US election campaign 2004 - All gloves are off

[jonb]

[quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#16 date=03/23/04 at 11:52:10]I'm not trying to justify anything about the Bush admin being right.  What my question was do you think Bush will get any credit?  Of course he won't!  My post was not about justifying Iraq, it was about giving some credit where credit is due.  I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'll vote for anyone who stands up to those that are murderers and theives.[/quote]
LOL So much for every Cold War president except for Carter. Although Carter wasn't technically a "Cold War" president; the Cold War ended in 1973, then Reagan brought it back as a political device.

 

[jonb]

Actually, nlatimer, Bush authorized the invasion of Kuwait. He just happened to change his mind afterward. So basically Saddam was like Noriega.

I should add that Saddam's worst crimes were in the 1980s, back when Reagan winked at arms deals with Saddam.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#19 date=03/23/04 at 17:55:04]
We've realised how dangerous the UN is our national security, seeing as how they're only interested in it, when it serves their purposes as well.
[/quote]

LOL...the UN has interests all of a sudden? Wow...I thought they were comprised of a group of united nations. Of which the US is a defining part (O, and Roosevelt, your former president set the UN up after WW2).

So tell me, what interests does the UN have that disturb the US so gravely?

 

[13788]

grantstephens: Wow....

Richard Clarke may not be telling the truth in his new book. Check this out....

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.


RICHARD CLARKE: "Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

Talk about the gloves coming off. A book that lies that comes out during the presidential campain and the book was published by CBS. 60 Minutes (owned by CBS) does not dig this relevant piece up while interveiwing Clarke? You're right, the gloves are off!

 

[13788]

grantstephens: Clarke busted again....

On page 229 of his book he states that Rice didn't know about Al-Quida because of a blank stare on her face.

Here's what she said on WJR radio in October of 2000 before the election:

RICE: Osama bin Laden, do two things, the first is you really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself. One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA in foreign intelligence and the FBI in domestic intelligence. There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory.

Don't put to much into his book. It's all politics and/or money. What advise did Clarke give Clinton when Osama was offered 3 different times by the Sudanese Government?

WJR has delivered this audio to all the major news networks, let's see how much play it gets on CBS.

 

[13788]

grantstephens: Even the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations thinks Clarke was useless.

Chairman Shays writes: "Clarke was part of the problem before September 11th, because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat. His approach was reactive and limited to swatting at the visible elements of Al-Qaeda, not the hidden global network and its state sponsors. The blind spots and vulnerabilities that contributed to the September 11th, 2001 tragedy were apparent to many throughout the years Mr. Clarke was in a position to do something about them." Three commissions concluded the need for major changes to fight terrorism, but "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."

Shays wrote to Rice about Clarke's "lack of leadership" and to ask why he hadn't responded adequately to the committee's requests for details after his uninformative briefings. Shays in the letter to Rice: "Mr. Clarke must be continually prompted before requests for information from this subcommittee are answered. We assume he either does not have the resources to respond, or his office chose to turn a deaf ear to our requests." We may be getting close to answering why they demoted this guy to the cyberspace section of terrorism; he wasn't doing anything!

I know many of you here want Bush gone, but don't use anything that Clarke states as evedence or proof that Bush is weak on Terrorism and 9/11 was Bush's fault. It was Clinton's team that weakened the CIA and FBI and turned them basically useless.

 

[B_RoysToy]

[quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#25 date=03/25/04 at 11:27:07] . . .  It was Clinton's team that weakened the CIA and FBI and turned them basically useless.[/quote]
It would seem to me had Bush been "strong" on terrorism, as some claim, immediately upon taking office he would have restructured the "blind spots and vulnerabilities" that contributed to the 9/11/01 tradegy. He wasted no time in making plans to invade Iraq and fabricating reasons to eliminate Sadam when this country and the world would have been better served had he devoted the same effort and expense to help rid us of the source of terrorism.

Sure, hind sight is easily used to point out what should have been done, but it shouldn't be used to point a finger at a previous administration when there was time to make changes as Bush did in his other "important' offices.

Luke

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Grantstepehens,

Nobody was using comments from the book to disqualify Bush. What I thought were funny and shocking in ittsself were the comments obviously provoked by the book, by Rice. To me they are astounding, but thats a matter of opinion.

What I am kinda getting tired of though, is the hole blame-it-on-Clinton routine ive been hearing from the Bush camp for three years now. Every damn thing gone bad in the US was because of former administrations, the good, of course, is coming directly from this one.

