in which case the whole damn thing is his fault.
2. He is a partisan hack except when he dutifully served three Republican administrations.
3. No one at the White House can corroborate details of his story, except the several that can, including the National Security Adviser and the President himself.
4. He's really just pumping a book he conveniently released the week of his testimony, except for the inconvenient fact that the timing of its publication is the White House's fault.
5. He is mad because he got demoted, but somehow he's wrong that the issue he was in charge of got demoted along with him.
6. He never discussed his concerns about al Qaeda, except for the dozens of times he did.
7. Because the White House made him tell half-truths to reporters in 2002, he's lying now when he tells the whole truth.
8. He might have perjured himself, except that he didn't.
9. And he's a racist for only attacking "the black chick", at least when he's not lambasting all the white dudes around her.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
People call Scott a troll in about three other threads right now, so I suspect he's getting in a few shots himself.
"About three other threads"?
Interesting. So I guess it's not just one or two people?
dmz: I'm just curious because I don't have Clarke's book yet. In his book, which I assumed you have read, is it your assertion that Clarke did not criticize the Clinton admin. at all?
Would you mind naming that unnamed website?
"In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. "
Please remind us what Bush did about it a short 3 months later?
Originally posted by dmz
one hint: Robbie Burns used this to mess up a mouse house.
[evil laughter]
'To a Mouse'
Robert Burns
Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!
[stony face]Just tell me the name of the website now.[/stony face]
Oh, I found the smoking gun alright. But it ain't pretty.
Laydees and gennlemen, introducing...
clintoncrimes.com!
What kind of a site is this?
Enough said.
I wouldn't have the balls to post the url either.
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable.
Originally posted by rageous
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.
The way those "points" are made is just silly to call it something. Did you even go to it? It's a childish anti-clinton site. Give me a break. So rageous, I gather you know enough about the points made there ....to validate them as accurate and true?
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable. [/B]
Yeah, I'm sure you'd have no problem with someone posting something they saw on...al jazeera? The website above is just a conspiracy theorist site with an anti clinton bias. No wonder the original poster didn't want to post a link to it, or reference it by name.
Originally posted by rageous
We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.
Unfortunately after reading just a few points I noticed that most were false.
Originally posted by rageous
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable.
"Facts" that can't be disputed?
Time Magazine recently printed a story about Clinton handing the incoming Bush Administration a plan, but quickly that myth was dispersed. Bush Administration officials denied ever getting any plan only leaving us to conclude that Time Magazine was being spoon fed by Clinton toadies. They turned a quick power point presentation with one section whereby Clarke made a few suggestion into some elaborate plan and blueprint for going after Al Qaeda. It was a 3 to 5 year roll back.
Clinton did help the incoming Bush Administration by denying them transition funds and forcing them to set up an office in Virginia and run off of donations. Addtionally he looted and then vandalized the White House. Bush has a plan crafted to eliminate Al Qaeda and did approve it only days before 9-11 and it unfortunately was too late.
So let's see: the Bush whitehouse denial that there was ever a plan (since retracted) must be the work of Time magazine being spoon fed by "Clinton toadies" An indesputable fact, apparently.
The denying the Bush admin transition funds and vandalizing the white house are tired old right wing urban myths that have been refuted by everyone involved, including the Bush white house.
But it's important to take this seriously, because it's not legitimate to dismiss tin foil hat land as a "source"
There's a reason this stuff's not running in mainstream publications, and I'll give you a hint: it's not because of the "liberal media".
and please stop mistaking my not trashing his source as some sort of confirmation that i support the site or somehow find them to be a reliable source of unbiased knowledge.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
[stony face]Just tell me the name of the website now.[/stony face]
Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
An' weary Winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.
Originally posted by rageous
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.
The thing about participating in a web forum, is that the LEAST one can do is post something based on a website that has a decent track record or decent sources. It's like an unwritten rule.
Discussing stuff from wacko sites like that one, or the one about the Clinton deathsquads is not only insulting to the participants, but a waste of everyone's time.
Originally posted by rageous
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.
You want to see how easy it is? Let's just take the first one:
Originally posted by dmz
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Clinton did nothing? Do you really need someone to explain it?
The fact is that when someone vomits out this much obviously false information, it's a waste of time to point out how it's obviously wrong. As much fun as it may be to waste time on AO, responding to pure junk like this doesn't make the cut.
After all, if you guys want to hold obviously false positions, have your position be at least slightly entertaining. Claim that the Loch Ness monster built the pyramids. Argue that Britney Spears isn't a fat girl waiting to be free. At least make it worth our time to point out how your positions are obviously wrong.
Originally posted by giant
Clinton did nothing? Do you really need someone to explain it?
giant, BC had 8 years to shut the barn door. GWB had 8 months. If you don't count the madmen already in-country he never had a chance.
P.J. O'Rourke said the Congress is a parliment of whores---and in a democracy that makes us the whores.
What is eluding you and others that to try to explain away the culpability of our government, those who want to give Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and BC a pass, while using 3,000 corpses to get rid of an EO you don't politically care for is this:
...we are the whores.
We did this.
Groupthink kills.
A country coked out of its mind every weekend (my apologies to the THC, XTC, amphetamine, and LSD fans), too intent on their next credit card purchase, next sportfu<k to care about what their representitives are doing, let alone get a mouthfull of the political *** that runs this country.......
...have NO business critising their leaders, except to be used by others----or for pure entertianment value.
And that's the pure and simple truth. My apologies to Oscar Wilde.