I understand very well a big part of the -blame- (if there is blame) of the 9/11 attacks lies with the Clinton administration. This is still debatable though, since Al Qiada doesnt seem to need much more than a year to plan big attacks. Bali happened a year after 9/11 and Spain 1,5 year after that. Big part of the planning happened under Bush therefore.

But even besides that, the US must be really self confident to think that 9/11 could have been prevented. Spain, and Europe has increases protection, yet the Madrid bombings ocurred anyway. Blair and Straw admitted that even an island like Britain will probably see terror attacks. France can keep searching their 10.000 kilometers of traintrack. But they cant keep that up, and when the eyes blink, it can happen. So I think this discussion if futile.

The discussion worth having IMO is the way to deal with these people. Bush tried his methods for 3 years and look where we are. Al Qaida still alive and attacking, the Taliban gaining territory again, Osama still not caught, Iraq experiencing bomb attacks every week, and a persistent worldwide fear, which to me is a direct indicator of a failed policy. If it worked, why am I scared shitless still then?

And what did his failed methods cost? I wont sing the budget deficit song again...you get the idea.

So maybe...just maybe...ya think we might turn the wheel and take the other road? Lets do that...

In the meantime I cant stand this blatant disregard for the seriousness of these issues from the Bush side. Today for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/bush.broadcasters.ap/index.html "Bush pokes fun at himself over WMDs"

Bring out the oxygen peeps, I cant breathe that was so funny!!...myeah...some of you might think "lighten up", it was a joke. No shit...so now he is joking about something he swore by for 3 years, and which basically is the only thing he could have had going for him in the next campaign...Im glad he saw the light too...the rest of the world did a few years ago.

Back to Clarke...of course he is a golddigger....we have had enough of those -political- books (50 pages, 10 dollars) where some nitwit wants to make a fast buck. What I have been taught though is that every rumour has its truths. And what gets me most then, is the reactions of Rice, as if we are all walking on clouds dancing the hoochy koochy. Can you hear Ol" Louis singing its a wonderful world?...or was it ACDC?...

This 9/11 evaluation comittee is also a laugh...the comments flying outta there should feature on our Bad Jokes thread...

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#23 date=03/25/04 at 10:11:59]
Talk about the gloves coming off.  A book that lies that comes out during the presidential campain and the book was published by CBS.  60 Minutes (owned by CBS) does not dig this relevant piece up while interveiwing Clarke?  You're right, the gloves are off![/quote]
I think that you will find that the publisher of the book is the Free Press....unless you have a special copy. Traditionally, the Presidential campaign starts in September after Labor Day. This year Bush No. 2 has to spend all that money before the Republican Convention so the campaign started a few weeks ago....so don't blame the Free Press for No. 2's action.

I do not understand your point. It can't be true because the author was on "60 Minutes?" huh?Well, I caught Clarke on CNN [Time Warner] and NBC [GE]....so is this a vast media/corporate conspiracy to tell lies or to understand a tragic event in the recent past and the decisions that contributed to 9/11? To me, it is the latter. The Clarke testimony before the committee was in agreement with the facts reported in the news magazines before 2002, the Woodward book, and Sec. O'Neil's recollections. I would hazard the opinion that it is the White House that is into revisonist history. Damn, and I didn't think Dubya would know a phrase like that...oh yeah, he was coached.

I have only read the first chapter or so of the book, but contrary to opinion, it is an overview of where the U.S. failed against terror and the policy and political constraints that made it difficult to pursue agressively.

A side note: today at lunch the topic with my friends was "Should we bring a class action law suit against Condy?" After all, her apparent incompetence degraded the value of our diplomas...

jay

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#27 date=03/25/04 at 13:44:48]

In the meantime I cant stand this blatant disregard for the seriousness of these issues from the Bush side. Today for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/bush.broadcasters.ap/index.html "Bush pokes fun at himself over WMDs"
[/quote]
Jav..I agree it shows a lack of sensitivity to the losses suffered by the American people [and the world]; for us, it has cost a few less than 600 lives and thousands injured and maimed and hundreds of billions dollars that might have been better spent on highways, education, energy conservation, homeland security, etc. Benefits? Well, it did provide an opportunity for Halliburton to abscond with millions of dollars...drat those honest employees!

jay

 

[Synergistic]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#22 date=03/24/04 at 07:12:54]
So tell me, what interests does the UN have that disturb the US so gravely?
[/quote]

Well money is one that disturbs me, especially the kind of blood money stolen by and offered as bribes to UN officials from the Oil for Food program.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#27 date=03/25/04 at 13:44:48]What I am kinda getting tired of though, is the hole blame-it-on-Clinton routine ive been hearing from the Bush camp for three years now.[/quote]
Well, you know it's really Millard P Filmore's fault, right?

I think it's funny that apparently Clinton had four terms: Hillary was responsible for Ruby Ridge (1992), and now Clinton's responsible for all of Bush's failures.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#30 date=03/25/04 at 19:11:17]Well money is one that disturbs me, especially the kind of blood money stolen by and offered as bribes to UN officials from the Oil for Food program.[/quote] ??? So paying them for food is blood money?

 

[Synergistic]

JonB,

Read this article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#30 date=03/25/04 at 19:11:17]

Well money is one that disturbs me, especially the kind of blood money stolen by and offered as bribes to UN officials from the Oil for Food program.
[/quote]

So because a few Un officials (of the thousand that work for the UN) have frauded, the entire Un is wrong?...hm...ok..

Halliburton and Enron

 

[Synergistic]

Yes, Haliburton and Enron have committed crimes, and while Haliburton's is comparable to the UN, no one died of starvation because of Haliburton over charging for food and gas.

Enron's executives (and WorldCom's for that matter) deserve to be punished as well, and I hope they are.
Still some campaign money is changing hands and slowing that investigation, including to Joe Lieberman.
The Democrats don't really want to pursue it unless they can pin the blame on the Republicans, and the Republicans don't want to pursue it because of half-assed excuses of free market, and some of them probably have friends in the company.

 

[Ralexx]

Nice conversation... and stimulating !! ;D

With a promise to myself that I'll make a comment, I have this for you all :

- - -

Forbes Magazine, this morning :

Kerry Is So Very...Rich
Betsy Schiffman

Who's buying, who's selling in the world of high-end real estate:

But Where To Throw The Fundraiser?
If elected, Senator John Kerry, whose family is worth $525 million by Forbes' estimates, could be the third-richest president ever. But his family's fortune (which was inherited by his wife from her late husband Sen. John Heinz III) includes more than plain old cash--the Massachusetts senator also has valuable real estate assets, including five luxury properties.

In recent weeks, his family's real estate collection has garnered almost as much attention as his politics--last week online gossip columnist Matt Drudge posted far-fetched rumor that Kerry sold an Italian mansion to actor George Clooney for $7.8 million before announcing his decision to run for office; and this week, the New York Post's gossip column speculated that Kerry may try to swap his family's home in Ketchum, Idaho, for a nearby home that is more private. (Kerry's current Ketchum home is said to be visible from a main road.)

The Idaho ski home--which Teresa Heinz Kerry reportedly bought with her first husband for $4.9 million in 1988--is just a part of the family's real estate holdings. They also keep a townhouse in Boston's Beacon Hill; a suburban Pittsburgh colonial estate; a 23-room Georgetown, Washington D.C., townhouse; and a Nantucket, Mass., waterfront home. One Associated Press report pegs the collective worth of their homes at nearly $33 million.


R.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=20#33 date=03/26/04 at 05:01:14]JonB,

Read this article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp[/quote]
Okay, a few corrupt officials overcharge for food, therefore the entire UN's corrupt. A few priests touch boys, therefore the Pope's also the president of NAMBLA. A few Republicans put a murderer in power in Iraq, a few more declare war on him, dropping 395 metric tons of depleted uranium (Well, there goes their pro-life stance.) on Iraq in the process, therefore all Republicans are mass murderers.

Do these sound logical to you?

 

[13788]

mindseye: The Village Voice ran an interesting article last week on another ball we dropped in the weeks before 9-11.

The article contains a link to this pre-9-11 article in the New York Post. The server on which this second article is hosted seems to be a little screwy -- sometimes the article will come up, and sometimes you get an error. If you get an error, keep trying.

Considering the polar-opposite editorial biases of the Village Voice and the Free Republic, I thought this combination of links might provoke a little more political discussion around here. (Which might be a welcome alternative to all the 'you're faking'/'no, you're faking' mud being slung upstairs...)

 

[jonb]

Please learn how to link, mindseye.

Nice to see freepers criticize Bush for once.